20600 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:28pm Subject: Re: War Hello Dave, You may find this article by a Bhikkhu gives an accurate portrayal of Buddhist thoughts on violence and war: "Just War" is an Oxymoron http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/jw_oxy.htm The pervasive conditioning of our culture leads people to ask variations of the question, "What is the Buddhist position on "Just War"? The answer is simple, bewilderingly simple for many. There is no Buddhist position or doctrine of "Just War." None. Zero. "Just War" makes no sense in a tradition dedicated to moral decency, non-harming, compassion, and wisdom. War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or "just." One naturally defends oneself when attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, however, justify harming the alleged or imagined perpetrator/aggressor. Kings, rulers, ministers, and governments often fall back on war as a crude means to their ends. This reflects a lack of intelligence, creativity, and courage in solving problems. The ends, even when decent and just, never justify the violence of war. Since the Buddha's time, Buddhist societies have indulged in war, yet no serious attempt has been made to legitimize or justify such wars. Buddhism understands them as motivated by anger and hatred, fear, greed (e.g., for land, oil, power), and ideology, but never wisdom or justice. Scriptures show the Buddha … Ó Intervening between two sides to prevent bloodshed, then reconciling them (Rohini River). Ó Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian Confederacy). Ó Recommending non-violent policies as a wiser solution than war (Kutadanta Sutta). Ó Analyzing the sources of conflict and showing how to remove or transform the causes (numerous cases). Never is war recommended, justified, or blessed. That is left to the sort of priests who perform animal sacrifices and practice magic. Over the centuries, the Buddhist hierarchies that have entangled themselves with state patronage and failed to ethically critique the abuse of power have nonetheless never stooped so low as to pervert the Buddha's basic message on the subject. Hatred is never appeased by hatred. By love alone is hatred conquered. War happens. It is never desirable or beneficial. Too many innocents die, property is wasted, hatreds and feuds are prolonged, and we accustom ourselves to beastly behavior. There is no place in the Buddhist concept of "nobility" for war. It is never morally legit. It isn't even a "necessary evil." It is merely the bad policy of shortsighted, cowardly, selfish, and ill-informed leadership. Santikaro Bhikkhu early March 2003 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > James, > > It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always hate > to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a > flame... > > I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. There > are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. > > Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are > the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus said "Love > your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever be > a just war for Buddhism? > > From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring > about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, move > closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? > Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, even > Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to the > Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill us. > Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable > thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many > times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is > justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps > those include pre-emptive strikes. > > Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not > enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, the > best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of life > on either side. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20601 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Christine, We may have ideals and wish that the countries of thailand, Burma and Sri lanka never had armies, that they should never have fought wars, that Sri lanka they should have been pacifist and handed the kingdom to the invaders from India. But this is not the case. They fought, they made unwholesome kamma, it is true. The great King Dutthagamani was on his death bed. He had done so much to keep the sangha and Dhamma going in Sri Lanka. I think it is no exaggeration to say without his help the Dhamma would have under great threat. Both Burma and Thailand relied on Sri lanka during the millenia to provide copies of lost teachings and reinstate the Sangha. This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you wanted to or because it was your job/duty" The man replied that it was his job. And Mahamoggalana said in that case , don't worry about it, it won't impede you - or something like that. The man took huge consolation from this, was able to listen intently to the sermon and was reborn as deva. It reminds me also of a story Nina tells of when she was in Sri lanka with Khun Sujin and a Judge asked about the death penalty. He had - according to the duties of office - to hand down this harsh judgement from time to time. A. Sujin asked him: "Did you want to?" . You see the kamma also depends on the mindstate at the time. Some people positively enjoy killing, others would only kill in extreme circumstances. Both make bad kamma but the one who enjoys it makes worse. It is said that giving even the washings of a teacup to some fish will bring great merit. And then giving to a normal human much more. But giving to someone who has just the beginning of faith in the Dhamma much more than that. Giving to someone who understands Dhamma and keeps the precepts much more again , giving to a sotapanna much much more and so on. Likewise it is much worse to kill a sotapanna (from the point of view of the kammic results) than to kill a normal human being. Worse to kill a person of average morality than a bad man. That is not to say that any killing is good - simply that the texts say that there are variations in kammic result. Those arahants assembled at the death bed of the great King had compassion for the King and- knowing that death bed kamma can effect ones destination- wanted to console him. They did not say that killing was good. As it was he took heart, remembered the good deeds he had done and was reborn in a deva world (may he remain long) according to the Mahavamsa. I hope when I am on my deathbed if Buddhists visit me it is the type who will try to help me. Hopefully if I am worried and bring up my many, many bad deeds they will downplay these and remind me of the few good ones(if they can find some). Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even though it may be true). RobertK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > As this seems to be the time for raising questions about any sticky > points, may I, with respect, ask about Arahants? Many times in > discussions the approval and support of Arahants, or the presence of > Arahants, is seen as putting beyond question the fact that someone, > some teaching, some action, is faultless. A few months back, I was > searching the Tipitaka and related texts on the Internet for > teachings on 'peace' and 'non-violence'. I came across what I > consider to be an incomprehensible view (when attributed to > Buddhists) of a Just War - times when war is acceptable, and classes > of persons it is acceptable to kill. I have been thinking about this > ever since - particularly now, with my country involved in this war > on the Iraqi people. > > The Mahavamsa, written in the 6th century AD by a Buddhist monk > portrays the Sinhalese King Dutthagamani Abhaya as the National Hero > who defeated the Tamil King Ellala and unified the whole of Ceylon. > Though Buddhism infinitely values human life as being a condition > from which nibbana could be attained, Mahavamsa made a virtue of > killing in defence of Buddhism. Indeed, the Mahavamsa even has an > oft-repeated story of how the killing of Tamils during the drive to > unify the country didn't really count as killing because, as non- > Buddhists, they were less than human beings. > > "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a > series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him > on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy > war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This > enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and > advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object > the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After > his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives > sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints > or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can > there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great > armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the > commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to > salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been > sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with > wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to > shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue > your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- > book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ > > Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism > has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story > raises another confusion for me. > Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); > or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How > does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there > were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to > justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, > and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? > > > metta, > Christine 20602 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: War Dear James, You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. You could have tried a version of skillful means, you could have tried a version of noble silence. Your letter is your own opinion - but it is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions and untruths - it is one of the saddest letters I have ever seen written to a child. I ask the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the child, or at least let her parents see it first. James, I am amazed that you could either be so unaware of the true facts of the situation - or think that the rest of the List is. Surely you must know that most of the world regards the United States of America as the Rogue State in this obscene pretense of a Just War, forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a mixture of bribes and subtle threats, and attempting (so far unsuccessfully) to pervert the purpose and direction of the United Nations. Surely you could not be unaware that in this war that you publicly support, there are 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the American bombs and missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that most of the world is vehemently opposed to this aggression of America and it's subservient Client States. Surely you could not be unaware that America the Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up over the last hundred years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab for empire and oil? Why not have a look here James and see some of the JoJo's of Iraq? This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi hospital yesterday. Click beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > personally or kill people to do that." CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's son do it for you? Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it neutrality. I thank those on this List whom I know are working for peace, speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please don't be discouraged - don't be downhearted, there are people working for peace everywhere, some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of all faiths or none. At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who wears traditional dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - though another two of her close relatives were killed last week. She has lost many others, adults and children. I, who have lost no- one personally in this war, admire and respect her, and try to follow her example. Anger towards anyone should be overcome - this is Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap the fruits of their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by reacting with aversion (dosa). It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha speaking out, setting an example, and teaching us the Blessed One's Teachings - that in Buddism all violence is Anathema. In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo for his tireless efforts for peace. metta, Christine 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home first.' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 20603 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: War Dear Christine, The article you gave says: "Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and > not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian > Confederacy)."" I think this is not quite right. Ajatasattu wasn't at the metting with the Buddha. He asked his minister to go to the Buddha what would happen if he waged war at this time. The Buddha explained to the minister that while the Vajjinas were doing this and that they would be too strong to defeat. So based on this information King Ajatasattu waited for a more opportune time. Later he did go into battle and defeat the Vajians as he wished. I think that is basically right although I'm just working from memory. RobertK - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Dave, > > You may find this article by a Bhikkhu gives an accurate portrayal of > Buddhist thoughts on violence and war: > > "Just War" is an Oxymoron > http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/jw_oxy.htm > > The pervasive conditioning of our culture leads people to ask > variations of the question, "What is the Buddhist position on "Just > War"? The answer is simple, bewilderingly simple for many. > There is no Buddhist position or doctrine of "Just War." None. > Zero. "Just War" makes no sense in a tradition dedicated to moral > decency, non-harming, compassion, and wisdom. > War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to > understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes > war as necessary or "just." One naturally defends oneself when > attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, > however, justify harming the alleged or imagined > perpetrator/aggressor. > Kings, rulers, ministers, and governments often fall back on war as a > crude means to their ends. This reflects a lack of intelligence, > creativity, and courage in solving problems. The ends, even when > decent and just, never justify the violence of war. > Since the Buddha's time, Buddhist societies have indulged in war, yet > no serious attempt has been made to legitimize or justify such wars. > Buddhism understands them as motivated by anger and hatred, fear, > greed (e.g., for land, oil, power), and ideology, but never wisdom or > justice. > Scriptures show the Buddha … > Ó Intervening between two sides to prevent bloodshed, then > reconciling them (Rohini River). > Ó Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and > not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian > Confederacy). > Ó Recommending non-violent policies as a wiser solution than > war (Kutadanta Sutta). > Ó Analyzing the sources of conflict and showing how to remove > or transform the causes (numerous cases). > Never is war recommended, justified, or blessed. That is left to the > sort of priests who perform animal sacrifices and practice magic. > Over the centuries, the Buddhist hierarchies that have entangled > themselves with state patronage and failed to ethically critique the > abuse of power have nonetheless never stooped so low as to pervert > the Buddha's basic message on the subject. > Hatred is never appeased by hatred. > By love alone is hatred conquered. > War happens. It is never desirable or beneficial. Too many innocents > die, property is wasted, hatreds and feuds are prolonged, and we > accustom ourselves to beastly behavior. There is no place in the > Buddhist concept of "nobility" for war. It is never morally legit. It > isn't even a "necessary evil." It is merely the bad policy of > shortsighted, cowardly, selfish, and ill-informed leadership. > > Santikaro Bhikkhu > early March 2003 > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > James, > > > > It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always > hate > > to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a > > flame... > > > > I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. > There > > are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. > > > > Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are > > the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus > said "Love > > your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever > be > > a just war for Buddhism? > > > > From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring > > about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, > move > > closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? > > Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, > even > > Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to > the > > Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill > us. > > Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable > > thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many > > times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is > > justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps > > those include pre-emptive strikes. > > > > Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not > > enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, > the > > best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of > life > > on either side. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20604 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:05pm Subject: Re: War --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, > > You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. Dear Christine, Many of the things in this post of yours should not have been stated in the way you state them. But that is okay…no big deal. I am not offended or upset. I replied to this letter, in the manner that I did, because I felt that the writer and many others wanted to know my thoughts. That was all there was to it. You are being hypocritical to state that I should maintain noble silence when you have not done that at all. I got a letter, from a sweet little girl, who wanted to know the details of this war and wanted to know what I thought. I gave her my thoughts…end of story. I only have influence in this group because I post, as do you. I am by no means in complete control here, nor do I wish to be. Actually, I would like to have complete autonomity and not post at all, and I keep quitting because that is what I would truly like, but I keep being called back…by forces I cannot identify as of yet. Christine, you identify far too much with being Australian. It isn't healthy. The slant you have been receiving about the war and its reasons are distorted. I can easily identify this from your reaction. I, of course, agree with you that my posts to the Star Kids should be presented to the parents of the children before being presented to them. That is common sense. I would not want to step in the middle of that bond between parent and child and don't think that is what this is about at all. You have chosen many `hot button' topics to address in this post because you are angry and disappointed with me…which I don't mind at all and actually expected. Many people can join in this thread, as is happening already, and expect me to quickly jump to my own defense, bolster my ego, and attempt to rally solidarity. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. I know that many people feel like they want to fight with someone, but that someone isn't going to be me. I deflate and devalue what I have to say. Don't listen to me for one second. I don't have any answers. Listen to yourselves. Metta, James 20605 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:42pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Rob K. The concept of the law of kamma predates Buddhism. Therefore it is perplexing how a hierarchy of kammic result is described specifically for killing a sotapanna, various levels of Dhamma adherents etc. Is this a post-hoc ammendment to the initial draft? Further, is there any hint of self-service in this newer version? Similar to worst result for killing a Brahmin, least for an untouchable? Funny that the lawmakers were themselves Brahmins or Bhikkus. Is it surprising that a Tamil is of much less consequence when a Sinhala dictates the rules? Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling along? The story of the King is a nice exercise in rationalization, where even after killing ++, one can be born into a higher realm of devas. Did not all those prior accumulations that tipped the balance in the King's favor, also not influence him to not kill in the first place? No. Precisely because his actions were valuable to propagation of the Dhamma. It's not so bad to kill in that circumstance, the amended Law of Kamma will help you out. No worries, sire, only the best for you. So much for hyperrationality. When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance during the act of either ordering execution or killing will substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? RK: "Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even though it may be true)." D: Should be nothing to get concerned about since there is no 'me' to arrive anywhere is there? Alternately, the ammended law should provide relatively special treatment. Win-win, don't you think? u.w. dharam 20606 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:01pm Subject: War Dear All Just a reminder that the pro-war/anti-war debate is off-topic for this list. We ask members to keep the discussion to dhamma issues. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Any comments off-list only, please. Jon and Sarah 20607 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:11pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom Hi Suan, > -----Original Message----- > From: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > > At first, I thought, from the writing of Robert K, that his problems > were limited to his misunderstandings of Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma. I think the venerable mostly doesn't believe anything that cannot be proven at the moment. He is immensely popular among certain groups of people who think that people who believe in rebirth and such have blind faith in something that is not immediately provable. His teachings appeal to many intellectuals of our days who don't believe in such things. > Did the Thai Sangha disrobe him for his misunderstandings of Pali > Tipi.taka? If he questioned Pali Vinaya Pi.taka, he was no longer a > Theravada monk because it amounted to him having lost confidnece and > trust in Vinaya which demands a monk's total trust and faith > (saddhaa). When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he > could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could > not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of > Theravada Sangha. In short, he must be disrobed. No, he wasn't disrobed and nobody lodged a complaint against what he taught. Since he has already passed away, this issue is currently moot. In fact, he is hold in such high regard in certain communities, that his funeral had a representation from the royalty. > My impression is that his ideas came from Mahayana teachings (for > example, one is already good, so no need to do anything). This type > of attitude can also be traced back to misunderstanding and > misinterpretation of the Buddha's stamement on the radiant mind/ > luminous mind, which has been discussed many times on this list. I think his analysis on the aberration of the tipitaka were influenced by Mahayana writers, but I don't think he takes from them in a wholesale manner. He took what made sense to him. > In short, his stance amounted to substituting Pali commentaries with > Mahayana commentaries. Or worse still, he apparently was guilty of > wanting to substitute Pali commentaries with his own > misunderstandings and wrong interpretations. > I think this is a good reminder for us about whom we should learn from. We shouldn't believe things blindly, even our own thoughts/analysis, until we develop wisdom to see the teachings for ourselves. Fame and logical thinking doesn't indicate the truth of the teaching. Only one with wisdom can truly teach the truth. kom 20608 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi Howard, You say: "But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I certainly don't consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a Buddhist related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and other Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force." Now I'm confused, though perhaps a little relieved... I thought the Mahavamsa was an important Scripture, rather than a Buddhist related historical work, after reading Sarah's post on Buddhaghosa - Sarah: "When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems that all paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS transl by W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa's own writings." - so, I was particularly concerned that the alleged "Arahants" words to King Dutthagamani were in this text. Thanks for your assistance. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: 20609 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Way 67, Clear Comprehension 3 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 3. Clear comprehension in the bending and the stretching of the limbs, p. 87 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.htm Clear comprehension of resort should indeed be illustrated by the story of the senior bhikkhu called Great Elder. It is said that Great Elder seated in his day-quarters bent his arm quickly whilst talking to his resident pupils and then after putting back his arm to the position in which it first was, bent it again slowly. The resident pupils questioned him thus: "Reverend Sir, why, after bending the arm quickly, did you, having placed it in the position in which it first was, bend it slowly?" "Friends, until now I did not bend this arm with a mind separate from the subject of meditation ever since I began to attend to the subject of meditation. Therefore, having put back the arm in the place it was first in, I bent." "Good! Reverend Sir. A bhikkhu should be one who acts thus." Here, too, it should be understood that the non-abandoning of the subject of meditation is clear comprehension of resort. [Tika] Subject of meditation -- The subject of meditation of the elements (modes or processes) that is according to the method about to be stated with the words "Within there is no soul" and so forth. Within there is no soul that bends or stretches. By the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, bending and stretching occur. Indeed, here, it should be understood that the knowing in this way is clear comprehension of non-delusion. 4. Clear comprehension in wearing shoulder-cloak and so forth Sanghati patta civara dharane = "In wearing the shoulder-cloak, the other (two) robes and the bowl." In this connection, purpose is what accrues materially to one, on the almsround, and what is stated by the Blessed One according to the method beginning with the words, "for keeping out cold, for keeping out heat." Suitable to one who is naturally warm-bodied is fine clothing, and that is suitable to one who is weak, too. To the susceptible to cold is suitable thick clothing made of two pieces of cloth laid one over the other and stitched together (called also a double cloth), Non-suitable to these is clothing contrary to the kind mentioned above. A worn-out robe is indeed not suitable as that robe will even be hindrance-causing when one patches and sews or darns it. Likewise, hindrance-causing are robes of silk, fine hemp and similar material that stimulate cupidity. For, to the lone-dweller in the forest such robes are productive of loss of clothing and of life. [T] With the words, to the lone-dweller in the forest such robes are productive of loss of clothing, the commentator mentioned in part what constitutes the loss of (or destruction of) the life of purity and it is stated so because clothing is properly free to be taken or used by or accessible to thieves and the like. The robe acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the robe which decreases the good and increases the bad in the one who wears it, are irreversibly not suitable. [T] Just by that statement (or irreversibility) the commentator shows that the non-suitable mentioned earlier is not non-suitable absolutely because of the possibility of the non-suitable mentioned earlier becoming suitable to someone, at some time, owing to this or that reason. This pair (of robes mentioned) here is however absolutely non-suitable, on account of the absence of suitability to anyone at any time 20610 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi, Christine - As far as I can tell, the Mahavamsa is a Buddhist-oriented historical chronicle of Sri Lanka. See, for example http://serendib.org/mahavamsa/editorsnote.html With metta. Howard In a message dated 3/25/03 6:18:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: Hi Howard,> > > You say: "But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I > certainly don't > consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a > Buddhist > related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and > other > Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force." > > Now I'm confused, though perhaps a little relieved... > I thought the Mahavamsa was an important Scripture, rather than a > Buddhist related historical work, after reading Sarah's post on > Buddhaghosa - > Sarah: "When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems > that all > paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS > transl by > W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa's own writings." > - so, I was particularly concerned that the alleged "Arahants" words > to King Dutthagamani were in this text. > > Thanks for your assistance. > > metta, > Christine > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20611 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dharam: The concept of the law of kamma predates Buddhism. Therefore it is > perplexing how a hierarchy of kammic result is described specifically > for killing a sotapanna, various levels of Dhamma adherents etc. > Is this a post-hoc ammendment to the initial draft? Further, is > there any hint of self-service in this newer version? Similar to > worst result for killing a Brahmin, least for an untouchable? ________ Dear Dharam, It may look that way depending on our perspective. I think it is standard Dhamma though. For example, in the Velama sutta it says that giving to those who are buddhist saints is better than giving to normal people: "If he had fed a hundred people who had Perfect View, it would have had a greater effect. If he had fed a hundred Once-Returners, the effect would have been greater still. If he had fed a hundred Non- Returners, the effect would have been greater than this. If he had fed a hundred Noble Ones, it would have been greater than this." And the Mahaparinibbana sutta notes that only among followers of the Buddha are there genuine wise ones: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers."""" In fact killing an arahant is said to be so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life. Whereas someone like Angulima killed 999 normal people but still became enlightened after just one talk by the Buddha. So many degrees of good and bad kamma. _____________________________ > > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > along? Ø _________________ Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not caring whether they come to pain or not. ___________ > The story of the King is a nice exercise in rationalization, where > even after killing ++, one can be born into a higher realm of > devas. Did not all those prior accumulations that tipped the > balance in the King's favor, also not influence him to not kill in Ø the first place? Ø ________________________- I think all of us have many accumulations to do good and bad. If we think we have gone past doing bad then we are truly conceited. The King was not a sotapanna (first stage of enlightenement) so he had not eradicated the tendency to kill. ____________________ > > When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs > of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance > during the act of either ordering execution or killing will > substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? Z______________ It is not the right attitude , if hearing this, one becomes like an accountant always weighing up how much merit one can get from each act of giving, or only giving to those one thinks are wise. Or think that one will kill people – but try to avoid – killing arahants . Still life goes in many strange ways, who knows when time is such that the Dhamma is neglected and we do bad. Does it help if afterwards we are told by wise monks that we deserve hell for it. Even King Ajatasattu, who murdered his own father the chief supporter of the Buddha (and a sotapanna), and who also tried to kill the Buddha was welcomed when he later wanted to see the Buddha. Afeter gaining faith he became a main supporter himself and prepared the hall where the 500 arahants recited the Dhamma at the first council and is revered by faithfull Buddhists all over the world for his great acts of merit. --------------- > > RK: "Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that > even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even > though it may be true)." > ----------- > D: Should be nothing to get concerned about since there is no 'me' to Ø arrive anywhere is there? Ø __________ Kamma will give its result without any self. Some gives beneficial result, some painful. Sometimes there is kamma near the time of death that can condition a better or worse rebirth. If one is, say, born as an animal then one will not be able to understand the Dhamma during that life. So kamma is very important. RobertK 20612 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Speaking as a layman, this is a noble effort but unconvincing and > confusing. First, what are you talking about; the evolution of several > moments of consciousness or what? Diagramatically, it reads as: > ignorance > kamma > consciousness > mind & matter > sense bases > > contact > feeling... But kamma, consciousness, mind & matter, sense > bases, contact, and feeling are all already fully functioning in > ignorance. Where's the evolution? How can there be consciousness without > sense bases first? What is the difference between consciousness and > mind? Does kamma condition consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, > contact and feeling? How do you know? These are just a few questions off > the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with more, but this is a > good beginning you have made. Maybe if we wrestle with it some more you > could come up with a lesson plan. It's very thought provoking. Thanks for responding, I've missed our chats. Your comments are spot on. There needs to be an introductory section that describes: - What Dependent Origination is - What Dependent Origination is not - Why Dependent Origination is important - How Dependent Origination can be put to practical use Without this introductory section to put things into perspective (i.e. the big picture first), without context, what I have written can be unconvincing and confusing. Developing this piece is becoming a pet project so I am going to stick with it for a while. Stay tuned for an updated version of Part I. Without answering all of your questions directly, the most important thing to appreciate is that dependent origination is not meant to be a model for the universe; dependent origination gives an answer to the question, "why are we continually bound to samsara and how do we get off?". Metta, Rob :-) 20613 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Re: Arahants (Tambadathika) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you > wanted to or because it was your job/duty" ____________ Dear Group, I made a mistake, it was Sariputta not mogallana. Here is the full story from the Dhammapada attakatha: http://www.vipassana.info/f.htm ""Tambadathika served the king as an executioner of thieves for fifty-five years; he had just retired from that post. One day, after preparing rice gruel at his house, he went to the river for a bath; he had intended to take the specially prepared rice gruel on his return. As he was about to take the rice gruel, Thera Sariputta, who had just arisen from sustained absorption in Concentration (jhana samapatti), stood at his door for alms-food. Seeing the thera, Tambadathika thought to himself, "Throughout my life, I have been executing thieves; now I should offer this food to the thera." So, he invited Thera Sariputta to come in and respectfully offered the rice gruel. After the meal, the thera taught him the Dhamma, but Tambadathika could not pay attention, because he was so agitated as he recollected his past life as an executioner. When the thera knew this, he decided to ask Tambadathika tactfully whether he killed the thieves because he wished to kill them or because he was ordered to do so. Tambadathika answered that he was ordered to kill them by the king and that he had no wish to kill. Then the thera asked, "If that is so, would you be guilty or not ?" Tambadathika then concluded that, as he was not responsible for the evil deeds, he was not guilty. He, therefore, calmed down, and requested the thera to continue his exposition. As he listened to the Dhamma with proper attention, he came very close to attaining Sotapatti Magga, and reached as far as anuloma nana.[*] After the discourse, Tambadathika accompanied Thera Sariputta for some distance and then returned home. On his way home a cow (actually a demon in the guise of a cow) gored him to death. When the Buddha came to the congregation of the bhikkhus in the evening, they informed him about the death of Tambadathika. When asked where Tambadathika was reborn, the Buddha told them that although Tambadathika had committed evil deeds throughout his life, because he comprehended the Dhamma after hearing it from Thera Sariputta and had already attained anuloma nana before he died, he was reborn in the Tusita deva world. The bhikkhus wondered how such an evil-doer could have such great benefit after listening to the Dhamma just once. To them the Buddha said that the length of a discourse is of no consequence, for one single word of sense can produce much benefit. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 100. Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed. [*] anuloma nana: Vipassana Insight which causes the namarupa process of the yogi to become fully adapted for Magga Insight."' RobertK 20614 From: Michael Newton Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] War --- Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > involed in a big middle school musical performance > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday late at > night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to > Mrs. Abbott. The musical is called "Joseph and the > technicolor dreamcoat". Its a really nice movie > as well,have you watched it before? > > Im sure the Nazis weren't bad or evil people. > It's just the different influence around different > people. What do you think of the war going on with > America and Iraq? Do you agree with war or do > you disagree with war? I'm kind of in the middle > because if they don't dont start a war, the Iraq > people won't know what's right and what's wrong but > if > they start a war, a lot of innocent people will die. > > Different people have different perceptions about > stuffs. > > What will the Buddhists think about war? > Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and > Catholics? > > Take care, Love, > JoJo~* > Hi star kid; The group moderators have asked us not to discuss this war because it brings up certain emotions.either for or against the war.I happen to not agree with James on the War-but that is my opinion and it is shared with most of the world-even the Pope too-so I will say no more.Peace be with you,MICHAEL > 20615 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:22pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Robert K, Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: RK: ...in the Velama sutta it says that giving to those who are buddhist saints is better than giving to normal people. D: Why do *you* think giving to Buddhist saints is more meritorious than commoners? There do not seem to be any such hierarchical social distinctions in the Noble Eightfold Path. --------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: And the Mahaparinibbana sutta notes that only among followers of the Buddha are there genuine wise ones. D: I suppose there is no mana in limiting the existence of genuine wise ones to exclusively being followers of the Buddha? --------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: In fact killing an arahant is said to be so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life. Whereas someone like Angulima killed 999 normal people but still became enlightened after just one talk by the Buddha. So many degrees of good and bad kamma. D: Why do *you* think killing an arahant is so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life? This seems to be a social insurance policy rather than profound scriptural truth, especially when the penalty is contrasted against that meted out to the King. What type of kamma is it that conditions Angulima to kill 999, yet still become enlightened after just one talk. Does this seem logical to you? Where would his kammic seeds go, despite such sin?? --------------------------------------------------------------------- d: > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > along? RK:Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not caring whether they come to pain or not. D: You have not addressed the issue of anatta that I pose here. How does anatta relate to kamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- d: > When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs > of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance > during the act of either ordering execution or killing will > substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? RK:It is not the right attitude, if hearing this, one becomes like an accountant always weighing up how much merit one can get from each act of giving, or only giving to those one thinks are wise. Or think that one will kill people – but try to avoid – killing arahants . D: The point here was that reluctance when ordering execution or killing seemed to be a large mitigating factor related to kammic result. This despite knowing they were killing, and having ways to avoid it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: Kamma will give its result without any self. Some gives beneficial result, some painful. Sometimes there is kamma near the time of death that can condition a better or worse rebirth. If one is, say, born as an animal then one will not be able to understand the Dhamma during that life. So kamma is very important. D: Sorry, I must be rather dim, because I just don't get this. If you are reborn an animal or deva, how is that of any concern to you now? There is no self, let alone soul; there is no memory; why all this proactive hand-wringging about something beyond your control, beyond your verification, and beyond your knowing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You're right - I must have a severe case of uninstructed worldling~itis! The hell realms for me for sure :) Better start understanding before the brimstone makes contact! u.w. dharam 20616 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:27pm Subject: Apology (Re: War) Dear James, You are correct when you say "Many of the things in this post of yours should not have been stated in the way you state them." "you are angry and disappointed with me…." My letter should have been put in the drafts folder but wasn't, as a result you (and others) had to endure my discourteous reactive post. I unreservedly apologise to you for the tone and manner of the post. Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to look internally first. I'm sorry James, and I hope you will accept my apology. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: 20617 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:55pm Subject: Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > From what I understand from your text, D.O. is only specifically to the 7 > items you listed, right? ===== Dependent origination explains why we are bound to continuous rebirth; it is not a model for the universe. There are twelve links, I stopped the first part after seven; eight to twelve will be in Part II (still under development). ===== > DAVE: So, do you mean that each element (link in the chain) is a > factor required for the following. So, as an example, for fire to > take place, there must be oxygen and a flammible substance. But, > having those 2 items does not cause fire. The cause is the open > flame. ===== Almost correct; the cause is not the open flame. Multiple factors (oxygen, flamable substance, open flame) arose to condition the result (fire). It is not correct to say that one factor caused the result; in fact, according to Dhamma Theory, there is never a single cause to a result. ===== > Do these operate the same way. That Ignorance is just a > necissary condition to be present for "Kammic actions" to occur. > But, the presence of Ignorance does not mean that Kamma will occur. > There must be some other "cause" (the open flame)? ===== Yes. ===== > DAVE: How do you define "consciousness" in this context? Merriam- > Webster defines Cosciousness as: > 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something > within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an > external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern > for some social or political cause > 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, > and thought : MIND > 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual > 4 : the normal state of conscious life > 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as > contrasted with unconscious processes > > It would seem that the term is not used in this way here, especially > since it comes before mind and matter in the chain. ===== When writing this, I am torn between using English terms and using Pali terms. English terms have a lot of associated baggage that leads to confusion. "Consciousness" is an excellent example of this; in English, "conscious" gets tied to terms like "unconscious" and "subconscious". In the Pali text, the term vinnana (sometimes citta) is used. In Buddhism, consciousness is a momentary awareness of an object. In this sense, it is like an activity, except that there is no "doer" behind the activity. Consciousness is also an agent; that which is aware of an object. Consciousness is also an instrument; the means by which other mental factors (attachment, aversion, delusion, etc.) are aware of the object. Consciousness is "pure awareness" separate from but inseparable from the other mental factors. To explain what is meant by "separate from but inseparable from", consider a soup with too much salt. The saltiness is "separate from but inseparable from" the other flavours in the soup. ===== > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be > no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is > there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of > it? ===== Howard and I are both phenomenologists. Physical reality that impacts the senses has relevance to Buddhist studies. "Physical reality" that does not impact the senses is outside the scope of Buddhist Studies. I take this point further (and give Sutta references) in my comments to your tangential question below. ===== > > On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent > discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that > suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, > huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) ===== Science looks "outward" (objective) and focuses on creating models for the universe (theory). Buddhism looks "inward" (subjective) and focuses on freeing us from suffering (practical). In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha a number of theoretical questions; the Buddha refused to answer because the Buddha's teaching is practical in nature: "Why have I left [answers to speculative questions] undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have left it undeclared. And what have I declared? 'This is suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the origin of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the way to the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have declared it. Therefore, Malunkyaputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared." In this Sutta, the Buddha gives the analogy of a man pierced with a poison arrow who refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told the name, height, caste, etc. of the archer who shot the arrow. The man would die before he could learn all of these things. The Simsapa Sutta has a similar message: Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" ===== > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? > Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that > which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or > the egg" question? :-) ===== This is not a linear progression of this comes before that... There is an element of "chicken and egg". Past life consciousness gives rise to kamma, which at time of rebirth conditions the formation of the six sense bases, which of course are a platform for current life consciousness. Does this help? ===== > Hopefully, I'm not being too nitpicky with my followup questions. ===== I hope you don't mind my being even more nitpicky in my replies. Metta, Rob M :-) 20618 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 8:05pm Subject: Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom --- dear Suan, Just to note, from what I've heard and read venerable Buddhadasa was impeccable in his keeping of the vinaya. Personally I suspect he wanted people to question and investigate the Dhamma rather than just beleive it. And his method - right or wrong- was to critise some of the texts. Unfortunately it may have happened that his followers simply believed him (instead of the texts) without the real investigation he had probably hoped for. I still appreciate many of his writings. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he > could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could > not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of > Theravada Sangha. > > My 20619 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 8:43pm Subject: Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi to everyone on list :) I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study this section of the tipitaka (sp?). Thanking you in advanced, Simon 20620 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:06pm Subject: anatta, kamma, rebirth (Re: Buddhaghosa) Dear Robert, I'm appreciating your recent posts and am learning a lot... In this one, I'm grateful for the quotes on Dependent Origination from the Visuddimagga. I, too, remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth - though there is so much confusion around just what rebirth is, what is reborn. And how it fits with anatta and kamma, what inherits kamma, and how nibanna fits. I see in daily life a little of the truth of conditionality, through this I get a slight glimpse of the truth of anatta. I like your quote from Vis. 172 "Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka)". I can reason intellectually about anatta, but I find this quote from Nyanatiloka difficult to understand. The major difficulty for me is that the results of akusala kamma usually HURTS - either physically or emotionally. Hard to think there is 'no-self' "No one who ever reaps their fruits" when 'one' is hurting. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_k.htm "A real, and in the ultimate sense true, understanding of Buddhist karma doctrine is possible only through a deep insight into the impersonality (s. anattá) and conditionality (s. paticcasamuppáda, paccaya) of all phenomena of existence. "Everywhere, in all the forms of existence ... such a one is beholding merely mental and physical phenomena kept going by their being bound up through causes and effects. "No doer does he see behind the deeds, no recipient apart from the karma-fruit. And with full insight he clearly understands that the wise ones are using merely conventional terms when, with regard to the taking place of any action, they speak of a doer, or when they speak of a receiver of the karma-results at their arising. Therefore the ancient masters have said: 'No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits; Empty phenomena roll on: This view alone is right and true. 'And whilst the deeds and their results Roll on, based on conditions all, There no beginning can be seen, Just as it is with seed and tree.' " (Vis.M. XIX) Metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > 20621 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:17pm Subject: Aversion (dosa) Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Robert, Another part of your post that I found particularly helpful, was this (below) about the six sense doors. I think my reacting to a post on the list is exactly what you experienced with the tax bill - though you had it sorted within a minute or two and I took several hours (and a reminder from the dhamma friend concerned): "All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts." There must be a 'method' :-) to seeing it earlier than the aversion stage. Once lost in aversion, or any other strong emotion, it can be ages before the 'seeing' of it arises. By then, akusala thoughts, words and actions have occurred. (I think my 'kamma account' must be well and truly in the red ).) metta, Christine ------------------------------ > To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is > pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each > moment. It is so real and helpful. > I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if > one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 > doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see > it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears > through the senses is merely different objects. > Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I > thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently > not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a > minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the > pain. > All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble > object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then > papanca that conditioned aversion. > Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No > need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there > weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. > This is basic Abhidhamma. > RobertK 20622 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:20pm Subject: Re: Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi Simon, "Buddhism in Daily Life" gives an overview of Buddhism with a bit of an Abhidhammic twist. "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" is an excellent book for those who know some Buddhism but want to focus on Abhidhamma. They are both written by Nina van Gorkom (who also contributes regularly to this group). They can be downloaded from http://www.zolag.co.uk/ "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi is an excellent translation of the Abhidhammatthasangaha with commentaries. This book is not available on-line. Hope this helps. Please ask questions on the DSG as they arise. There are many people here willing to help. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dragonwriter2" wrote: > Hi to everyone on list :) > > I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that > the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study > this section of the tipitaka (sp?). > > Thanking you in advanced, > > Simon 20623 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Anatta and kamma1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > it is uncomfortable. _________________________ Dear Dharam, My purpose in this thread was to establish that there are different degrees of good and bad kamma and that this is a theme that is found not only in commentaries and auxiallary works but also the canon itself. I wasn't trying to explain the deeper reasons for this. I certainly don't mind discussing it further with you, especially as I've been appreciating the depth of your thinking in your recent conversations with Sarah, Mike and Nina. Because your questions and comments need careful explanation I break the letter into 2. I'm tailoring the response so that I can also partially answer Christine's query about Paticcasamuppada. ---------------------------------------------------------- > d: > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > > along? > RK:Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned > to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, > especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one > behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not > caring whether they come to pain or not. > > D: You have not addressed the issue of anatta that I pose here. How > does anatta relate to kamma? _____________________________________________ It is hard to know where to begin as you are asking about two main aspects of the Dhamma , kamma and anatta. We can make a start: The Dhamma can be summed up as "this being that comes to be; with the arising of this that arises. This not being that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases". Assaji said to sariputta "Of things that arise from a cause, their cause the tathagatha has told and also their cessation, thus teaches the great monk" Ye dhamma hetuppabhava tesm hetum tathagato aha tesanca yo nirodho evamvadi mahasamano For Sariputta upon hearing this short verse he became a sotapanna. For us more aspects need to be investigated so that we start to see conditionality everywhere and in all things. The 24 modes of conditions explained in teh last book of the Abhidhamma (a very LARGE book): 1. Hetu Paccaya ;- root condition 2. Arammana Paccaya :- object condition 3. adhipati Paccaya :- Predominance condition 4: Anantara Paccaya :- Priority condition 5. Smanantara Paccaya :- Contiguity condition 6. Sahajata Paccaya :-Co-nascence condition 7. Annamanna Paccaya :- Mutuality 8. Nissaya Paccaya :- Support 9. Upanissaya Paccaya :- Decisive Support 10. Purejata Paccaya :- Pre-nascence 11. Pacchajata Paccaya :- Post-nascence 12. Asevana Paccaya :- Repetition 13. KAMMA Paccaya :- KAMMA 14. Vipaka Paccaya :- KAMMA-result 15. Ahara Paccaya :- Nutriment 16. Indriya Paccaya :- Faculty 17. Jhana Paccaya :- Jhana 18. Magga Paccaya :- Path 19. Sampayutta Paccaya :- Association 20. Vippayutta Paccaya :- Dissociation 21. Atthi Paccaya :- Presence 22. Natthi Paccaya :- Absence 23. Vigata Paccaya :-Disappearance 24. Avigata Paccaya :-Non-disappearance All these Paccaya can be understood when we really understand Paramatha Dhamma :- the 5 khandhas(aggregates), the ayatanas , the elements. Some people don't want to learn about these conditions because they find it complex. But if we see that the Abhidhamma is happening now we can learn to 'study' directly and then it becomes very relevant. Take object-condition (arammana -paccaya), each moment has an object. What is the object now? Some objects are pleasant, others are unpleasant, but either way it is only an object conditioning the citta to experience it, it is a condition by being its object. That is all, and then gone immediately. It may seem that it lasts along time but really it has fallen away , even before we think about it and a new one - perhaps similar to the earlier one - has arisen. There is so quickly reaction to the object with kusala citta(wholesome mindstate) or akusala citta (unwholesome): these are sankhara link(formations) of the Paticcasamuppada and this 'reaction' is conditioned by root-condition, hetu-paccaya, and by other conditions. We may find it important what types of hetus(roots) arise in a day, and try to have more 'good' roots but it is all conditioned and conditioning. It is through seeing into conditions that the wrong view of self is being erased. In the beginning we may be confused about conditions and anatta and kamma and Paticcasamuppada. Some wonder how there can be the result of kamma if there is no self. Mahapunnama Sutta (majjhima Nikaya 109): "It is possible, bhikkhus, that some misguided man here, obtuse and ignorant, with his mind dominated by craving, might think that he can outstrip the Teacher's Dispensation thus: `So, it seems, material form is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" The Buddha knew the mind of a monk who had been listening to a profound discourse about anatta and who had had this thought. The Buddha then said: "Now, bhikkhus, you have been trained by me in dependent (conditionality) in various instances." And the sutta continues to reinforce that all the khandhas are anatta. "seeing thus, a well taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form..feeling..perception..formations..consciousness... ..now while this discourse was being spoken ..the minds of sixty bhikkhus were liberated from the taints" So to summarize: anatta is really only another word for conditionality. And because kamma is an important condition it must be understood so that anatta can be understood. The two are integral. I said to Howard recently how I admired a zen woman - Toni Packer- who writes very clearly about the present moment. Nevertheless I feel something missing in her writing in that there isn't the stress on conditionality found in the Theravada. You see there are 2 main aspects to insighting the present moment: 1. with understanding of the causes and; 2. without, simply knowing the moment. The Dhammapada pradipaya (see p457 of carter ) speaks about the development of insight into characteristics: "[1.]to consider the coming into being of rupa on account of ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition, [2.]and ALSO to see the mere characteristics of its instantaneous coming into being, WITHOUT looking for causative aspect; thus one should consider the rise of rupa in five ways. Likewise to consider the rise of the other 4 khandas in the same way...Thus the rise of the pancakkhanda (five aggregates )is seen in 25 ways. To see that the rise of the khandas is stopped by abolishing the causes:ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition..in this way the cessation of the agregates should be seen" end quote So I think even this zen teacher could benefit from learning some of the conditions laid out in the Tipitaka. I think this is an excellent topic - kamma and anatta- and we should discuss more. RobertK > 20624 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Apology (Re: War) Dear Christine, No problem. You are a sweetheart. I can't even count the number of times I have done the same, or worse. ;-) Take care. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, > > You are correct when you say "Many of the things in this post of > yours should not have been stated in the way you state them." > "you are angry and disappointed with me…." > > My letter should have been put in the drafts folder but wasn't, as a > result you (and others) had to endure my discourteous reactive post. > I unreservedly apologise to you for the tone and manner of the > post. Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of > behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to > look internally first. I'm sorry James, and I hope you will accept my > apology. > > metta, > Christine > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: 20625 From: Lim Song Teng Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Dear Robert K., --- rjkjp1 wrote: > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time > when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had > killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana > could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to > concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. But I thought I should point out that it was Ven. Sariputta, not Ven. Mahamoggalana, who calmed the mind of the executioner and helped him to attain Sotapanna, if my (conventional) memory serves me (conventional)well. smallchap 20626 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love (Sarah) Dear Source, Welcome to DSG. Perhaps you’d kindly also share a little more about yourself (preferably including a real name;-)) and your interest in the Dhamma. Where do you live? Thank you for your additional comments and careful consideration of what I wrote. I think I agree with your comments about possible misunderstandings of the Teachings and this is where some of us find the ancient commentaries particularly helpful. Still, according to our wrong views accumulated, there can still be plenty of misunderstanding regardless of what we read or what teacher we listen to. I don’t understand “open to personal exploration” to mean “any interpretation is equally valid”. Do you? I hope you find DSG useful. Metta, Sarah ====== --- All There Is wrote: Sarah:> > Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? ..... Source:> One needs to realize that at the time of Buddha's lessons, there > were > concepts that were incomprehensible. These concepts needed to be > explained > in a pictorial way, through examples and actions. These are always open > for > a different understanding of different people. There are virtually no > translations that do not carry the feelings, knowledge and belief of the > translator. Finally a written word is notorious for not conveying the > meaning that is intended by the speaker. Such important parts as voice > intonation and body language have no way to be recorded. Hence, what may > bo > meant as a pun may be taken very seriously in written form. This may > have > happened even in the scriptures. It is also the very reason why Buddha > had > left everything open to personal exploration. ..... 20627 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi Simon, Good to see you back :) :) --- dragonwriter2 wrote: > Hi to everyone on list :) > > I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that > the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study > this section of the tipitaka (sp?). ..... ....and good to read of your interest here:) You may also find it useful to look at a few posts saved under 'Abidhamma-beginners' in the Useful Posts section of the Files: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts When you look at the books recommended or other articles, it may be helpful to have a printed out simple glossary of common Pali terms used. One such simple glossary is this one also in the files: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms My other suggestion is to keep asking questions here - none are too basic and often the basic ones are the best. They do us all a favour. Metta, Sarah ======= 20628 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Michael, Good to see you around again after quite a break too.... :) --- Michael Newton wrote: > --- Star Kid wrote: > > Hello!Star Kid; > I wouldn't feel too bad about your questions,or even > that they are stupid-as this is the way you learned- > and you can draw on the experience of many members of > this group-and I would encaurage you-to just keep > asking question,till you feel that you got a > satifactory answer-also I could recommend a very good > book-It's called"Buddhism in a Nutshell"-by Narada > Thera-published by the Buddhist Publication Society in > Sri Lanka-but I bet this book(or pamphlet)is available > in Hong Kong-at one of the many Buddhist Bookstores > there-and I believe there is no fee for the book or > small fee maybe-think many of your questions could be > answered. ..... It's a good suggestion and I'll show it to StarKid Jan when she sees your kind letter, though I have to say the kids have an in-built resistance to Buddhist books without pictures or glossy covers;-( .... >I've never been to Hong Kong-but one of this > groups moderators,lives there and she know a lot about > the subject-and it's possible she might even answer > many of your questions.Her name is Sarah and her email > address is--sarahdhhk@y...--since you both > live in Hong Kong and might even be involved in a > study group new you. ..... Thanks, Michael. Please read this post which you probably missed (also any DSG newbies) as it gives a bit more background to the Starkids: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15147.html ..... >I'm half a world away in > California,however,thru the internet-it's amazeing to > me that you can communicate with anyone in the world > so quikly-even within minutes-this never ceases to > amaze me-years ago,I never ever thought I'd be doing > what I'm doing now-communicating globally with so many > people.Good luck on your search and don't hesitate to > ask questions.Yours in good Faith,Peace in the > World,MICHAEL ..... I know Kom, James, myself and the kids in particular will be very glad of any help you or anyone else gives in answering their questions! Metta, Sarah ===== 20629 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, You wrote: ---------- > Don't let my terminology cause a problem. So-called conventional volition possibly comprises a host of things including desire and including the more neutral chanda. > Chanda, of a *good* sort, is pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote of "conventional volition". It is described by Nyanatiloka as follows: > > > > As a good quality it [chanda] is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) > and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the 4 right efforts (s. padhána): "The > monk rouses his will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the > 4 roads to power (s. iddhipáda). > ----------------- For once, the confusion has not been my fault :-) Let's not refer to paramattha dhammas, as 'conventional,' that word is best reserved for pannatti. ------------------ > BTW, notice the conventional speech "The monk rouses his will"! > ----------- As you have often said yourself, words are concepts that can refer to realities, or to other concepts. When the Buddha uses words to refer to concepts, eg, "the monk," I think we should always read them as referring to realities. This, after all, is what makes the Dhamma unique. When we become Sotapanas, we will be able to say, "the monk rouses his will," without any [subtle] misconception of a self who is doing the rousing. In the meantime, we can try to bear in mind that whenever a living being is mentioned in the suttas, it is the five khandhas that are meant. ---------------- > Ken, we walk to the store when the conditions for doing so are in place. That includes our determination to do so. If that determination were not there, we would not go. When there is the determination to attend mindfully to what arises from moment to moment, that determination, that decision, will come to mind from time to time and we *will* attend mindfully to what arises. But without the intention and determination to do so, we would simply coast through life in a state of unmindfulness - basically in a daze. > ----------------- Up until this point, we are clearly discussing conditioned realities. I have to admit I don't understand how chandha and cetana operate in the scheme of conditionality. May I say, quite seriously, that I have sometimes been clearly determined to go to the store ('shop' in Australia), and have completely forgotten. I dare say I may, on other occasions, have gone there without clear intention -- absent-mindedly. So perhaps the efficacy and necessity of intention is not as clear- cut as it may seem. ----------------- > Whether we call this "conventional volition" or "making a decision" or "making a vow" or "practicing right intention" or "rousing one's will" - whatever we call it, and whatever it is, *it is important*. > ----------------- Here, you are mixing conventional realities with absolute realities. But I am trying, as you say, not to let your terminology cause a problem :-) --------------- > Whether it is a complex of paramattha dhammas or is, itself a single paramattha dhamma, *it is important*. Without it there is no walking the path. > ------------------ A complex of paramattha dhammas? It sounds to me as though you are referring to several different cetasikas in several different cittas, taken as a whole. This is not a paramattha dhamma; I think it can only be a concept. In that case, no, it isn't important, it can't condition anything. When we are talking about paramattha determination, then I agree that it can be vitally important. It is instrumental in whether we will be like the spoon that can't taste the curry, or like the tongue that can. From reading The Perfections (thanks to Nina), I gather it is determination -- to understand the Dhamma we are studying -- that makes the difference. Kind regards, Ken H 20630 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:19am Subject: anatta, kamma, rebirth (Re: Buddhaghosa) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > . > I like your quote from Vis. 172 "Experiencer is a convention for > mere arising of fruit (vipaka)". > > I can reason intellectually about anatta, but I find this quote from > Nyanatiloka difficult to understand. The major difficulty for me is > that the results of akusala kamma usually HURTS - either physically > or emotionally. Hard to think there is 'no-self' "No one who ever > reaps their fruits" when 'one' is hurting. > > +++++++++++++++ Dear Christine, Sometimes life is going to throw more at us than we feel comfortable with, that goes with the territory of being born. When it is 'me' hurting that shows that there is not understanding. No surprise - ignorance is accumulated and must arise more than insight. I know I say this so often but anyway: the more there is understanding of the present moment, the different dhammas at the 6 doors, the more handleable life becomes. When you write 'the results of akusala kamma hurt'. Remember only through the bodysense does vipaka (result) come with pain. Through all other doors it arises with nuetral feeling. And painful bodily feeling doesn't last - it can't unless there are the conditions for it. So most of our pain in life comes from thinking rooted in ignorance and dosa- which is not vipaka (result of kamma). And that type of pain can be reduced to an amazing degree (gradually) as the anattaness of conditions and the difference between vipaka and thinking is comprehended. There is only dosa (aversion) when insight is on holiday (as it so often is of course). RobertK 20631 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:33am Subject: Aversion (dosa) Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Robert:> "All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble > object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then > papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and > thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the > thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for > clinging to these concepts." > _________________________________________________________ > There must be a 'method' :-) to seeing it earlier than the aversion > stage. Once lost in aversion, or any other strong emotion, it can be > ages before the 'seeing' of it arises. By then, akusala thoughts, > words and actions have occurred. (I think my 'kamma account' must be > well and truly in the red ).) > >_______________________ Dear Christine, What about now? Are you still holding to the memory, the concept, of this action that happened hours ago? Can you see that it is simply thinking that is causing any sadness or guilt you feel now. Anyone who can see this thinking while it is occuring will understand what the present moment is and why it is profound and liberating. The thinking still occurs but it can be seen to occur without 'me' being behind it. Then the concepts are not grasped at. I love your questions Christine - they are the same ones I've asked myself a thousand times. BTW I phoned the tax office and it turns out they didn't know my circumstance and the bill is being wiped. Imagine, I could have worried all weekend about a non-existant problem. RobertK 20632 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob M, I appreciated the Part One and look forward to others. A few comments in context with much snipping of parts I agree with.... --- robmoult wrote: > grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a > tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent > origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is > something that must exist before the next factor can arise. ..... Perhaps I’d put it ‘that must exist before or at the same time (or both), conditioning the subsequent factor or link in many diverse ways.....’ I’d also stress it may be a predominant condition, but is by no means the only condition. ..... .... >....Whenever we do something, two things > happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to > mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. ..... I know these ‘we’ here are just meant conventionally but it might be more useful from the start to say ‘a kammic seed is created.....and the habit is reinforced’. A quibble, perhaps;-) ..... ..... > In the process of > seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, > this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- > consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever > strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also > present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic > seed maturing. .... I like the way you’ve put this, Rob. Clearer and clearer (or rather, closer and closer to how I see it;-)) ..... >At the moment of rebirth, > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > arise. .... Instead of ‘arise’, I’d prefer ‘to be experienced’. Rupas arise regardless. ..... > With contact as a factor, conditions can allow >"feeling" to arise. .... Contact, eg eye-contact, is a condition in many ways for the co-arising feeling and decisive support condition for other feelings in the process. ‘Can allow’ might be confusing. ..... > concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. ..... I don’t think so. The thinking or consciousness that takes concepts as object is accompanied by pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling, but the concepts are not real and so don’t have any characteristics. **** Rob, no guarantee that there are no mistakes in my comments on this tricky topic;-)Look f/w to more. While I’m talking to you, there are many passages of relevance to discussions we’ve had on DSG in recent Way extracts. I hope you don’t mind if I use this post to you as an excuse to add a couple. Here is one passage from Way 64 relating to the extent of kilesa (defilements)and kamma in sense-door and mind-door processes: .... QUOTE Way 64 [T] “ .... 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.” ..... More simply, whilst the defilements arise in the sense door processes (with the javana cittas), they only carry strength in subsequent mind door processes. However, it’s apparent that without the sense door processes, including moments of seeing, hearing and so forth, there cannot be the subsequent accumulation of defilements and kamma likely to bring results in the mind door processes. Hence the reminders about guarding the sense doors, the importance of understanding seeing and visible object and so on and not confusing concepts (eg ‘the computer’, ‘the post’, ‘the war’) as being the causes of suffering in any absolute sense. I’d also like to requote a passage from Way 66 recently posted which gives an example of the complexity of the conditions, which I know you are very aware of Rob. One may well say ‘So what?’ and I’m not saying one needs to know about all these factors. However, as the last two sentences clarify, by understanding that all our conventional actions, such as looking on, are merely a combination of namas and rupas conditioning each other in complex ways, there will be less and less inclination to take them for self. (I’m not suggesting these are suitable for your Layman D.O. series;-)) QUOTE from Way 66 “There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Likewise, eye is eye-process; visible object is materiality-process; seeing is eye-consciousness-process; and the things beginning with feeling associated with eye-consciousness are mind-process. Thus, looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four processes. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Exactly, in the manner already stated, eye is support-condition; visible object is object-condition; adverting is condition of proximity, contiguity, decisive-support, absence and disappearance; light is condition of decisive-support and those beginning with feeling are conascence-condition. Thus looking straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the front is seen in the combination of these conditions. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front?” ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 20633 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 65, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry & All, The following is one of my favourite passages in the commentary because is is such a clear analogy and helpful use of abhidhamma in daily life or of the same phenomena discussed in different parts of the Tipitaka which are so relevant to this moment: “As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state.” ..... I find it such a clear reminder. There is no lust, hate or ignorance until these visitors arrive and start to cause havoc where there is none before their arrival. The passage continues: ..... “As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state.” ..... So these ‘visitors’ arriving with the javana cittas (impulsion moments of consciousness) need to be trained in sati-sampaja~n~na (clear comprehension)and learn to behave! Metta, Sarah ====== 20634 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:20am Subject: Anatta and kamma2 Dear Dharam, I continue on our discussion about anatta and kamma. One way to comprehend it is by knowing something of the Dependent 0rigination – Paticcasamuppada. Which, like the Patthana (24 conditions) in my last letter also explains conditionality, with kamma and result (vipaka) being important factors. In this there are three rounds : KAMMA-vatta(action), VIPAKA-vatta(result) and kilesa-vatta (defilements ). These three cover all 12 links of the Paticcasamuppada. Kilesa vatta consists of avijja(ignorance), tanha(desire), and upadana (grasping). Kamma vatta consists of sankhara (formations)and kamma-bhava. Vipaka vatta connsists of vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa, salayatana (six bases), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling), jati (birth), upapatti-bhava, jara-marana (decay and death). The Paticcasamuppada overturns the idea that it is the same consciousness (vinnana, citta) 'that travels and traverses' the round of rebirths (M.38). Instead a series of discrete moments, eye-conciousness (cakkhu-vinnana), ear-consciousness, nose-consciouness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciouness, and mind consciousness arise; each different than the preceeding one. The person uninstructed in the Buddha's law assumes that he is consciousness (or any of the other khandas) or consciousness is apart from him, or is in him, or is not 'him'but'him' is something else. This is hard to comprehend and so even some who have heard the Buddha's teaching misunderstand and assume (perhaps in disguised ways) that feelings or kamma or death or the other links on the path are something happening to 'them' or... (Samyuttanikaya Nidana Moliyaphagguna p541 bodhi) "'With the six bases (salayatana)as condition contact comes to be'. Ven. Moliyaphagguna: 'Venerable sir, who makes contact?' Buddha: 'I do not say 'One makes contact'. If I should say 'One makes contact' in that case this would be a valid question.....In this case the valid answer is 'With the six sense bases as condition, contact [comes to be]; with contact as condition feeling'. Moliyaphagguna: 'venerable sir, who feels?.." endquote And so the sutta carries on with venerable Moliyaphagguna searching for a self in the Paticcasamuppada. He feels that there should be 'someone' who craves, 'someone' who clings, who makes kamma, who feels, who ages, who has sorrow, who dies. He can't accept that these factors all happen without any self. The Buddha says (SN 12:35 Bodhi p.575) that with the eradication of ignorance such ideas and vacillations as "what now are volitional formations (sankhara) , and for 'whom' are there volitional formations? Or 'Volitional formations are one thing, the one for whom there are these volitional formations is another'--all these are abandoned, cut off at the root...."endquote. The Visuddhimagga notes about the development of vipassana: "there is no removal of false view in one who takes it thus "I see with insight, my insight'..there is removal of false view in one who takes it thus 'only formations see formations with insight, comprehend, define, discern and delimit them." XX83 Anyway I hope this gives a glimpse of how essential kamma is to any proper understanding of anatta. RobertK 20635 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Sarah, Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with everything you have written; I think I will use the passive voice throughout to remove the "self". On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the DSG get-together :-( I am upset. Metta, Rob M :-) 20636 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Dear Nina & Larry (& Frank), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > As to bending and stretching, I remember A. Sujin explaining this to me, > this is also a level of understanding: know what is suitable for the > body. > it conditions nama. Never sit too long, you get stiff. Do not torture > yourself. The monks also have to walk now and then, not sitting the > whole > day. ..... I’ve always found this an interesting topic - sappaya sampaja~n~na, clear comprehension of suitability. Just as we read at the beginning of the commentary that the Kuru people were blessed with a good climate and were healthy in mind and body, all which (by natural decisive condition) meant they were capable of listening to the Teachings. Of course, we could all live in the same climate, be healthy and not capable of understanding what was heard;-) I’m in ‘Way’ quoting mood, so let me quote the section that is relevant to this discussion which I’ve always found very practical, especially when there is a little understanding of conditions and the following isn’t taken as ‘steps to enlightenment’;-): “Clear comprehension of suitability is the comprehension of the suitable after considering the suitable and the non-suitable even in a matter that is purposeful. In this connection, the following is the method of explanation: It is said that on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine, while young bhikkhus were rehearsing the doctrine, young bhikkhunis standing at the back of the bhikkhus were listening to the rehearsal. Then a young bhikkhu came into bodily contact with a bhikkhuni while stretching out his hand, and, by just that fact, became a layman. Another bhikkhu in stretching his foot stretched it into fire and his foot got burnt to the bone. Another stretched his foot on an ant-hill and was bitten in the foot by a poisonous snake. Another bhikkhu stretched out his hand till it rested on the pole of a robe-tent, a ribbon-snake on the pole bit the hand of that bhikkhu.” ..... As with any conventionally worded actions, such as my swimming or yoga or Tai chi, there are so very many different kinds of consciousness, intentions and aims involved. Only sati and panna can know at any moment whether they are wholesome or unwholesome. This reminds me of a discussion with Frank on food and exercise - knowing what is most suitable, but being aware of the attachment and clinging to self as well. Metta, Sarah ====== 20637 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:51am Subject: Photo Opportunity Dear Group, Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament for the Album. :-) This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow suitcases) at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in Cambodia. Album 4 is for photos of Others. (Sarah, Jon, Kom - are we discriminating against Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Ma by putting them in with the old ruins? Couldn't they be 'promoted' to Significant Others? They are all fairly significant to me .. :-) Anyone who would like to put a photo in but doesn't know how - contact Kom or I off-list and we'll be glad to advise. metta, Christine 20638 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:13am Subject: A reply Dear James, How are you, no more sick? Well I have something to ask you, what do you mean by according to Buddhism, this ignorance will create five things that made up the person form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Please explain. Janet 20639 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:15am Subject: Letter for you! Dear James, Thankyou for the letter you sent me and thankyou for the situation you told me about the Moslems who can't touch a dog or else they have to rub the spot eight times with dirt and rinse it off eight times in water! Besides I have never heard of it before! Thankyou for the explanation of my question. Did you get my letter to everyone? (metta?/Love?) (20314) When did you become a Buddhist? Are your parents/family Buddhists? Do you like being a Buddhist all the time? metta?/Love? Sandy 20640 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:18am Subject: War Hi Kom, Sorry I haven't replied for quite a while, I was involved in a big middle school musical performance. I had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott for the last few weeks. The musical performance is called "Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat" Its a good movie actually. Have you watched it before? I think you are Thai & Chinese? But I'm sure happiness and sadness doesn't come from either Thai, American or Chinese. Yes, I have visited Canada before. I go to Canada during my summer holidays. All my relatives used to live in Hong Kong but now live in Toronto, Canada. I'm all alone in Hong Kong. What do you think about the war going on with America and Iraq? I'm kind of in the middle because if the war does not start, Iraq will never know what's right and what's wrong. If the war starts, then a lot of innocent people will die. What does Buddhist teach? Can you tell me about something that the Buddhist teach? Take care, Joanne (Call me JoJo) ~~*It takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, an entire life to forget them*~~I love you all~~ 20641 From: smallchap Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: Arahants --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lim Song Teng wrote: > Dear Robert K., > > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time > > when > > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had > > killed hundreds > > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana > > could see his > > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to > > concentrate on the > > Dhamma sermon. > > I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. But > I thought I should point out that it was Ven. > Sariputta, not Ven. Mahamoggalana, who calmed the mind > of the executioner and helped him to attain Sotapanna, > if my (conventional) memory serves me > (conventional)well. > > smallchap --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you > wanted to or because it was your job/duty" ____________ Dear Group, I made a mistake, it was Sariputta not mogallana. Here is the full story from the Dhammapada attakatha: ------------ S: Sorry! I miss this post of yours. S,allchap 20642 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: Anatta and kamma1 Hi Robert K and all, The word "anatta" does not mean conditionality. Regards, Victor > So to summarize: anatta is really only another word for > conditionality. And because kamma is an important condition it must > be understood so that anatta can be understood. The two are integral. 20643 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with everything you have > written; I think I will use the passive voice throughout to remove > the "self". ..... However, there's one of my comments I don't agree with - I had misread sth you wrote. Pls ignore my comment here and keep yours: R:> >At the moment of rebirth, > > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > > arise. > .... S:> Instead of ‘arise’, I’d prefer ‘to be experienced’. Rupas arise > regardless ..... > On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the > 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the > DSG get-together :-( I am upset. .... Us too:-( Are you quite sure your boss wouldn't prefer Bkk or another date in Sing? Metta, Sarah ====== 20644 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:18am Subject: Location of DSG members? Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave > > ROB WROTE: > > On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the > > 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the > > DSG get-together :-( I am upset. > .... > SARAH REPLIED: > Us too:-( > Are you quite sure your boss wouldn't prefer Bkk or another date in Sing? > 20645 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: War (Mods--my apologies if I've overstepped the lines, here...) Dear Chris, Right you are, Mate! "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five? "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will." -- AN V.198 Of course, these are conventional, rather than 'abhidhammic' expressions of right speech (addressed specifically to bhikkhus also, by the way, for whom the standards of moral purity are necessarily much higher than those of laypeople)--not 'right speech of the eightfold path', which is an infinitessimal instant of abstention from wrong speech (as I understand it). This comes closer and hints at the 'real' (paramattha) meaning of the path-factor: "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. Digha Nikaya 22 Maha-Satipatthana Sutta Anyway your posts, always imbued with friendliness (my favorite translation of mettaa, as I think you know), are always a welcome relief from the perpetual storm of malicious, greedy, deluded and 'self'-justifying propaganda emanating especially from my country (empire?) these days. mike p.s. Even wrong speech and the unpleasant feeling and aversion it may condition arise and subside instantaneously amid the arisings and subsidings of so many other phenomena--and can be the bases of insight. Wish I could express this more plainly for the young people. p.p.s. Sorry this is so parenthetical and rambling. ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:59 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: War > Dear James, > > You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. You could > have tried a version of skillful means, you could have tried a > version of noble silence. Your letter is your own opinion - but it > is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions and untruths - it is > one of the saddest letters I have ever seen written to a child. I ask > the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the child, or at least > let her parents see it first. > > James, I am amazed that you could either be so unaware of the true > facts of the situation - or think that the rest of the List is. > Surely you must know that most of the world regards the United States > of America as the Rogue State in this obscene pretense of a Just War, > forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a mixture of bribes and > subtle threats, and attempting (so far unsuccessfully) to pervert the > purpose and direction of the United Nations. Surely you could not be > unaware that in this war that you publicly support, there are > 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the American bombs and > missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that most of the world is > vehemently opposed to this aggression of America and it's subservient > Client States. Surely you could not be unaware that America the > Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up over the last hundred > years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab for empire and oil? > Why not have a look here James and see some of the JoJo's of Iraq? > This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi hospital yesterday. Click > beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. > http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ > > You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > > personally or kill people to do that." > CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's son do it for you? > Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it neutrality. > > I thank those on this List whom I know are working for peace, > speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please don't be discouraged - > don't be downhearted, there are people working for peace everywhere, > some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of all faiths or none. > At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who wears traditional > dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - though > another two of her close relatives were killed last week. She has > lost many others, adults and children. I, who have lost no- > one personally in this war, admire and respect her, and try to follow > her example. Anger towards anyone should be overcome - this is > Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap the fruits of > their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by reacting with > aversion (dosa). > It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha speaking out, setting an > example, and teaching us the Blessed One's Teachings - that in > Buddism all violence is Anathema. > In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo for his tireless > efforts for peace. > > metta, > Christine > 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home first.' 20646 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi James, Looking at your reply, all that I am going to say is that whatever speech that is made by you, that is your own kamma. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that I made a wrong speech in that post of mine (after reflection). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20647 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi, I just joined. My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. Metta José dwlemen wrote:Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave 20648 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi, Rob (and Dave, and Larry, and all) - Just a couple more thoughts on D.O., and some ambiguity in it: The Sheaves of Reeds formulation includes the following: vi~n~nana <--> namarupa --> salayatana --> phassa --> vedana. On the other hand, one can interpret, without a stretch (I think) the Honeyball Sutta to include the following: (namarupa <--> salayatana) --> vi~n~nana --> phassa --> vedana [ e.g., eye & forms ] This Honeyball formulation, incidentally, does present sense doors preceding discernment, an issue I believe one of you raised. It strikes me that the discernment, the activation (or opening) of a sense door, and the arising of an object of discernment are all interdependent, and that an act of cognition actually involves all of these, perhaps even simultaneously, with a *full* act of cognition also including the phassa and vedana steps, and even the sa~n~na operation which follows. But whether this hypothesis about a "full act of cognition" is correct or not, it does seem to me that one can justifiably modify the Sheaves of Reeds formulation by the Honeyball formulation to obtain the following: ... vi~n~nana <--> namarupa <--> salayatana --> phassa --> vedana, where at least the first three events here are co-occurring (and for which the order of presentation could be changed to any of the other five alternatives). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20649 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken H, > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > This third type includes being mindful of (concentrating > on), daily activities; eg, 'while you are washing the > dishes, know you are washing the dishes.' This third type supports vipassana. It strengthens concentration. This is by my own experience. > If you know of any vipassana developing techniques found > in the ancient texts, please say so; these discussions > are valuable to all of us. To tell you frankly, I don't even have a single hardcopy of any Buddhism book. I read ADL because I hit upon it by chance in my local community library. Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html [4] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is present within me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is not present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen. It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of mindfulness itself. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20650 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi Howard, > While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with > annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. I am not bothered about your annoyance. If there is any untruth in my statements, please point out. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20651 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Dear James, Dharam and all friends, and at end: for newcomers, James's remarks touch also on "what is dhamma", what I was discussing with Dharam, and I shall answer more to Dharam later on. The subject of "where is the practice"I spoke about with James yesterday, reminded me of the practice when I had an Email crash this morning. Strong aversion, dosa, but also remembering: dosa is conditioned. There is not only aversion, there is also seeing to be understood, hearing, many realities. When there is seeing, no aversion at the same time. We can verify this for ourselves. Good reminders I get here, that is why I cherish my friendships on this list. If I had not had Email exchange with James, I sure would forget and just have dosa again and again. So we see how the development of understanding is conditioned by studying, considering and yes, also the reminders from friends. James is worried that knowledge of citta, cetasika, rupa, sense-doors and mind-doors do not lead to enlightenment. First of all, these are very essential points, good to exchange views here. He wrote: op 21-03-2003 21:06 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: Knowing these things aren't going a make a person > any more enlightened than classes on chemistry, physics, and > psychology, and isn't that what this is all about? If it doesn't > lead to enlightenment, what point is it? It doesn't have any point > and its result is to make people believe they know more than they > actually do. (snip) Nina: Knowing more about sense-doors and mind-door and the objects experienced through them is completely in accordance with the suttas and I feel, it is so helpful for daily life. Just one sutta among the countless ones, I quoted before: We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, Ch II, § 16, The Sure Course) that a monk who possesses three qualities is ³proficient in the practice leading to the Sure Course² and ³has strong grounds for the destruction of the åsavas². These three qualities are moderation in eating, the guarding of the six doors and vigilance. We read concerning the guarding of the six doors: And how does he keep watch over the door of his sense faculties? Herein, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, does not grasp at the general features or at the details thereof. Since coveting and dejection, evil, unprofitable states might overwhelm one who dwells with the faculty of the eye uncontrolled, he applies himself to such control, sets a guard over the faculty of the eye, attains control thereof....> Six doorways all the time. See all the suttas in Kindred Sayings IV, for example. Not the person, not the situation, only different objects experienced one at a time through six doorways. That is what the Abhidhamma and its practice, that is, application in life, vipassana, is all about. It is natural to have grief about the loss of a dear person, but the suttas and the abhidhamma teach me that grief is conditioned by attachment, by selfishness: we cling to our own pleasant feeling we derived from being in the company of the dear person. It sounds crude, but we have to be honest to ourselves. The Abhidhamma teaches the same as the suttas, but it gives more details about the six doors, the processes of citta, the conditions for realities. We do not have to learn all details, but the Abhidhamma can help us to see just the moment, the present moment. See my example about the computer crash: there is not only aversion, also seeing, and hearing in between. All realities should be known as they are: impermanent, dukkha, non-self. Enough for today, but I am not finished with this subject yet. I want to say more about the noble Truths. Nina. P.S. What Christine wrote is so true: "Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of > behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to > look internally first." And then reading about apologies of Christine and of James: again, I had to think of the Buddha's time: the monks forgiving each other. Forgiving is a kind of dana, generosity, and I just want to express my appreciation of the kusala of both of you. Now for the newcomers: I forgot that this may be a new subject for you. Giving, dana, is not only material giving, it can also be spiritual. I learnt this in Thailand and it comes so naturally: you see someone else's kusala and appreciate: you can say: anumodana, meaning, thanksgiving or appreciation. Expressing this is also kusala citta. In Thailand we "wai", clasped hands, we bend our head, or even we are kneeling. Very spontaneously. Also forgiving: asking forgiveness and giving it, it is a kind of dana to forgive: abhaya dana: a-bhaya, free from fear. You wish the other person to be free from danger, unrest, fear. It also comes so naturally and spontaneously: you ask forgiveness with clasped hands and you forgive also the other person. All part of the practice, realizing your cittas more: kusala (wholesome) as kusala, akusala (unwholesome) as akusala. Nobody else can do this for you, this is the meaning of being your own refuge, having no outward refuge. 20652 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: Location of DSG members? Hi Dave and Jose, Welcome Jose - I'm glad you've joined and hope to hear more from our Swiss connection. :-) Dave, there are North American, European and British members, and many others who are citizens of Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, a few are ex-patriates living in those countries. As well there are members in India and Sri Lanka. Only one member from Iceland as far as I recall. And there's a mob from the east coast of Australia and at least one New Zealander (who mostly lives and works in Japan) and one in Hawaii. I've probably missed out some members and their countries -not all members are currently actively posting - but they do come out of hibernation now and then, if something peaks their interest. I'm one of the Australians - from Brisbane, Queensland. Members in Bangkok seem to see each other regularly for Dhamma Discussions at the Foundation. Others of us try to get to Bangkok once a year at least (for anything from a few days to a few weeks) - it is a herculean task in itself to find dates in common. Members elsewhere - say, in South East Queensland where I live - occasionally have a weekend away (maybe three times a year) by being included in a mixed group of dsg and non-dsg dhammafarers. There are one-off occasions - e.g. a group (incl. Khun Sujin) are also going on a cruise to Alaska out of Seattle in early September. There is lots of wonderful Dhamma discussion as well as camaraderie and renewal and building of friendships at these times. I expect this urge to meet other members comes out of wanting contact with others who are serious about the Path, as much as from living in areas where we don't have easy access to Sangha and other Buddhists. It would be interesting to hear from others, for the edification of new members, about just where they are now. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? > In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, > with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. > Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. > It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake > all night posting messages! :-) > > Also, how often do you get together? > > I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to > Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into > moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! > > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20653 From: Michael Newton Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: War --- "m. nease" wrote: > (Mods--my apologies if I've overstepped the lines, > here...) > > Dear Chris, > > Right you are, Mate! > > "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is > well-spoken, not > ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by > knowledgeable people. Which five? > > "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in > truth. It is spoken > affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is > spoken with a mind of > good-will." > > -- AN V.198 > > Of course, these are conventional, rather than > 'abhidhammic' expressions of > right speech (addressed specifically to bhikkhus > also, by the way, for whom > the standards of moral purity are necessarily much > higher than those of > laypeople)--not 'right speech of the eightfold > path', which is an > infinitessimal instant of abstention from wrong > speech (as I understand it). > This comes closer and hints at the 'real' > (paramattha) meaning of the > path-factor: > > "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, > from divisive speech, from > abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called > right speech. > > Digha Nikaya 22 > Maha-Satipatthana Sutta > > Anyway your posts, always imbued with friendliness > (my favorite translation > of mettaa, as I think you know), are always a > welcome relief from the > perpetual storm of malicious, greedy, deluded and > 'self'-justifying > propaganda emanating especially from my country > (empire?) these days. > > mike > > p.s. Even wrong speech and the unpleasant feeling > and aversion it may > condition arise and subside instantaneously amid the > arisings and subsidings > of so many other phenomena--and can be the bases of > insight. Wish I could > express this more plainly for the young people. > > p.p.s. Sorry this is so parenthetical and rambling. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: christine_forsyth > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:59 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: War > > > > Dear James, > > > > You did have another alternative - not > politicising your reply to > > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced > by you. You could > > have tried a version of skillful means, you could > have tried a > > version of noble silence. Your letter is your own > opinion - but it > > is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions > and untruths - it is > > one of the saddest letters I have ever seen > written to a child. I ask > > the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the > child, or at least > > let her parents see it first. > > > > James, I am amazed that you could either be so > unaware of the true > > facts of the situation - or think that the rest of > the List is. > > Surely you must know that most of the world > regards the United States > > of America as the Rogue State in this obscene > pretense of a Just War, > > forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a > mixture of bribes and > > subtle threats, and attempting (so far > unsuccessfully) to pervert the > > purpose and direction of the United Nations. > Surely you could not be > > unaware that in this war that you publicly > support, there are > > 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the > American bombs and > > missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that > most of the world is > > vehemently opposed to this aggression of America > and it's subservient > > Client States. Surely you could not be unaware > that America the > > Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up > over the last hundred > > years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab > for empire and oil? > > Why not have a look here James and see some of the > JoJo's of Iraq? > > This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi > hospital yesterday. Click > > beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. > > http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ > > > > You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > > > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam > needs to be taken > > > out of power with the same means. However, I > would not fight > > > personally or kill people to do that." > > CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's > son do it for you? > > Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it > neutrality. > > > > I thank those on this List whom I know are working > for peace, > > speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please > don't be discouraged - > > don't be downhearted, there are people working > for peace everywhere, > > some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of > all faiths or none. > > At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who > wears traditional > > dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - > though > > another two of her close relatives were killed > last week. She has > > lost many others, adults and children. I, who > have lost no- > > one personally in this war, admire and respect > her, and try to follow > > her example. Anger towards anyone should be > overcome - this is > > Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap > the fruits of > > their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by > reacting with > > aversion (dosa). > > It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha > speaking out, setting an > > example, and teaching us the Blessed One's > Teachings - that in > > Buddism all violence is Anathema. > > In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo > for his tireless > > efforts for peace. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home > first.' > > Dear Christine; Right you are!Keep up the good work!LOVE AND PEACE,MICHAEL > 20654 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, Dharam and all friends, and at end: for newcomers, > > James's remarks touch also on "what is dhamma", what I was discussing with > Dharam, and I shall answer more to Dharam later on. > The subject of "where is the practice"I spoke about with James yesterday, > reminded me of the practice when I had an Email crash this morning. Hi Nina, I want to address, from my perspective, why the knowledge of dhammas isn't comparable to the knowledge that arises from vipassana practice. The mind states, and thoughts, and consciousness factors that you are talking about occur very fast, so fast that they cannot be caught without intense concentration and mindfulness of them. If one tries to catch them, with everyday mind, in order to be aware of their influence, it is too late. With everyday mind the most you can hope to be aware of is a mind state after it has already occurred, not while it is occuring. By then, it is too late, the damage has already been done. The type of negative mind states that you are describing are of only the grossest and most obvious types. Of course you can notice the aversion that comes when your e-mail crashes; that is easy to notice and doesn't require any knowledge of the Abhidhamma. But can you notice the aversion that comes second after second from just the most basic of things as sitting in the chair, hearing the starting music, reading a word, hitting a key, hitting more keys, entering your password, seeing the screen change, seeing the little AOL charater run, hearing "You've Got Mail"etc., etc., etc.,...can you really be aware of the aversions, attractions, and neutral reactions that occur during each of these moments while they are happening? Not with everyday mind. How about after they have already happened? Not possible because there are more reactions taking your attention. What you are describing is noticing the type of mind states that have reached a critical mass, and by then it is too late. The damage is already done, the ego has already been reinforced, the karma has been created anew. The only way to get to the root of the problem, to be mindful and aware of the reactions as they occur, to cease those reactions simply from observation of them, is during Vipassana practice. This cannot be done with everyday mindfulness. Now, what is the difference between someone who just lets their reactions occur and someone who labels them with Abhidhamma terms after they have already occured? The person who labels the events after they occur believes that he/she have a knowledge of something which others don't have. They also believed that have stopped the influence of something negative when they really haven't. Because this person truly hasn't elimated the root of desire, this thinking that they know something special and have done something special grows into a very strong conceit. So the first type of person has suffering, while the second type of person has suffering and conceit. If the roots are not destroyed through Vipassana meditation practice, Abhidhamma knowledge results in more ignorance than non- Abhidhamma knowledge. I hope I have made this clear without being offensive, but I don't know any other way to put it. This is my perspective, and, as always, could be mistaken. Metta, James ps. Thank you for your kind words. 20655 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:36pm Subject: Re: Photo Opportunity Hi Mike, I really like your self portrait Mike, I wasn't aware that you had such a particular talent! I think you are included in a couple of group photos in the Meetings album. Nice to have an individual view of you in the Members album -. Hopefully more members will be encouraged to follow your great example. Onya, mate! :-) metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament > for the Album. :-) > > This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, > as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in > there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) > You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow > suitcases) at: > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst > > Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. > Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly > Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. > Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri > Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in > Cambodia. > Album 4 is for photos of Others. Weight Age Gender Female Male 20656 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 3/26/03 11:55:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > >retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with > >annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. > > I am not bothered about your annoyance. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for saying so. It pleases me that the tone of my post was not hurtful. ------------------------------------------- > > If there is any untruth in my statements, please point out. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: My personal prejudice is that it takes more than (possible) wrong view to consign one to hell, and I certainly don't think that any of us is in a position to guess the rebirth-destinations of beings. In any case, I would prefer to let this matter go, as I don't think it will be useful to pursue it. ----------------------------------------- > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20657 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:47pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kom Tukovinit [mailto:kom@a...] > > I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, > besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand > what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out > from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I > don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, > as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me > what you understand, or what I could learn from you. > > If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the > texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things > stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I > have another, and neither may be even close to what the > Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said > is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't > explain what the non-distorted version to be. > > I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting > from the texts. > > > -----Original Message----- I would like to apologize for the tone of this message. It is written out of certain assumptions which aren't true. I think we could have gotten more useful discussions out of this topic, but I think I have botched it. Perhaps I will do better in the future. kom 20658 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Howard, I looked up the answer to this question and found that the very unintuitive abhidhamma does in fact confirm your intuition, with a few qualifications. I'm using for my source an essay on paticcasamuppada by Nyanatiloka in his "Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka". To start with, the Consciousness link is resultant consciousness only. Nama, in the dependent arising formula does not include consciousness; it is only feeling, perception, and mental formations. The 6 sense bases are the 5 physical-sense organs and the mind base which is "a collective term for all the different classes of consciousness." So the consciousness of the Consciousness link is included in the mind base. The 5 physical-sense organs are also included in the rupa of Namarupa link, as is the mind organ (heart base?). The following I quote from Nyanatiloka (I believe he is quoting from Visuddhimagga): (Consciousness and Mentality [nama]) - The kamma-resultant classes of Consciousness are to the simultaneously arising 3 Mental groups [nama]--during life continuity, as well as at birth, etc.--a condition by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Association, Faculty, Prescence, and Non-disappearance. (Consciousness and Corporeality [rupa])--Consciousness is to the 6 physical sense organs, only at the moment when they come into existence, a condition by way of Co-nascence, Kamma-result, Nutriment, Faclty, Dissociation, Presence, Non-disappearance, and Mutualty. To the remaining corporeal phenomena it is a condition in the same ways, excepting only Mutuality. (Mentality [nama] and Mind-base)--At the moment of conception, as well as during life-continuity, the 3 Mental groups [nama] are to the Mind-base (Consciousness) a conition in at least 7 ways, i.e., by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Association, Kamma-result, Presence, and Non-disapparance; some mental phenomena (e.g. greedlessness etc.) also by way of Root; some (e.g. Mind-volition, and Mind-impression [phassa]) by way of Nutriment. (Mentality [nama] and the 5 physical sense-organ Bases)--Kamma resultant mental phenomena dependent on the 5 sensitive organs (i.e. those mental phenomena associated with eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc.) are, during life-continuity, to the 5 physical sense-organ Bases a condition by way of POST-nascence, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. (Corporeality and Mind-Base)--The physical organ of the mind is, at the moment of conception, to the Mind-Base a condition by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-diappearance. The mind, namely, is functioning in the embryo from the very first moment of conception. Hence, only at conception does the physical organ of mind arise 'simultaneously' with consciousness, both being conditions 'to one another', whilst the physical organ of mind is a support (foundation) to consciousness by its 'presence' and 'non-disappearance'. (Corporeality and the 5 sense-organ Bases)--The 4 primary physical elements are to any of the 5 physical sense-organ Bases (eye, ear etc.)--but only at the very moment when they first come into existence--a condition by way of Co-nascence, Presence and Non-disappearance. Of the 5 sentient organs, body-sensitivity appears first in the human embryo while the other organs arise later. During life-continuity, the 4 elements are to the 5 sense-organs a condition by way of Support, Presence, and Non-disappearance. (Corporeality and Mind-Base)--The 5 physical sense organs are, during life continuity, to the 5 kinds of sense consciousness, as eye-consciousness etc., a condition by way of Support, PRE-nascence, Faculty, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. In other words, these 5 kinds of sensuous consciousness cannot arise without the pre-arising, presence, and the faculty of the 5 physical sense-organs as Support. The physical Organ of Mind is, during life-continuity, to the Mind-Base (consciousness) a condition by way of Support, PRE-nascence, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. In other words, consciousness, during life-continuity, depends on the Support, PRE-arising and Presence of the physical Organ of Mind. L: So, to answer the question of sequence in the consciousness, namarupa, sense base formula, it is all mostly co-nascent, with a few pre-nascences, and one post-nascence. Additionally, they all three include aspects of one another. Larry 20659 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Swee Boon, You wrote: ---------------- > If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. > ----------------- Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every second. In amongst them, we experience illusory realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. --------------- > If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. > --------------- These days, I don't bother about formal practices. However, when I asked if you knew of any that would develop vipassana, I was genuinely interested. It is important to know whether or not there is a sequence of steps that lead to, or condition, vipassana. The nearest thing that dsg members have found in the texts, is that we need to associate with wise friends, listen to the Dhamma, consider it and follow it. Even here, these steps can be genuine or a poor imitation. If they are undertaken with wrong view or with akusala motives, then they are not the real thing. All conventional courses of training -- eg, cookery, archery, meditation -- can be followed with or without the kusala motives. It is not the same for vipassana. To digress for a moment; if it was the same, then we all know who would be most likely make the grade: It would be those gifted individuals whom people like me used to envy at school. But a natural scholar and athlete, endowed with great determination and fortitude, is not neccessarily a good and wise person. I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter of mastering a technique. --------------- > I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. > -------------- Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. --------------- > Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > --------------- Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' ---------------- > Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html > ----------------- Thanks for answering my question, but what you have quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. The Dhamma is descriptive; it describes the many ways in which the five khandhas can arise in the form of either a worldling, a learner, an arahant or a tathagatha. Understanding these descriptions is the prime conditioning factor for vipassana. IMO :-) --------- > It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of > mindfulness itself. ---------- Yes, and that it is possible to be mindful of un-mindfulness. That would have to be mindfulness of a dhamma that has just fallen away would it not? Kind regards, Ken H 20660 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Hi Christine and Kom, What a lovely collection of photos! I uploaded some photos but could not get them into the member photo album. Perhaps one of you could do this on behalf, please? Thanks! Metta, Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:51 AM Subject: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > Dear Group, > > Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament > for the Album. :-) > > This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, > as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in > there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) > You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow > suitcases) at: > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst > > Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. > Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly > Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. > Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri > Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in > Cambodia. > Album 4 is for photos of Others. (Sarah, Jon, Kom - are we > discriminating against Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Ma by putting them in > with the old ruins? Couldn't they be 'promoted' to Significant > Others? They are all fairly significant to me .. :-) > > Anyone who would like to put a photo in but doesn't know how - > contact Kom or I off-list and we'll be glad to advise. > > metta, > Christine 20661 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hello Jose! ;-) Guess who? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jose Angel Lopez" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi, I just joined. My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. Metta José dwlemen wrote:Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave 20662 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Dear Ven. Dhammapiyo, I have moved the pictures into the Members folder. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo > [mailto:vinmardeb@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:41 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > > > Hi Christine and Kom, 20663 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Thank you, Larry! With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/26/03 11:34:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: So, to answer the question of sequence in the consciousness, > namarupa, sense base formula, it is all mostly co-nascent, with a few > pre-nascences, and one post-nascence. Additionally, they all three > include aspects of one another. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20664 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Swee Boon, > > You wrote: > ---------------- Hi Ken H, This post isn't addressed to me, but I feel compelled to reply to some of your observations and thoughts. Other than being alarmed by them, I am genuinely curious as to how you came up with them. I will comment in-text (Note: some of my comments are somewhat humorous, but that doesn't mean I don't take this or you seriously. I just thought some levity was in order ;-) : Hi Swee Boon, You wrote: ---------------- > If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. > ----------------- Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every second. In amongst them, we experience illusory realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. (James: First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) Not only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing as a second. Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to meditate. --------------- > If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. > --------------- These days, I don't bother about formal practices. However, when I asked if you knew of any that would develop vipassana, I was genuinely interested. It is important to know whether or not there is a sequence of steps that lead to, or condition, vipassana. (James: Ummm…I hate to be obvious, but here are the steps that lead to and condition vipassana: 1. Learn how to do it, 2. Make the decision to do it, 3. Set aside some time to do it, 4. Do it. Those steps seem pretty simple to me. What exactly do you not know?) The nearest thing that dsg members have found in the texts, is that we need to associate with wise friends, listen to the Dhamma, consider it and follow it. Even here, these steps can be genuine or a poor imitation. If they are undertaken with wrong view or with akusala motives, then they are not the real thing. (James: The Buddha didn't give pep talks or assume that anyone would need them. He simply said, "Listen Monks, this is what you are to do. Find a quiet spot, sit down, and direct your attention to the breath…" He didn't say, "Listen Monks, this is the game plan, I want you all to become aware of reality through meditation, but you all have to be with me. Are you all with me? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Are you all with me? Good. You all have to have the right motivation and reasons before we can all do this thing!…" ;-) Motives aren't not the deciding factor you seem to believe they are, and motives change. The point is just to do the practice and not worry about motives.) All conventional courses of training -- eg, cookery, archery, meditation -- can be followed with or without the kusala motives. It is not the same for vipassana. (James: Of course it is. Like Nike states: Just do it! ;-) To digress for a moment; if it was the same, then we all know who would be most likely make the grade: It would be those gifted individuals whom people like me used to envy at school. But a natural scholar and athlete, endowed with great determination and fortitude, is not neccessarily a good and wise person. I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter of mastering a technique. (James: You are comparing apples and oranges. Vipassana practice does improve as one does it more…just as golf, cooking, etc. You appear to be giving a lofty status to vipassana that would make it impossible for anyone to do it unless already enlightened. That is putting the cart before the horse, to use a cliché ;-) --------------- > I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. > -------------- Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. (James: No, the opinions of the Lord Buddha are the most beneficial to obtain. Check out what he was to say on this matter again. I don't need to give links, you know where to go.) --------------- > Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > --------------- Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' (James: My advice is to not worry about what Buddhas have to experience and just focus on yourself. You can affect dhammas simply by seeing them for what they really are. I hope you realize that what you are stating here is in opposition to the Third Noble Truth, that suffering can be eliminated.) ---------------- > Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html > ----------------- Thanks for answering my question, but what you have quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. The Dhamma is descriptive; it describes the many ways in which the five khandhas can arise in the form of either a worldling, a learner, an arahant or a tathagatha. Understanding these descriptions is the prime conditioning factor for vipassana. IMO :-) (James: Of course it isn't, the prime conditioning factor for vipassana is just doing it. Knowing all of what you have just listed is only a conditioning factor for winning at `Buddhist Trivial Pursuit'. ;-) --------- > It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of > mindfulness itself. ---------- Yes, and that it is possible to be mindful of un-mindfulness. That would have to be mindfulness of a dhamma that has just fallen away would it not? (James: Yes, one can be aware of un-mindfulness, but it has nothing to do with noticing that a dhamma has fallen away; it is simply being aware that the mind has become dull and lethargic.) Kind regards, Ken H Metta, James 20665 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Sir, Thank you for providing some photos. After 'talking' with you for so long in a number of internet Buddhist communities, it is delightful to 'see' you at last. You, Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ven. Yanatharo are the only monks I 'know'. How fortunate that you all grace the Dhammastudygroup photo album as well! :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: > Hi Christine and Kom, > > What a lovely collection of photos! > 20666 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:36pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hi... Dear Darcy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Darcy [mailto:the_jade_beetle@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:52 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Hi... > > > Greetings to all, > > My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce > myself to the group. > I'm a non-traditional university student studying > history and > languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, > they are wise and > compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a > great deal, both > from posts here and on a few other groups I > joined. Thank you. :-) > Welcome to DSG. I am glad you have enjoyed your time here. Nothing quite like good dhamma friends. As you probably can already see, there are all sorts of discussions going on at any points of time. Please feel free to join in any one of them. kom 20667 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:00pm Subject: RE: [dsg] War Hi JoJo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Hi Kom, > > Sorry I haven't replied for quite a while, I was > involved in a big middle school musical performance. I > had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. > Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott for the last > few weeks. The musical performance is called "Joseph > and the technicolor dreamcoat" Its a good movie > actually. Have you watched it before? No, I haven't heard about it before, but I did look it up on the web. It sounds like a big accomplishment for a middle school play (lots of songs). What part did you play? > I think you are Thai & Chinese? But I'm sure happiness > and sadness doesn't come from either Thai, American or > Chinese. That's right. Sadness is sadness is sadness, and greed is greed is greed. It has no nationality, and it could happen to anyone, except very few wise ones. When there is sadness, what nationality is it? --- none, there is only sadness. > Yes, I have visited Canada before. I go to Canada > during my summer holidays. All my relatives used to > live in Hong Kong but now live in Toronto, Canada. I'm > all alone in Hong Kong. You know Jo Jo. In a way, we are all alone. Whoever you are with (be your parents, your best friends, etc), are you with them all the time? When you are fast asleep, do you think of all the people around you, do you *know* that they are still all around you? Even when you are among a million people, nobody is experiencing things exactly like you do. Only you know what you are experiencing, and only you experience exactly like you do. > What do you think about the war going on with America > and Iraq? I'm kind of in the middle because if the war > does not start, Iraq will never know what's right and > what's wrong. If the war starts, then a lot of > innocent people will die. War is always like this, some people will die. As long as there is greed, hatred, and violence, there will always be wars. > > What does Buddhist teach? Can you tell me about > something that the Buddhist teach? Anger is appeased by kindness. We should be kind, as much as we can, to other people. You can see it for yourself. When you are angry, if you remember to be kind, isn't kindness more peaceful than anger? Metta, kom 20668 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Jose (& Dave), --- Jose Angel Lopez wrote: > > Hi, > I just joined. > My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. .... Thanks for introducing yourself and welcome from me to DSG too. Whereabouts do you live in Switzerland? We love hiking there. Please let us know anything you care to share about your interest in the Buddha’s Teachings and how you found your way here. The list is quite busy at the moment, so you may wish to pick and choose posts ‘til you are more familiar with the various threads. Let us know if you need any help. ..... > dwlemen wrote:Everyone, > > I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? .... Very few that I can think of (Sukin, Num, Betty...), but some of us tend to meet there, esp. those of us who study with A.Sujin. .... > In Asia? .... Quite a lot of us - Jon & I in Hong Kong, Rob M in Malaysia, Swee Boon in Singapore, others who are quiet for now, but in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Brunei..... ..... >I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, > with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. .... As Chris said, also quite a contingent in Oz (herself, Ken H, Azita, Andrew, Suan....),Europe (Nina....), Israel, S.America, Canada....,Iceland Still plenty of room for the Americans (Mike N, Howard, James, Victor, Kom, Dan, Dharam,Ven Dhammapiyo, Michael N....) Just adding a few names of present posters that come quickly to mind...no offence intended to anyone else. .... > Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. > It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake > all night posting messages! :-) .... ...and why some of you seem to be sleeping while we’re posting :-) .... > Also, how often do you get together? .... A few of us have known each other a long time (Jon has known Nina for 30 yrs and I have almost as long), Azita too. We’ve known Rob K over 10 yrs... We meet about once a year and Jon and I get to Bangkok about 3 times a yr on average. Last year I saw more of Christine than of any other friends or family, I think, as she joined all our trips in Asia and we also went to Queensland to meet her and others there. .... > I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to > Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into > moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! .... Now, Dave, we need to tell you more about ‘mudita’ (sympathetic joy), so that instead of feeling jealous you can learn to delight in our good fortune;-) Seriously, as Chris mentioned, we’ll be meeting Kom, K.Sujin and many other friends in San Fran at the beginning of September this year before joining some of them for a cruise to Alaska. We really hope some of the Americans can at least meet us in SF. Maybe this would be a first step to encouraging your wife to travel to Thailand. For you, it’ll be like mini-Thailand being with the predominantly Thai American group there. (Let me know off-list if you need any details anytime). Now, Dave, it’s YOUR turn to do us a favour: we’d be grateful if you and anyone else would contribute to the photo album and follow the good example of Ven Dhammapiyo, Mike N and Darcy. Chris & Kom are ready for any excuses and between them can rescue pictures dropped anywhere en route. James also offers cosmetic surgery for the shy and a postal service (i.e you post him a pic and he does the rest) for the seriously technologically inept(like me). Greatly appreciate your interest so apparent in your posts, Dave. Metta, Sarah ===== 20669 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Dear James, what you write is not at all offensive, but it touches on important matters. It is good to discuss them, and I shall come back to them later on. Nina. op 26-03-2003 20:30 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: If the roots are not destroyed through Vipassana meditation > practice, Abhidhamma knowledge results in more ignorance than non- > Abhidhamma knowledge. I hope I have made this clear without being > offensive, but I don't know any other way to put it. This is my > perspective, and, as always, could be mistaken. 20670 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:36am Subject: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Dharam. I was about to start quoting from texts on one or two points you and RobertK are discussing, but on reflection have decided to address another issue and hope that in so doing I don’t cause any offence or add to any sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of course): - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha’s Teachings are superior to other Teachings - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are ‘unique’ in path and goal - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings or to followers of other Teachings - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were prevalent before the Buddha’s time - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory **** Rather than discuss any of these points (other than to say I hear you;-)), I’d like to just make a few comments in point form: 1. We all come to the Dhamma with our own set of baggage collected over a long time. Perhaps it’s rather like moving into a house - we may move into identical houses, but we all have to accommodate our various collections of furniture, books, clothes and assorted ‘toys’. 2. When some people move house, they’re able to ruthlessly throw out previous collections and baggage and start afresh. Others have a harder time and the new house may even end up having to fit into the old baggage;-). Still others can never move, because the necessary weeding out is just too painful. 3. Usually, I think, the most successful house moves are those in which the new house is approached as something akin to a clean slate without any looking back or comparing or trying to accomodate past baggage that doesn’t fit. 4. When I first became seriously interested in Buddhism, I had a certain amount of Christian baggage remaining, but mostly that had been left behind from an earlier move. More serious was the few years of training in psychology, much of which I wished to bring along, especially when it came to the Abhidhamma. Both Nina and Khun Sujin greatly encouraged me indirectly to adopt the ‘clean slate’ approach and this advice has always been invaluable to me. 5. It doesn’t mean that one’s other baggage, i.e interest/religion/philosopy/work/social perspective, is of no value. It has it’s own value and it’s own purpose and goal. I’ve continued to be a member of psychology associations and to take an interest/have involvement in a work related capacity, though to a much more limited extent these days than before. I just see the goals as very different and when I study the Buddha’s Teachings, I leave this other baggage aside completely. 6. I see members join DSG with their pet baggage in science, philosophy, politics, other religions, Mahayana and so forth. I don’t believe any of these should be rejected or are worthless, but I do think it makes the task of really understanding the (Theravada) Teachings and Tipitaka much harder if one tries to integrate these other dearly-held ideas and beliefs or interests and continually compares them, rather than adopting a ‘clean-slate’ approach and open mind to these Teachings. 7. I don’t see this in anyway as suggesting that there should be an acceptance or belief in those aspects of the texts that one is uncomfortable with or which cannot be tested and proved at this time. Having just left aside so much other baggage, we’re bound to be cautious about any new collections after all. In my case, it was years before I had any interest in rebirth, kamma, nibbana, sense-door and mind-door processes or bhavanga cittas. No problem. Historical arguments about Buddhaghosa or the value of the Abhidhamma or blind faith in a teacher will not help one to understand. Gradually, however, right understanding and awareness do develop, having heard and considered a LOT about present realities. Slowly those other aspects of the Teachings make more sense without any forcing or blind acceptance in their own time. ***** Just looking over this note, Dharam, I’m hesitant about posting it, but I think you’ll know that I mean well even if you don’t agree. This is all in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there’s no ‘choice’ about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. Time for me to follow Christine’s example and ‘look inside’ first, I think......Oh, plenty of attachment to plenty of baggage...hmmm...;-( Metta and much appreciation for your excellent questions to us all. Sarah ====== --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: 20671 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom and all, Thank you for your clear explanation of your understanding of V. Buddhadassa's teaching on rebirth. I accept rebirth as the Theravada tradition teaches it, as a weary wandering-on unless/until we have the great good vipaka to be born within the Dispensation of a Buddha, hear the Dhamma and, and in one inexpressibly fortunate life, find deliverance. I agree with your point that "To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be?" CF: Certainly babies in our Special Care Nursery only a few days old differ from one another in personality. Some are placid and accepting, some are determined not to co-operate, some are strong willed and have 'attitude' already. So each is not a 'tabula rasa'; it is not *experience* that molds them - to a certain degree *what they already are* filters their experiences and molds their reactions. Thanks for the good reminders in this next paragraph Kom, I need to hear these points often. "> Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? > Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening > right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness > better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati > level is the same way as any other realities: they are > conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, > and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes > of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know > or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other > levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, > but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us > at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an > explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for > further development, and may very well lead us into the > wrong practices. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" 20672 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Hi Dharam, Let me add one of those quotes I referred to at least: .... > D: Why do *you* think giving to Buddhist saints is more meritorious > than commoners? ..... I’ve reflected about this before and my guess is thatit relates to the strength kilesa (defilements)involved. To give a very simple example. Let’s say Mrs X has a husband who returns home drunk, attacks her and so on, whereas Mrs Y’s husband is a saint. The provocation might be such in the first case that there is no pre-meditation, deceit or relatively extreme kilesa involved. It may even be an act of self-defence. In the case of the saint who has not provoked Mrs Y in anyway and led a blameless life, the heinous nature of the act is very apparent. In the Khuddakapatha (The Minor Readings), under ‘The Ten Training Precepts’, a lot of detail is given about the various permutations and kinds of killing with regard to: “The object, time, locality, The weapon, posture, and the kind Of act; these are the six that we Shall need to make ‘command’ defined.” PTS edition p24 “ ‘By blamability’: in the case of breathing things beginning with animals that are devoid of special qualities, killing of breathing things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of a small one and more blamable in the case of one with a large phsyical frame. Why? Because of the greater magnitude of the means (needed); and when the means are equal, (it depends) on the greater magnitude of the object, (namely, the breathing thing.) But in the case of human beings etc, endowed with special qualities, killing-breathing-things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of one with small special qualities; and when there is equality of special qualities and of the physical frame, then the lesser blamableness should be understood to reside in the (relative) mildness of the defilements and of the active process adopted, and the greater blamableness in their greater violence. So too with the rest. but unlike killing-breathing-things, etc (whose blamability varies,) the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink is always greatly blamable. Why? Because it obstructs the Noble Ones’True idea by inducing even madness in a human being. That is how the explanation should be known by blamability.” ***** Recently on the list the murder of Maha-Mogallana was discussed in detail and I think the obvious horrors of this particular murder (and the consequences) were very apparent. As James would say, if you don’t agree, that’s OK;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20673 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Thank you, Kom! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kom Tukovinit" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:45 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > Dear Ven. Dhammapiyo, > > I have moved the pictures into the Members folder. > > kom > 20674 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Hi Dharam, I picked out the wrong quote of yours for my last post, so it didn’t make sense. Let me repost it with another one and ask you to ignore the last post. ***** REPOSTING S: Let me add one of those quotes I referred to at least: .... D: “Why do *you* think killing an arahant is so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life? This seems to be a social insurance policy rather than profound scriptural truth, especially when the penalty is contrasted against that meted out to the King.” ..... I’ve reflected about this before and my guess is thatit relates to the strength kilesa (defilements)involved. To give a very simple example. Let’s say Mrs X has a husband who returns home drunk, attacks her and so on, whereas Mrs Y’s husband is a saint. The provocation might be such in the first case that there is no pre-meditation, deceit or relatively extreme kilesa involved. It may even be an act of self-defence. In the case of the saint who has not provoked Mrs Y in anyway and led a blameless life, the heinous nature of the act is very apparent. In the Khuddakapatha (The Minor Readings), under ‘The Ten Training Precepts’, a lot of detail is given about the various permutations and kinds of killing with regard to: “The object, time, locality, The weapon, posture, and the kind Of act; these are the six that we Shall need to make ‘command’ defined.” PTS edition p24 “ ‘By blamability’: in the case of breathing things beginning with animals that are devoid of special qualities, killing of breathing things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of a small one and more blamable in the case of one with a large phsyical frame. Why? Because of the greater magnitude of the means (needed); and when the means are equal, (it depends) on the greater magnitude of the object, (namely, the breathing thing.) But in the case of human beings etc, endowed with special qualities, killing-breathing-things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of one with small special qualities; and when there is equality of special qualities and of the physical frame, then the lesser blamableness should be understood to reside in the (relative) mildness of the defilements and of the active process adopted, and the greater blamableness in their greater violence. So too with the rest. but unlike killing-breathing-things, etc (whose blamability varies,) the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink is always greatly blamable. Why? Because it obstructs the Noble Ones’True idea by inducing even madness in a human being. That is how the explanation should be known by blamability.” ***** Recently on the list the murder of Maha-Mogallana was discussed in detail and I think the obvious horrors of this particular murder (and the consequences) were very apparent. As James would say, if you don’t agree, that’s OK;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20675 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:30am Subject: How are you? Dear James, I'm really sorry for the late letter. Thank you very much for your thoughtful answers to my questions. I fully understood what the monks are for, and what they do. You told me that the monks try their best to be the perfect humans. I also agree with your opinions about the ordinary peope that they can be really foolish. Recently, I learnt about the slavery in my Social Studies class. It was awful. I have another question. You said the monk's purpose is to live better than the normal people and they are the best people possible. But isn't it impossible for a person to be the best or perfect? How about the monks? I am curious :P From: Se Yeon 20677 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:37am Subject: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Dear James and everyone else: Thank you for answering my questions. I think all of you guys know that a lot of civilians and soldiers of both Iraq and the Allied Forces(U.S. and British) have died or injured in Combat. Do you have any Buddhist comments about war? Please give me all of your comments. Anyway, I have something I still do not get. (In this case, these are REAL questions, not a test, so you get it) 1. What is non-self? You always said that the thing only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! 2. I know that no one should be persuaded to believe in one certain religion. That happens the same way in Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism to other people? P.S. I am not trying to be rude. And everyone, please REPLY!!!!! Yours sincerelly Philip Chui 20678 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:46am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no. 9 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no. 9 If someone is not truthful in the practice that leads to the realization of the noble Truths, he will be attached to possessions, honour and fame; he will encourage others to follow a practice that does not lead to the eradication of defilements. Some people say that one should just practise and not study, that it is not necessary to have understanding of the Dhamma, whereas others say that one should first study and have understanding before one practises. Whom should we believe? We should consider ourselves what the right cause is that brings the appropriate effect. If we trust another person we should know for what reason. Is it because he is famous, or because he explains the right cause that brings the appropriate effect and is able to help people to have right understanding of the Dhamma? Truthfulness is the dhamma that enhances the arising and development of all kusala, because truthfulness is sincerity with regard to the eradication of defilements. When kusala does not arise and we realize that we are not sincere in the development of kusala, this can be a condition for its arising. When akusala arises we should be truthful so that sati sampajañña can be aware of the characteristic of akusala. In this way there are conditions for the abandoning of akusala and the development of kusala. The Bodhisatta developed in his daily life all kinds of kusala to a high degree, including very subtle and refined kusala. People who have not yet realized the noble Truths should follow in the Bodhisatta¹s steps. This means that one should develop all degrees of paññå with the aim to eradicate defilements. We should reflect on the daily life of the Bodhisatta before he attained Buddhahood. He was truthful in developing kusala with the aim to abandon and eradicate defilements. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², in the ³Miscellaneous Sayings², about the way of practice of the Bodhisatta during the time he was developing the perfections. If someone wants to realize the noble Truths, be he monk or layman, he should consider what practice he should follow so that he will realize the noble Truths, and he should be truthful and sincere in his practice. We read: He should work energetically for the welfare of beings, be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable, and should speak without deception. This is only a short phrase, but we can grasp the essence of it by considering it deeply and by applying it. In order to be able to apply these words, we should be patient with regard to what is desirable or undesirable. We read: He should speak without deception. He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion. Whatever causes suffering for beings, all that he should be ready to take upon himself; and he should rejoice in the merits of all beings. 20679 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:46am Subject: sila, samadhi, panna, no 3. some Pali. Dear Lars, I like to be corrected. I found the plural nibbattenti difficult. Here is the text again: > (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: Iti-siilanti eva.m-siila.m ettaka.m siila.m; ettha catu-paarisuddhi-siila.m siila.m. Such and such is sila (virtue), meaning, it is indeed sila, sila to that extent; here it is sila which are the four purities of sila. Citt¹ ek¹ aggataa samaadhi. Vipassanaa-pa~n~naa pa~n~naa ti veditabbaa. Samaadhi is concentration. Wisdom should be understood as insight wisdom (vipassana). Siila-paribhaavito ti aadisu yasmi.m siile .thatvaa va magga-samaadhi.m phala-samaadhi.m nibbattenti, eso tena siilena paribhaavito mahapphalo hoti mah¹aanisa.mso. As to the words, when it is fully developed by sila, this means, when he has abided in that sila etc., these produce concentration accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness; when this is fully developed by that sila it is of great fruit and of great benefit. Yamhi samaadhimhi .thatvaa magga-pa~n~na.m phala-pa~n~na.m nibbattenti, saa tena samaadhinaa paribhaavitaa mahapphalaa hoti mah¹ aanisa.msaa; When he has abided in this concentration, they produce wisdom accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and this, when it is fully developed by this concentration, is of great fruit, of great benefit. yaaya pa~n~naaya .thatvaa magga-citta.m phala-citta.m nibbattenti, ta.m taaya paribhaavita.m sammad-eva aasavehi vimuccati. When he has abided in this wisdom, they produce the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and thus when it is fully developed by this (wisdom) he is completely freed from the intoxicants. N: remarks. As we have seen sila includes much more than just the precepts. This whole text pertains to the person who is going to be an arahat, he eradicates all defilements. Thus, there must be vipassana from the beginning to the end, all along, also when he observes the four purities of sila, also when he is concentrated. Concentration is accompanying lokuttara citta as we see. This concentration can be of jhana, or not, depending on the person's accumulations. This does not mean that I understand this text completely. As I see it, this pertains to the arahat and the Buddha did not tell us beginners: first keep the precepts, then apply concentration, then vipassana. Nina. 20680 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:50am Subject: Non-self Dear KKT Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask those questions? Thank you, Ki Yong 20681 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Bhante, always good to meet you. :) As I said, I just joined. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute much. But I always like to learn Dhamma. Someone mentioned this group in another group, so here I am. These days there are many people online opinionating but are not able to back it up with Dhamma. So I would like to learn what the Buddha said :). Metta José "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote:Hello Jose! ;-) Guess who? 20682 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Hi Philip, ----- Original Message ----- > I think all of > you guys know that a lot of civilians and soldiers of > both Iraq and the Allied Forces(U.S. and British) have > died or injured in Combat. Do you have any Buddhist > comments about war? Please give me all of your > comments. As I understand it, the Buddha taught that deliberately killing or even harming sentient beings is simply always wrong. > Anyway, I have something I still do not get. (In this > case, these are REAL questions, not a test, so you get > it) > > 1. What is non-self? You always said that the thing > only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is > non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! If I understand it right, the Buddha taught that all the things people take for 'themselves'--their bodies, minds and so on--were not 'selves' at all. > 2. I know that no one should be persuaded to believe > in one certain religion. That happens the same way in > Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in > it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism > to other people? I don't--I just try to explain what little I know about Buddhdhamma if people are curious about it. By the way, I think that Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all the various religions called 'Buddhism'. > P.S. I am not trying to be rude. And everyone, please > REPLY!!!!! I didn't find your post rude at all, Philip. Nice to meet you. > Yours sincerelly > > Philip Chui mike 20683 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Mike, For my own curiousity, can you elaborate on what you mean by the statement you made (included below)? Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > ...SNIP... By the way, I think that > Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all > the various religions called 'Buddhism'. 20684 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:25am Subject: Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James and everyone else: > > Thank you for answering my questions. I think all of > you Hi Star Kid Philip! My goodness! What's the emergency?! LOL! I have other Star Kid letters to respond to before yours, but I am going to go ahead and respond now…or you may just call 911! ;-) I bet you are a real handful in the classroom and for your parents…but a constant amusement ;-). Okay, you ask, "Do you have any Buddhist comments about war? Please give me all of your comments." I am going to give you a few brief comments, which may or may not answer your questions, but this will be all I dare to say in this public forum about war. The Buddha himself, while enlightened, was perplexed about war and its causes. Yes, you heard me right…even the Lord Buddha was confused about war. One time he was thinking intensely, spreading the power of his mind out into all directions and all times to answer one question: Was it possible for there to be a good, world leader of men who didn't use force or coercion of the people? And you know what happened? He never got to an answer. Before he could answer a bad demon, by the name of Mara, who must have heard his thoughts, appeared and tried to convince the Buddha that he should give up being a monk and become a world leader. Mara told the Buddha that the Buddha could be a good leader just like he was wondering about. The Buddha dismissed Mara and gave up thinking about that subject. You can reach your own conclusions about what that means because the Buddha didn't say. In response to your other questions: 1.What is non-self? You always said that the thing only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! (Answer: Philip, you are really not going to be able to understand this fully with your everyday mind. You have to be enlightened to fully understand it. You can somewhat understand it, without being enlightened, but it won't be the real thing. Okay, rather than give you a written description, let me give you an example. Let's say that you are looking at a fascinating bug on the ground that you have never seen. You are really looking at it closely, trying to figure out what it is and watching it crawl; during times like those you can understand the most what it means to have no-self because at that time you have no self. You aren't thinking about `Philip', or what `Philip' thinks, or what `Philip' feels, etc., you are just thinking about that bug. In essence, for that brief time, you are that bug. The reason that happens is because there isn't anything permanent to `Philip', the mind only creates the illusion that a `Philip' exists at all. The mind creates this illusion over and over again, each second, and it causes suffering and wrong view. When you become enlightened, you realize this truth and realize that there is no self. When that happens, your mind will expand to know the whole universe. I don't know if this explains well enough, but I keep trying! :-) 2.I know that no one should be persuaded to believe in one certain religion. That happens the same way in Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism to other people? (Answer: Philip, I am sorry to tell you this, but preaching Christianity is trying to persuade other people to believe it. That is what the word `preaching' means…it means to persuade. No, Buddhists don't preach Buddhism…well, I do at times but that is because I get a little carried away! ;-) Buddhists only teach Buddhism to those who ask to learn about it, and they don't threaten `going to hell' for those who don't believe it (although there are some exceptions to that as well). Philip, if being Christian makes you happy and answers all of your questions about life, then by all means you should be Christian. The important thing is to treat other people, and yourself, nicely and with respect…what religion you believe or identify with is of secondary importance. Okay, I hope this answers your questions. Please, next time, don't demand immediate answers. I am not a fast food restaurant! ;-) You need to be patient like everyone else. Take care and study hard in school. Thank you for not giving me another test. ;-) Metta, James 20685 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters Hi Dharam, Please excuse the long delay. ----- Original Message ----- > The Buddha declared "I teach only suffering and the cessation of > suffering." > > Hi Mike et al (Kom, Victor, Howard, Sukin), > > In view of the lively concurrent discussions, I > would like to stipulate that I mean no disrespect to anyone, and > especially none to the Buddha. Specifically, my questions are just > attempts to understand your attitudes and viewpoints. Sure... > M: "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." "Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What > an amazing and unique insight." "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)." "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." > > D: I had offerred the solution to suffering, including > unsatisfactoriness of existence, as one common denominator. Well, on that level, I guess there are lots of common denominators between religions--good vs. evil and so on--as I said, though, I'm really not interested in religion at all (no offense!). > Yes, > what you point out may be unique to Buddhism. Each religion has > aspects that are unique, and none are completely similar. The > question however, is whether we should concentrate only on the > differences, at the expense of the similarities. Again, I'm not interested either in differences or in similarities between religions (or philosophies or whatever). > The answer > illuminates the parameters of understanding about what we are, what > the universe is, and myriad other mysteries. As above. > Let me repeat this > portion which is worth spending some thinking capital on: The > answer illuminates the parameters of understanding. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > M: "d:> 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. > > D: I have never found so much aversion to the word 'belief' as on > dsg!! I honestly haven't noticed this but of course can't answer for dsg at any rate. For myself, I wouldn't characterize my mistrust of 'beliefs' as aversion--just mistrust. > No, I do not mean blind faith, whatever that really > means. Theologicians of other religions would never admit 'blind > faith' either. Most intelligent believers, explore, test etc. yet > still have to accept a set of views, within set parameters, using a > certain terminology. Accepting what we cannot immediately verify > to be true, is my understanding of belief in this context. Take > Nibbana, is there or is there not belief in it? Take liberation, > is there or is there not belief in it? Belief is what we all > require to make sense of the immediately unknowable, to hold out a > construct that somehow lends order to the apparent chaos. > Coincidentally, it is the mother of all concepts!!! Now, if you > want to say you do not 'believe' that's okay with me, but I reserve > the right to wonder ;-). Well, I sort of believe in things like particles and waves and so on, but with a strong sense of the limitations of these concepts. The issue of 'belief' in general is just not a compelling one to me, I guess. As for Buddhadhamma, I find it a more plausible explanation of the nature of experience than anything else I've run across--that's all. I'm quite open to anything that explains it better, though. > M: ".......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..." > > D: Knowing for yourself, is a common motif of many religions. Once > we accept the basic premises, begin to 'believe' as it were, we begin > to 'know' within that construct. Maybe so--I really don't know much about religions. > M: "d:> 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. > > D: The view that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other > religions, seems to inhibit objective consideration of the latter. > I hope I am reading you correctly here, Mike. I wouldn't say "that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other religions", because (1) I don't see the four noble truths as a religion and (2) I don't see the absence of the four noble truths from religions as a view--I think this is simply a fact. Does awareness of a fact "inhibit objective consideration" of anything? Maybe so--in my case, the objective consideration of religions is inhibited mainly my my own habitual aversion to religion in general and a certain amount of general laziness, too. Mainly, I'm just not interested--sort of like history or a lot of other academic subjects. > M: I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. > > D: Now available on DVD - skilfully adapted I am told. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > M: d: > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" > A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of > Buddhadhamma > properly understood though, in my opinion. > > D: Really? The dialogue on Buddhaghosa just today may suggest > otherwise! Sorry, must've missed that part. > Of course the caveat of being properly understood, > would apply to all religions, presumably protecting any of their > believers from Cruel, irreligious piety. I'd have to defer to your superior knowledge of religions on this point. > M: "d:> 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. > > D: In the play, the refusal to identify with the other's point of > view, resulted in horrors beyond their imagination. The history of > religions gives ample examples of this phenomenon. By > understanding I mean more than perceiving the insults thrown back and > forth, the capabilities of the adversary etc. if that is what you > imply by conventional. I mean the ability to see oneself in the > shoes of the other. To have compassion for the other, not just > pity. Yes, compassion's always good (when real--it's sometimes counterfeit!), whether the person experiencing it is religious or not (in my opinion, of course). > M: 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). > > D: I apologize Mike. By saying the only focus of your endeavor, I > meant as in focussing your religious sense, rather than the totality > of life, if it is safe to make that distinction. As I guess is plain by now, I have no religious sense whatsoever. > I think that all > religions have the core of truth. Yes, that's what I thought you were getting at. I think of this as the theosophist or campbellist (for Joseph Campbell) view. > What then happens, is the onion- > like layering on of superstition, ritual, xenophobia, and most > importantly, misinterpretation. I also have no time for belief in > influencing events by petitions/supplications/penances, Here we agree (to this I would add ablutions, rituals and so on)... > none in > ghosts, devils, angels, heaven, hell etc. Some of these things are spoken of so often as though quite real in the discourses that I don't know what to think, to be honest. The materialist/atheist in me makes we want to reject them out of hand or regard them as myth/metaphor, but my respect for the Dhamma holds me back. Since I can't seem to resolve questions like these, I tend to set them aside for future consideration, when I might be better able to understand them. > This however, does not > give sufficient reason to reject the core teachings of most > religions. I really don't reject or accept them--I'm simply not interested. > I believe that each core provides a unique aspect of > truth and reality - parts of the mosaic of existence. I know what > I say is unconventional, but there you have it. Not so unconventional! Theosphists have been saying it for over a century, I think--and campbellism extremely common today, at least in the U.S. > M: Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble > truths? > > D: This illustrates the issue of parameters. Yes, I do > think/believe that "............" a.k.a 'unconditioned reality' > exists. I have no idea what 'unconditioned reality' is. To me, nibbaana refers to the end of rebirth. > Whether inside or outside of the 4NT, is a matter of view > and parameters, part of which I am trying to explore with you. Is > it safe to conclude that Nibbana is only achieved by the path taught > by the Buddha? I don't know of any other teaching that claims to lead to the end of rebirth. > M: 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....... > > D: I presume you mean that the preoccupations of everyone are just > proliferation. I am not sure that I can answer this intelligently > or accurately. All I can say is that billions are striving for > some experience of the unconditioned reality in their own ways, and I > personally cannot just ascribe that to a mental dead-end for all of > them. I do, in fact, think that proliferation, striving for some experience and so on--by no matter how many billions--are mental dead-ends. Of course I don't claim to know this for a fact. > M: d: > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? > Not quite sure what you mean here. > > D: This may require a whole separate response. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, this does NOT specifically apply to you, but is a general > question for contemplation by everyone: > > Do we run the risk of mana, by easily (or reactively) considering > other beliefs relatively inferior to our own? Certainly! Maana is a serious curse (speaking metaphorically, of course!)--'I' am assaulted by it countless (literally) times every hour of every day--and not just with regard to religions or Buddhadhamma. Priceless to know about maana and other unwholesome factors and to be able to recognize them occasionally. > It is indeed a pleasure to interact with you, Mike. My pleasure as always, Dharam. > I don't think > we are very distant at all in our general understanding. :) Still? > u.w. dharam u.w. mike 20686 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:55am Subject: RE: [dsg] Non-self Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn you up-front. When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are having, and your past impression about those experiences. This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as you run into something you don't like, you can become unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you can't make them come and go at will, do you own these feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their own conditions, they are non-self. This is also the same with other things you may think of being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all these things come and go at will, and they don't last forever. All of these things are non-self. It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a way that we can understand. The understanding of these questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist believe that the understanding will lead us toward the cessation of suffering. We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, are non-self. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:51 AM > To: dsg > Subject: [dsg] Non-self > > > > Dear KKT > > Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to > Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply > explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask > those questions? > > Thank you, Ki Yong > > 20687 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Hi Dave, ----- Original Message ----- > Mike, > > For my own curiousity, can you elaborate on what you mean by the > statement you made (included below)? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > > ...SNIP... By the way, I think that > > Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all > > the various religions called 'Buddhism'. Well--just generally, there are lots of different sects of 'Buddhism' out there, with lots of different beliefs and practices. By and large they seem to me (together and separately) to differ widely from what I read in the Pali tipitaka--which is what I take to be Buddhadhamma. Does this answer your question? mike 20688 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Sarah, thank you for the warm welcome :-) I live in Basel, right on the border to Germany and France. Metta José Sarah wrote:Hi Jose (& Dave), --- Jose Angel Lopez wrote: > > Hi, > I just joined. > My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. .... Thanks for introducing yourself and welcome from me to DSG too. Whereabouts do you live in Switzerland? We love hiking there. Please let us know anything you care to share about your interest in the Buddha’s Teachings and how you found your way here. The list is quite busy at the moment, so you may wish to pick and choose posts ‘til you are more familiar with the various threads. Let us know if you need any help. 20689 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: Hello everyone!!!!!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > I read all the mail that you all wrote to each other > and while reading the letters I got more interested in > Buddhism and monks. Before going on, I should first > introduce myself. > My name is Anne-Catherine and I'm 13 years old. I'm > Swiss-Canadian (from Quebec and Zurich). > I have some questions to ask. Hi Star Kid Anne-Catherine! I am glad that you are getting more interested in Buddhism and monks. My name is James Mitchell and I am from the United States (though my family heritage is Scottish). It is very nice to meet you. Let me answer your questions, which are all very good: Question: What do you understand under Buddhism and Gods? Answer: In the world there are two predominate types of religions: Monotheism and Polytheism. Monotheism is the belief that there is one supreme, ruler God who created and controls/influences everything; modern examples of this type of religion are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Polytheism is the belief that there are several gods which create everything and control/influence everything; modern examples of this type of religion are Paganism and Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't fall into either one of these categories specifically, although there are shades of both in Buddhism: Monotheism is comparable to Buddhist `Karma' and Polytheism is comparable to Buddhist `God Realms', but they are not exactly like them, only somewhat. Question: And would you like to join the Buddhism religion? Why? Answer: I am already a member of the Buddhist religion and I am so because it suits me best of all the other religions. Question: Last year I went to Myanmar and I saw young monks, really children, who were each carrying a big bowl. Do you know what they do with it, do they collect money or food? Answer: Young monks are really cute aren't they? ;-) Anyway, that big bowl they were carrying is called an `Alms Bowl'. It is used to collect food, NEVER money. They are to collect food from the people, once per day, and eat out of that bowl. That bowl and their robes are their only possessions. It is a very special bowl and has a lot of rules that go along with it. One pretty cute rule is that monks are not supposed to hide each other's bowls as a joke…as those young monks you saw might be tempted to do! ;-). Question: Is it for them or for other people? Answer: That bowl is for them. The Buddha said that monks could give food to other ascetics (monks from other religions) but never directly from their own bowl. They are to leave it on the ground in a different container or on a palm leaf. Thank you for your questions Anne-Catherine and I am sorry it took someone so long to reply, but I am glad that you go some answers. Take care and I hope you do well in school. Metta, James 20690 From: bodhi342 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:38am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Sarah, Thanks for your thoughtful message. I do appreciate your intention for compassionately analyzing and solving what you perceive is my problem. I always feel that talking about myself is an unecessary imposition on others, but in this case, you raise important issues that should be explored. Hopefully these will be of some value to others. S: ....and hope that in so doing I don't cause any offence or add to any sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. D: If I appear frustrated, it is because I believe standard answers do not always help us gain insight into complex issues. There is too much room for 'wrong' assumptions to be left untested, when we regurgitate standard answers in general. Additionally, there is also a lost opportunity when a standard answer is given to a question that is aiming to explore a specific area. This loss is both for the questioner, and the answerer. [I say this from personal experience trying to teach/learn-from intelligent young adults.] Let us take notice of the Buddha's method - he could easily have given the standard answer to almost any question asked of him related to Dukkha, and its solution. Let us reflect on why he chose to tailor the answer to the question, and to the questioner.... I must admit to mild disappointment that 'exploration' is too often based on who can quote the best sutta, rather than the more messy and laborious working through on first-principles. Truth, IMHO, is not something to be placed on an alter, with us bowing intellectually, and being seen to be bowing intellectually towards. Truth is to be picked up, felt, prodded, kneaded, and ultimately incorporated into one's being [anatta notwithstanding ;-) ], IF it passes those tests. And what if not? Then, respect the other opinion on its value, and revisit later. The essence of those tests is unrelenting honesty and just skepticism. Just my opinion. This attitude may be wrong, but it sure makes the adventure of understanding markedly more rewarding and humbling. Finally, the ability to transmit one's understanding is important. Here, Erwin Schrodinger's words ring out like a bell: "If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless." Try transposing the word 'thinking' in the place of 'doing', if you like. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of course): - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha's Teachings are superior to other Teachings - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are `unique' in path and goal - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings or to followers of other Teachings - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were prevalent before the Buddha's time - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory D: These may be points that I suggest, but keep in mind the method of inquiry. The method of questioning is not to justify one position over another. It is to explore together, and either convince or be convinced, or neither as the case may be. The method, is to shed light on areas that may have been overlooked, are causing pause, or seem inconsistent. I would expect most of you to indeed suggest that the Buddha's teachings are superior, otherwise A) why would you be here; and B) why would I come to you for learning? The next step, however, is to consider if that assumption is correct. This is emotionally too difficult for most to even consider, and it is not my intention to stress anyone. Paradoxically, it requires relinquishing of 'self- importance'. Yes, you are suggesting these Teachings are unique in path (and I agree); and goal (I am trying to explore that with you); same paradox as above also applies here; We know that kamma was understood before the Buddha's time. My question, however, is specific to the reiteration that now includes Buddhist hierarchies: and not meant to highlight, for example, the Hindu way of approaching this concept. I do not come into your living rooms to convert you, or to champion any other religion - I hope you understand this clearly. If it makes any difference I am not a Hindu. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me now summarize your carefully, and sympathetically, worded points, and hope I get what you are saying accurately: You assume that my 'problem' is related to baggage - which means the reluctance to relinquish cherished beliefs, in this instance. I cannot psychoanalyze myself very well. Having said that, let me tell you what is at the conscious level. Baggage connotes a negative heavy burden. Yet, what are we without our baggage? We assume we can abandon our baggage, but this is not easy without some degree of depersonalization. I have never regarded my own or any else's beliefs/assumptions etc. in this way. Ignorance is admixed with knowlege, the process of clarification requires effort to sort and winnow, not wholesale dumping. This again is an issue of view and parameter, and ultimately belief. BTW is it easy to dump 'accumulations'? ;-) This is also partly why I raised the issue of disillusionment. What is it that causes people to want to dump whole portions of their beings? Dukkha is no doubt the ultimate answer. Seems a shame, so much wasted - effort, time, comforts, relationships on and on. You can tell by now that I prefer repair to replacement!! More..... ecologically sound ;-). This depends on the surgeon one chooses to correct the deformity. Next, I have already mentioned in another thread that I have no significant feeling of disillusionment, but am striving for dis~illusion~ment. I came to you honestly, trying to learn. I do not come seeking refuge, shelter, help, support. Ergo, depersonalization seems too high a price to pay. That may be different for others who are more (I hesitate).... desperate. There, abandoning baggage may seem a good option, at first sight of difficulty. One wonders if the Buddha only got converts by similarly insisting on irretrievably checking baggage for newcomers. Difficult to tell after so long, but most 'newcomer' religions poach on believers, rather than non-believers. ;-) Therefore, it is likely that he taught redirection rather than erasing as an initial step. This speculation is beyond my pay grade. As far as "clean slate" is concerned, I take it to mean coming to a new understanding without too many presumptions about its own methods, ethos, aims etc. I sincerely hope I do that. If, however, by 'clean slate' you mean, tabula rasa of the mind, the arguments above will apply. I think Sukin may attest, that I have always tried to understand, engage etc. with what he was trying to tell me. The fact that I do not fully 'get' it, should not necessarily indicate that I do not try hard enough or try to be objective enough. I could be that it just does not ring true. Sukin and I have discussed these issues before using the analogy of bridges. What you are saying is that I should jump without knowing where I will land, and assuming there is no bridge to the place where I am now at. In other words, take what you say as Truth, even if all is not yet revealed. All prior truth is not only subordinated, but relinquished forever. Is jumping courage or foolishness or desperation or sufficiently accumulated insight? Somehow, at this age, I go for bridges. Sarah, if it was a sun-worshipper telling you to take the plunge, would you? What their scripture says is indeed true. However, is that the totality of Truth? You may perhaps see why I approach "I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering." in a different way than you do. There is no denying what he says, but to me the issue is larger, for you the issue is settled. This may sound like blasphemy, to even suggest that there could be anything larger than what the Buddha teaches or had knowledge of. This again is a matter of view, parameters and belief. No offense is intended, but in case it is perceived, one has to ask, 'Why is one offended?' What attachment, what clinging is involved? These are other examples of serious questions that may not have been asked. If I ask them, is it so simple as my own baggage operating here? The alternate question may be "Whose baggage is more burdensome?" (No need to answer, gentle Sarah.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Just looking over this note, Dharam, I'm hesitant about posting it, but I think you'll know that I mean well even if you don't agree. This is all in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. D: I am very glad you posted it. Disagreeing does not have to be disagreeable. I know you mean well, I hope you know that I mean well too. We go about it in different ways. What you say about recognition of attachment is absolutely true, and should be one of the central preoccupations of pursuing "..............". All light comes from "................". It is when we turn away, that we see the shadow of our own egos. I have learnt a great deal from you, Nina, Mike, RobK, Jon, Larry et al, and last, but not in any way least, Sukin. It is time now to move on. I thank you for your patience, compassion, effort, time and humor. I wish all of you anumodana. May your pursuit be fruitful. u.w. dharam 20691 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I appreciate and understand your apology. I think I come across on DSG as too critical and judgemental sometime. I would need to soften the tone in my messages. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > I would like to apologize for the tone of this message. It is written out > of certain assumptions which aren't true. I think we could have gotten more > useful discussions out of this topic, but I think I have botched it. > > Perhaps I will do better in the future. > > kom 20692 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sarah and Dharam, Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you are one who truly reflect the spirit of the word 'metta', or something to the effect. I wanted to say some of the things you said here, but found it hard to do, as I guess I am one person who has boldly stated concerning the exclusivity of the buddhadhamma in holding the Truth. Dharam I hope you take Sarah's letter in good spirit even though it may be that as she says, "Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' about what baggage to bring or not bring." But. "Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the other hand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom." Since we are at it and hoping that I do not spoil anything with my bold assertions, I'd like to add a few thoughts. As you know I am inclined against any type of formal practice and the following of rites and rituals, I want to express in this regard my appreciation for the teachings of Guru Nanak the founder of Sikh religion. He like Krishnamurti another person that I admire, is against the idea of following any 'fixed' activity with the idea of attaining purity and wisdom. In fact i believe that Krishnamurti was influenced very much by Theravada teachings as a young man. Also I have heard that Guru Nanak went around India and the Middle East collecting teachings from various wisdom traditions, so maybe he too came in contact with Buddhism?! But maybe not. Anyway, both still held the belief in a 'self' in some form or the other. And I believe, this does ultimately lead to the idea of 'control' and the need to 'do' certain things in relation to this 'self'. Mike has just said in one of his posts, that he distinguishes between Buddhism and Buddhadhamma. I agree with him. In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not believe that the so called enlightened masters of the Tibetan tradition and the Zen one's are so. I suggested to you Dharam, as an important starting point, to distinguish between concepts and reality. I do not believe that anyone who does not and cannot make this distinction can be considered enlightened. Krishnamurti, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism and all other religions believe in understanding *this* present moment. But all these are incapable of making this very important distinction, and so their "present moment" is nothing but a *projected* one. Dharam, for this same reason I asked you to seriously read and respond to Nina's "what is dhamma", she is the wisest amongst us. I find myself appreciating her posts more deeply as time goes by. Once you begin to understand to make this distinction between what is really the object of experience and what is not, but that which we often mistake as a reality, you will begin to appreciate why we all believe that Satipatthana is the only way to wear away and ultimately eradicate ignorance, which is enlightenment. You may also start to see why some of us, do not believe that deliberate practice is the way to this end. We need to be familiar with whatever appears at the moment, and turning one's attention to a conventional activity such as meditation, is avoiding and ignoring what naturally arises and being sidetracked by the importance we give to those activities. We become familiar with gross manifestations of realities, this is done with a corresponding level of panna. In the beginning the ignorance is very "thick". When sati arises, ignorance does not, so each time sati and panna arises, we become more intimate with these realities. As intimacy grows finer and finer manifestations of characteristic become known, first the individual and unique characterisic, later the general one common to all realities, namely the tilakkhana. The idea of putting ones mind into noticing rise and fall may well be an act of ignorance. Intention does not do that job, sati and panna does. Panna has to grow slowly through being intimate, that is the only way. In a day, ignorance manifest every second, dosa and especially lobha leads every activity we are involved in. But this is not a big problem, as long as there are seeds for it, we have to accept it. The added problem which I would not like to see and which I consider worse, is wrong practice associated with wrong view. So Dharam, I hope you now have a better idea why I at least, believe that Satipatthana is the only way and Buddhadhamma being the only religion teaching it, must be the only one with enlightened disciples. And why this conviction does not necessarily condition conceit or seeing that Buddhism is superior to other religions. My object is right view not the glory of buddhism. But I do understand why outsiders would see differently. Like Sarah, I too feel a some hesitation in sending this post, but I'll do it anyway, hoping that I will be able to mend any damage done. Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dharam. > > I was about to start quoting from texts on one or two points you and > RobertK are discussing, but on reflection have decided to address another > issue and hope that in so doing I don't cause any offence or add to any > sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. > > Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of > course): > > - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha's Teachings are superior to > other Teachings > - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are `unique' in path and > goal > - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings > or to followers of other Teachings > - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were > prevalent before the Buddha's time > - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, > b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory > **** > Rather than discuss any of these points (other than to say I hear you;-)), > I'd like to just make a few comments in point form: > > 1. We all come to the Dhamma with our own set of baggage collected over a > long time. Perhaps it's rather like moving into a house - we may move into > identical houses, but we all have to accommodate our various collections > of furniture, books, clothes and assorted `toys'. > > 2. When some people move house, they're able to ruthlessly throw out > previous collections and baggage and start afresh. Others have a harder > time and the new house may even end up having to fit into the old > baggage;-). Still others can never move, because the necessary weeding out > is just too painful. > > 3. Usually, I think, the most successful house moves are those in which > the new house is approached as something akin to a clean slate without any > looking back or comparing or trying to accomodate past baggage that > doesn't fit. > > 4. When I first became seriously interested in Buddhism, I had a certain > amount of Christian baggage remaining, but mostly that had been left > behind from an earlier move. More serious was the few years of training in > psychology, much of which I wished to bring along, especially when it came > to the Abhidhamma. Both Nina and Khun Sujin greatly encouraged me > indirectly to adopt the `clean slate' approach and this advice has always > been invaluable to me. > > 5. It doesn't mean that one's other baggage, i.e > interest/religion/philosopy/work/social perspective, is of no value. It > has it's own value and it's own purpose and goal. I've continued to be a > member of psychology associations and to take an interest/have involvement > in a work related capacity, though to a much more limited extent these > days than before. I just see the goals as very different and when I study > the Buddha's Teachings, I leave this other baggage aside completely. > > 6. I see members join DSG with their pet baggage in science, philosophy, > politics, other religions, Mahayana and so forth. I don't believe any of > these should be rejected or are worthless, but I do think it makes the > task of really understanding the (Theravada) Teachings and Tipitaka much > harder if one tries to integrate these other dearly-held ideas and beliefs > or interests and continually compares them, rather than adopting a > `clean-slate' approach and open mind to these Teachings. > > 7. I don't see this in anyway as suggesting that there should be an > acceptance or belief in those aspects of the texts that one is > uncomfortable with or which cannot be tested and proved at this time. > Having just left aside so much other baggage, we're bound to be cautious > about any new collections after all. In my case, it was years before I had > any interest in rebirth, kamma, nibbana, sense-door and mind-door > processes or bhavanga cittas. No problem. Historical arguments about > Buddhaghosa or the value of the Abhidhamma or blind faith in a teacher > will not help one to understand. Gradually, however, right understanding > and awareness do develop, having heard and considered a LOT about present > realities. Slowly those other aspects of the Teachings make more sense > without any forcing or blind acceptance in their own time. > ***** > Just looking over this note, Dharam, I'm hesitant about posting it, but I > think you'll know that I mean well even if you don't agree. This is all > in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other > realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' > about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a > little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new > baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it > can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. > > Time for me to follow Christine's example and `look inside' first, I > think......Oh, plenty of attachment to plenty of baggage...hmmm...;- ( > > Metta and much appreciation for your excellent questions to us all. > > Sarah > ====== > > --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > > it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: > 20693 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:48am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Dharam, I composed my last post off-line, so I did not see this. I have yet to read this post of yours, but I am sure my response would have been different if I had read it before. Hope you understand and don't mind. Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your thoughtful message. I do appreciate your intention 20694 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:33pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you are Hi Sukin, These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false views about Buddhist practice and reality. You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is no `you', right? Please...you have taken a subtle and profound teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. Metta, James 20695 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every > second. In amongst them, we experience illusory > realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we > don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. > > (James: First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the > ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many > and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) Not > only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say > that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing > as a second. Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts > in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably > during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to > meditate. > > ____________________--- Dear James, Are you sure that a citta lasts? Also could you provide any references that the frequency varies during meditation - or any other activity. RobertK 20696 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:05pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear James, and all, I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no doubt other beginners. Members of this group have provided me with the clearest explanation of reality and truth, and stated this is as the Buddha taught it. Always whenever there were doubts or questions, they have said "Check with the Tipitaka, check with the Teachings of the Blessed One". I am aware of some difference between formal meditators and those who see the Teachings as not requiring sitting meditation, but mostly both groups seem to agree on things like 'the present moment', 'watching what arises at the sense doors', 'knowing the difference between realities and concepts', and 'the difference between nama and rupa'. I do not understand your constant vehement opposition. I wonder if you could give some Sutta references regarding the statements in your post to Sukin - otherwise it may seem to some to be just your own view? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you > are > > Hi Sukin, > > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. > > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? Please...you have taken a subtle and profound > teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a > caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have > intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you > can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20697 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:41 AM > > Hi Kom, > > I appreciate and understand your apology. I think I come across on > DSG as too critical and judgemental sometime. I would need to soften > the tone in my messages. > > Regards, > Victor I appreciate your note. The assumption I had relates to my perception of how you responded to messages, which is off from how your responded recently. Something you posted that I appreciated: "I don't think having a shrine room is really important first step for a person struggling to understanding Buddhism and the expectations of it. I do think it is very important to distinguish what the teaching of the Buddha is and what it is not." "I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a wholesome practice." "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." or your starting the conversation on seclusion, contentment, and modesty. kom 20698 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, and all, > > I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin > for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived > expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. > This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no > doubt other beginners. Hi Christine, Well, this is a rather personal post to me for the whole world to read! ;-) Okay, since we are going to make this an open discussion, which is more in fitting with a true sangha anyway (but will drive the moderators bananas ;-), I will let you know my complete thoughts. The only reason I oppose Sukin's post so vehemently is because he is a very smooth, manipulative communicator; thus you wanted to send him a post of congratulations, when you are not even sure if what he wrote was accurate or not. You want me to give evidence from the Tipitaka to support the superiority of meditation practice over everyday mindfulness. Have you lost your mind? That is absolutely ridiculous. Christine, anyone who states that they are a Buddhist, but opposes meditation, isn't really a Buddhist. They are a Vedic/Hindu in Buddhist clothing. Practially every statue of the Buddha shows him in meditation...that is how he achieved enlightenment...he taught the technique of meditation in several suttas...he would meditate to provide an example for his monks...just how obvious does it need to get?!? Geez! I know I may appear like `Simon' on `American Idol' at times ;-), but, darn it, some things need to be stated as they are! I don't think it is so important to worry about temporary hurt feelings when the truth is at stake. I am only interested in discussing the truth and the means to the truth, nothing else. As far as the new members, or the old members, or the teenage members;-), they can think for themselves. Maybe this is my opinon. So what? The question is: Is my opinon truth or not? That is for you to decide. Take care. Metta, James 20699 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear James, > Are you sure that a citta lasts? Also could you provide any > references that the frequency varies during meditation - or any other > activity. > RobertK Hi Robert K, Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was humoring you. Metta, James 20700 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 4:10pm Subject: Re: Non-self Dear Star Kid Ki Yong, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: Dear KKT Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask those questions? Thank you, Ki Yong KKT: The teaching of << non-self >> is fantastic because it is exclusively Buddhist. You don't find such a teaching in any other religions. To << simply >> explain this teaching, first you have to understand what is the meaning of << self >> There are two main meanings: __The metaphysical self: This is what people usually call << soul >> in many religions. The Hindus call it Atman, Jiva. People believe that inside themselves there is something substantial, permanent, eternal, unchanging, independent, self-existent. The Hindus believe that this self reincarnates from one lifetime to another. According to Buddhism, there is no such self !!! Because such self does not exist, we don't need to bother talking about it, OK? :-)) __The empirical self: This is what you experience as the feeling or sensation or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> It is also called the << ego >> And this is precisely this self that the Buddha talked a lot in so many of His sermons. He said that this << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> is the main cause of man's suffering! You suffer because you have this feeling and you make others suffer also because of this feeling of yours :-)) The Buddha also said that this feeling is not real. It is just an illusion! You might ask me now: "Why do I suffer because of this feeling? I don't see clearly the relation between this feeling and my suffering?" :-)) You know why? Because this feeling << SEPARATES >> ! This << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> separates << me >> from all that is << not me >> It distinguishes << me >> from << not me >> It divides one man from another man. It is the root of what is called selfishness. Because of this exclusive thinking about yourself, all your activities are self-centered. All your pursuits in life are for << your >> own pleasure! And you suffer if they are not fulfilled. And in fulfilling those pursuits, if others stand on your route as obstacle, you can even << destroy >> them! :-)) Take the example of war. You see clearly that war is the result of greed (lobha), anger (dosa), delusion (moha) of man. They are called the three poisons. They are the core of the ego! War is also the result of people's identification. They identify themselves as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc, as Iraqi, American, French, Chinese, etc. Those identifications separate man from man. And those are also a characteristic of the ego. Now you might ask whether one can uproot this << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> ? And is it easy to << drop >> this feeling? The answer is Yes and No :-)) In Mahayana Buddhism, they distinguish two kinds of ego: __The ego resulting from the conditionings one receives in this lifetime from school, family, society. One example is the above identification. One is << conditioned >> to be Iraqi, American, Chinese, etc, to be nationalistic, patriotic. Another example is that one is conditioned by this actual highly competitive society to achieve success at any price in life. You must be the best ! :-)) Money, position, knowledge, wealth, fame are decorations of the ego, the marks of the fulfilment of the ego :-)) This kind of ego is not difficult to be rid of. Just << seeing >> & contemplating deeply its silliness, its harmfulness it causes to oneself and to others to be able to take a firm decision to get rid of it ! __The ego that follows ourselves through innumerable lifetimes from a beginningless time. You can observe this ego in small babies. They have already ego :-)) This ego is very subtle :-)) It is the feeling or thought << I AM >>, the sensation of << EXISTENCE >> The craving (tanha) for existence is its fuel. It is what Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum (Je pense, donc je suis I think, therefore I am :-)) This ego is very difficult to rid of. This ego is like a clothes-hanger on which hang our defilements (kilesa) and fetters :-)) It takes many lifetimes to << drop >> this ego and once it were achieved you'd be an Arahat, ie. a liberated-one :-)) Best wishes, KKT HAPPY IS THE MAN WHO IS NOTHING 20701 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Way 68, Clear Comprehension 4 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 4. Clear comprehension in wearing the shoulder cloak and so forth. p. 89 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.htm Here, from the foregoing, clear comprehension of the suitable and the non-suitable should be understood; as the holding fast to the line of meditative thought, by way of the non-abandoning of the line of contemplation which the commentator is going to state [vakkhamana kammatthanassa avijahana vasena], clear comprehension of resort should be understood. Within there is nothing called a soul that robes itself. According to the method of exposition adopted already, only by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity does the act of robing take place. The robe has no power to think and the body too has not that power. The robe is not aware of the fact that it is draping the body, and the body too of itself does not think: "I am being draped round with the robe.," Mere processes clothe a process-heap, in the same way that a modelled figure is covered with a piece of cloth. Therefore, there is neither room for elation on getting a fine robe nor for depression on getting one that is not fine. [Tika] Within. In one's own mental flux [abbhantareti attano santane]. [T] Body too. Body too is only an ego-concept [kayapiti atta paññatti matto kiyopi]. [T] I = Karma produced body [ahanti kamma bhuto kayo]. [T] Processes = External processes called robes [civara sankhata bahira dhatuyo]. [T] Process-heap = The internal process-collection called the body [dhatu samuhanti kaya sankhatam ajjhattikam dhatu samuham]. Some honor an ant-hill where a cobra de capello lives, a tree-shrine, and so forth, with garlands, perfumes, incense, cloth, and similar things. Others maltreat these objects. Ant-hill, tree-shrine and the like are, however, neither elated by the good nor depressed by the bad treatment. Just in the same way there should be no elation on receiving a good robe or depression on getting a bad one. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, in this connection, as the proceeding of reflective thought, in this way. And in using the bowl, clear comprehension of purpose should be understood, by way of the benefit obtainable through the action of one who takes the bowl unhurriedly and thinks: "Going out to beg with this I shall get alms." [T] With the seeing of the purpose, the obtaining of food, should the bowl be taken by one. In this way indeed does clear comprehension of purpose arise. To one with a lean body which is weak a heavy bowl is not suitable. And not suitable is a damaged bowl that is tied with thread and stopped in four or five places and hard to wash properly. A bowl that is hard to wash well, certainly, is not fit. There will be inconvenience caused to him who washes that kind of bowl. [T] A bowl that is hard to wash well: This was said concerning a bowl difficult to wash properly, naturally, though it may be without mends. A bright bowl which shines like a gem and therefore is capable of stimulating the cupidity of others is not suitable for the same reasons given in regard to robes of silk, fine hemp and so forth. Just irreversibly unsuitable are the bowl acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the bowl by which good decreases and evils increase. Through this explanation, clear comprehension of suitability in this connection should be understood. And by the fact even of the holding fast to the subject of meditation should clear comprehension of resort be understood. Within there is nothing called a self that is taking the bowl. As stated already, by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, there is the taking of the bowl. In this matter of taking the bowl, the bowl cannot think. Hands too cannot think. The bowl does not cognize that it is taken by the hands. Hands do not cognize that the bowl is taken by them. Just processes take a process-heap. It is comparable to the taking of a red-hot vessel with a pair of tongs. By way of the proceeding of reflective thought in this way, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood in bowl-taking. And further, it is like this: When kindly people see, in a refuge for the helpless, unfortunate persons, with hands and feet cut off, and with blood, pus, and many maggots in the open wounds, and give to the unfortunate persons bandages and medicine in containers, some of the miserable sufferers in the refuge may get thick bandages and containers not shapely; others may get thin bandages and shapely containers. None of the sufferers will feel elated or depressed about the kind of bandages and containers they receive. That is because they merely want cloth to cover their wounds and containers for keeping medicine. Now, the bhikkhu who regards the robe as a bandage, the bowl as a medicine-container, and alms-food as medicine in the bowl, through clear comprehension of non-delusion should be taken as a person endowed with the highest clear comprehension. [T] A person endowed with the highest clear comprehension should be known by way of the discernment of fineness of the characteristic activity of one possessed of the highest clear comprehension and by way of the highest state of the previous practicers of clear comprehension. 20702 From: smallchap Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:23pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, >In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened >individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not .. --------------- So you believe that there are enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha? smallchap 20703 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Hi Robert K, > Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was > humoring you. > Metta, James ________ Dear James, Citta is a common term in the Tipitaka. For instance I opened the first sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya and in the first paragraph it comes up twice (and many more times during the sutta): Nàham bhikkhave annam ekaråpampi samanupassàmi, yam evam purisassa CITTAM pariyàdàya tiññhati. Yathayidam bhikkhave itthirupam. Itthirupam bhikkhave purisassa CITTAM pariyàdàya tiññhatãti. (Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man.) ------------ JAMES:<>>: Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts > in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably > during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to > meditate. __________ "Bhikkhus, I see no other single Thing more susceptible to rapid change as the Mind(citta). It is no easy thing, Bhikkhu's to describe how quickly the Mind (citta) changes." Anguttara 1's,48 RobertK 20704 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> > Hi Robert K, > > > Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was > > humoring you. > > Metta, James > ________ > Dear James, > Citta is a common term in the Tipitaka. For instance I opened the > first sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya and in the first paragraph it > comes up twice (and many more times during the sutta): Robert, You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used in the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often they occur per second, and I will then apologize. Metta, James 20705 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <(and many more times during the sutta): > > Robert, > > You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used in > the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the > suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often they > occur per second, and I will then apologize. > > Metta, James _________ Dear James, I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls together with citta: The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." Robert K 20706 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <(and many more > times during the sutta): > > > > Robert, > > > > You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used > in > > the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the > > suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often > they > > occur per second, and I will then apologize. > > > > Metta, James > _________ > Dear James, > I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > together with citta: > The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > Robert K Hi Robert, This is interesting (hmmm...I wonder what a koti is?), but it is from the commentary to a sutta. Again, not the words of the Buddha. Metta, James 20707 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:56pm Subject: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi RobertK & James, “Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change as the mind : insomuch that it is no easy thing to illustrate how quick to change it is.” AN, Bk of Ones, (i-10) “Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk indulges a thought of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk...”AN, Bk of Ones, The finger-snap. ***** You may wish to review Dan’s message to Erik, discussing SN ii,95. (All these passages are also discussed in the Kathavatthu, Points of Controversy, PTS p125). Perhaps it’s enough to know to agree that cittas change very fast - no need to count;-). Other posts on the same thread can also be reviewed.... Dan: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5645.html Metta, Sarah p.s mentioning Erik’s name reminds me that he sends his best wishes to everyone. He’s in Bangkok briefly before heading back to New York to find work. He and Eath have a healthy baby;-) =============================== R:> Dear James, > I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > together with citta: > The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > Robert K 20708 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi Sarah and All, I looked in the useful posts and I don't see any discussion of how the Abhidhamma defines time. However, there is a book titled 'Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time' by: Nyanaponika Thera,Nyanaponika,Bhikkhu Bodhi. Have you read it? How does this book define time? Metta, James 20709 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi, Sarah ( and James, and Robert, and Erik! [if you still get list email] ) - In a message dated 3/28/03 1:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi RobertK &James, > > “Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change > as the mind : insomuch that it is no easy thing > to illustrate how quick to change it is.â€? AN, Bk of Ones, (i-10) > > “Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk indulges a thought > of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk...â€?AN, Bk of Ones, The > finger-snap. > ***** > You may wish to review Dan’s message to Erik, discussing SN ii,95. (All > these passages are also discussed in the Kathavatthu, Points of > Controversy, PTS p125). Perhaps it’s enough to know to agree that cittas > change very fast - no need to count;-). Other posts on the same thread can > also be reviewed.... > Dan: > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5645.html > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s mentioning Erik’s name reminds me that he sends his best wishes to > everyone. He’s in Bangkok briefly before heading back to New York to find > work. He and Eath have a healthy baby;-) > =============================== > R:> Dear James, > >I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > >commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > >For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > >vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > >together with citta: > >The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > >no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > >it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > >Robert K > > ========================== Yes, the Buddha frequently wrote in the suttas that mind changes very quickly. But, AFAIK, he didn't discuss precisely the rate in any sutta. Saying that a thought of good will lasts for only a fingersnap was about the closest to quantifying how long specific objcts of mind remained. But more to the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having indicated anywhere in any sutta that mindstates or perceptual states occurred as discrete quanta. This seems to appear only in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. And that stikes me as odd. Frankly, I think it likely that the compliers of the Abhidhamma took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of mindstate, and came up with a concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment to which they applied a general word for mind, 'citta' (much like 'nama'), in a new and innovative (or, if one wishes, distorted) way. I personally find the use of 'citta' for a state of mind which arises on any occasion that either a new object of dicernment arises or the set of mental functions concomitant to the discerning of that object changes by the loss/gain/replacement of one member function to be a useful and reasonably well defined one. Likewise, defining the sequence of mindstates spanning the complete existence of an object of discernment as a 'process' also has great appeal to me. I like both of these, because I am a mathematician, and such things appeal to me. However, I have no reason to assume that these things exist as separate, discrete phenomena. It may well be that "the edges are fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things really are is much more of a fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one way, maybe the other. But, so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of this in the suttas. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20710 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:18pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi James, Thanks for your letter. I was expecting to receive a response such as this one day. I know I have been stating quite boldly against formal practice that I felt that it must not feel too pleasant to read it for someone who believes in it. A couple of months ago I wrote a little bit suggesting the same attitude on another list, but soon after I decided never to do it again since most members on that list engaged in formal practice. Here on dsg it is different, so I sometimes take advantage of the situation, even though I also wonder if I am not making the moderators feel uneasy ;-). My response is interspersed between yours. > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. I think it is easy to be 'stuck in a web of false view' because there is still so much ignorance and yearning for security of one form or the other. If it is not in wealth, company or some idealistic activity, then it is very likely be on some conclusions we make about the nature of reality. It is hard to have an attitude of detachment even a little bit let alone every step of the way towards ultimate liberation. My views are mostly based on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, but slowly confidence grows as I reflect on what has been heard, all seeming more true as compared to other interpretations. But if you say that my expressed views are not what the Buddha taught, please let me know what the correct views are. > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? I think we both agree that there is no 'self' behind even intention, so lets not bring this up. My point is intention can be either kusala or akusala depending on the accompanying mental factors. Having the intention of doing good, have metta, grow in understanding or to attain final liberation does not automatically make it kusala. Most of mankind has such aspirations, how many reach the goal? I think we are so conditioned by such concepts as love, compassion, doing good, liberation etc, that we become captivated by the mere 'thinking' about them. And there is so much identification with these 'good' qualities, that we often think wishing to actualize them as being 'enough' motivating factor. Of course there are varying degrees supported by varying views of each person's own religious philosophy, but "conscious intention" still seems to be the main motivating force. My favourite quote by Rob K. from Thein Nyun, >>"Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions.<< This gives me an idea of how hard it is to independently arive at the truth of anatta. And how necessary it is to have heard the teachings before in previous lifetimes. We are caught in the above process, our intuition is to pursue further in the same direction until the answer has been got. This is the path the Buddha took before he attained enlightenment, but he realized because previous accumulations, that this was not the direction to take. He did not go beyond jhana in the same direction, he simply realized that he had been looking in the wrong way. I know this is speculative, but it shows the difference in view as compared to those people who conclude that Buddha "sat" so we also must "sit". Back to intention, given that different people have different understandings about sitting or not sitting, should the actiivity then be given priority over understanding the 'real motive' and intention? If so, why focus on intention? Isn't it more important to develop understanding? And because we realize that we are so deluded and that we often deceive ourselves, that the Buddha has laid out a detailed description of the realities that we encounter again and again in the course of our lives, should we not carefully study and consider what he taught? I believe that the Dhamma is good in the beginning, the middle and the end. Between them there is absolutely no contradiction. Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all reflect the same underlying truth, only each with the corresponding level of penetration. Some have suggested that one must first practice ritualisticaly, only when enlightenment has been reached can one do away with rituals. But this is to say that the beginning level of dhamma contradicts the latter level. The Sotapanna does not see the need to do away with ritual practice, he realizes that it is not the way whether now, before or later. I will skip commenting on the rest of your post, as I think this is already too long. Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. ps. BTW, you are right as you expressed in your following post about my being manipulative. In live discussions I have a hard time expressing myself, being what you may call 'slow' and have difficulty in language association. In typing out messages I have much freedom in choosing the best way to express myself and to convince... But what to do. :-( I guess I only need to recognize such tendency more and more?! > Please...you have taken a subtle and profound > teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a > caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have > intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you > can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20711 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Smallchap, It was a mistake, I do not believe there are enlightened individuals outside the Dhamma Vinaya. Thanks for pointing out. Metta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:24 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, >In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened >individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not .. --------------- So you believe that there are enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha? smallchap 20712 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:30pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Chris, Thanks for the encouragement, even if message reached me indirectly. :-) Mettta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:05 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear James, and all, I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no doubt other beginners. Members of this group have provided me with the clearest explanation of reality and truth, and stated this is as the Buddha taught it. Always whenever there were doubts or questions, they have said "Check with the Tipitaka, check with the Teachings of the Blessed One". I am aware of some difference between formal meditators and those who see the Teachings as not requiring sitting meditation, but mostly both groups seem to agree on things like 'the present moment', 'watching what arises at the sense doors', 'knowing the difference between realities and concepts', and 'the difference between nama and rupa'. I do not understand your constant vehement opposition. I wonder if you could give some Sutta references regarding the statements in your post to Sukin - otherwise it may seem to some to be just your own view? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you > are > > Hi Sukin, > > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. > > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't matter > if your intention is to notice reality during everyday experience or > to notice reality during meditation, there is still that present > 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is no `you', right? > Please...you have taken a subtle and profound teaching of the Lord > Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a caricature of what it really > is. Just admit that you can have intention, even without a permanent > self. It doesn't matter if you can't understand that or how that > occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20713 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 0:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, You wrote; ------------- > First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) -------------------- Yes, from the perspective of conventional science, the Dhamma does have its funny side. I think your point is, how can we believe that the brain and nervous system can handle so much information in so little time? I really don't think it is a question of brain power; I think, even if we were to suffer brain damage with severe impairment to our faculties, namas and rupas would continue to rise and fall unabated. Even if we were to be reborn in the animal world with the brain of a gnat, ultimate existence would be the same rapid flow of dhammas. --------------------- > Not only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing as a second. > Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > ----------- I could be wrong, but I think the only relevance of the so-called speed of dhammas, is that there are more dhammas than there are concepts. While one concept is being developed, billions (thousands?) of cittas and their objects come and go. So we are left with the concept of a single object that can be seen, touched and smelt, etc., even though none of the experienced dhammas was really like that. ------------- > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to meditate. > -------------- If that was the way it worked, then of course, it would be beneficial to meditate. But is there anything in the Pali Canon about slowing down dhammas? I'm sure nothing to that effect has been cited on dsg. By the way, does the speed of perception slow down at the same rate as the speed of its object :-) --------------- > Ummm…I hate to be obvious, but here are the steps that lead to and condition vipassana: 1. Learn how to do it, 2. Make the decision to do it, 3. Set aside some time to do it, 4. Do it. Those steps seem pretty simple to me. What exactly do you not know?) > -------------- If the Buddha had taught a formal vipassana practice -- something that could be performed at a specific place and time -- then I agree, we should all be doing it. Whether we did in fact meditate, would depend on the presence or absence of the relevant conditions. Presumably, our belief in the efficacy of formal practice would be a major condition for that behaviour. (as it is now with you.) -------------- > The Buddha didn't give pep talks or assume that anyone would need them. He simply said, "Listen Monks, this is what you are to do. Find a quiet spot, sit down, and direct your attention to the breath…" > ---------------- I know you are talking about motivation here, but I can't resist making a point about jhana: Have you read the threads on the four ways of practising Dhamma? Three of the four involve the cultivation of jhana, so there are thousands of references to jhana in the Tipitaka. It is important to be able to distinguish them from references to vipassana. The cultivation of jhana is appropriate for only a tiny minority of beings. I think you will find the Buddha recommended it only for those of his followers who had already dedicated a thousand or so previous lifetimes to the preliminary practice.(That's how complicated and difficult the real jhana is.) While it is a sign of vast accumulations of detachment, it is not, of itself, necessary for enlightenment. For me, the appropriate way to enlightenment is to develop vipassana on its own. So, I have no intention of concentrating on the breath (the most difficult of all forms of jhana practice). -------------- ...... > Motives are not the deciding factor you seem to believe they are, and motives change. The point is just to do the practice and not worry about motives. > ------------- I appreciate the wisdom in not worrying about past motives but the present motive is different; we must attend to it with the greatest urgency. Again, there is no WE who can attend with urgency -- or with anything else. The Buddha taught that there are only dhammas and so, it is conditioned, kusala dhammas, that must attend with urgency. --------------- . . . > You appear to be giving a lofty status to vipassana that would make it impossible for anyone to do it unless already enlightened. That is putting the cart before the horse, to use a cliché ;-) > ----------------- In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." Then how? It doesn't make sense. But in terms of paramattha dhammas, it is perfectly sensible and straight forward. Path Consciousness arose by conditions and those conditions are explained in painstaking detail (in the Abhidhamma especially) --------------- . . . > I hope you realize that what you are stating here is in opposition to the Third Noble Truth, that suffering can be eliminated. > ------------- I appreciate your warning and maybe I do tend to err on the side of "standing still." In return, I should warn you against "striving." Kind regards, Ken H 20714 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 0:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Dear Howard, You are definitely one of the posters that give people wonder if DSG members actually sleep... :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 PM > > the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having > indicated anywhere in any > sutta that mindstates or perceptual states > occurred as discrete quanta. By discrete quanta, I assume you meant that the abhiddhama says that there is a mind moment, one following one another. What do you think the Buddha means, then, when he say consciousness is impermanent, and is suffering (must fall away)? What falls away? When the states of attachment arise and fall away, followed by those of anger. Are these attachments and anger separate, or they are concomitants of one another? I am just wondering because you said "fuzzy". > Frankly, I think it likely that the > compliers of the Abhidhamma > took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of > mindstate, and came up with a > concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment > to which they applied a > general word for mind, 'citta' (much like > 'nama'), in a new and innovative > (or, if one wishes, distorted) way. Are you saying (or edging toward) that each mind moment is independent of one another (according to the abhidhamma)? Although the abhidhamma talks about the distinct characteristics about the citta and the cetasikas, so that people can understand their differences (like kindness, and attachment, of which some are very close to one another). I don't think it is ever meant to be taken as being encapsulated, not conditioned by one another. Although the abhidhamma explains the vedanas in details, sounding in some spot as if vedana could exist by itself, or sounding as if vedana is of one type, but in other places, the abhidhamma also discusses how the same kind of vedana (sukha, for example) varies among different cittas. For example, sukha vedana in akusala, and sukha vedana in kusala, are different. Sukha vedana in sensuous (born out of the 5 senses) plane is different from that in the rupa (jhana) plane. Clearly, the vedana cetasikas (or khandha, if you prefer) are conditioned by its concomitant (sanna, sankhara, vinnana). Knowing these allows one to know how inter-related the mental states are, as well as to give one opportunity to verify such intricate teaching. > I personally find the use of 'citta' for a > state of mind which arises > on any occasion that either a new object of > dicernment arises or the set of > mental functions concomitant to the discerning of > that object changes by the > loss/gain/replacement of one member function to > be a useful and reasonably > well defined one. The discernment during jhana is said to take only one object (no changes during Jhana), and in many cases, the co-committants will be relatively identical (except when moving higher or lower in jhana levels). Do you say such jhana citta (which is said to last up to 7 days an 7 nights for a human) is a single citta (only one object, relatively the same concomitant)? > It may > well be that "the edges are > fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things > really are is much more of a > fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one > way, maybe the other. But, > so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of > this in the suttas. > You would be right in your assessment that Abhidhamma doesn't teach fuzzy states. Kusala is kusala and is never mixed with akusala, and the same for akusala with akusala (like anger cannot co-arise with attachment). It appears fuzzy only because the speed of the states, and the fact that they can alternate. In my opinion, abhidhamma teaches, very explicitly, about the dhamma. For certain people, it may not be obvious what the Buddha really teaches (for example, although a "Buddhist", I had never understood what he teaches about the kandhas until I begin to understand from studying the abhidhamma). It makes known the dhamma (the kandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, etc) as they truly are: conditioned dhamma, not beings, not self. The processes are really nice theoretically, and explain many things, but on the other hand, how true it is cannot be known (except to perhaps a very few). However, that doesn't matter: the most important teachings are those that are knowable to us. A. Sujin kept reminding us (her students, of course!) that we need to develop our own wisdom (instead of just repeating stories from others), and wisdom takes what is true as its object, and hence, wisdom can only be developed having the objects that can be known (to the wisdom), not those that cannot. kom 20715 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:53am Subject: Aghata - Hatred Dear Group, I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta 'Hatred' Anguttara Nikaya X.80 Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? metta, Christine 20716 From: bodhi2500 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Chris Anguttara Nikaya X.80 ,Aghata Sutta,Hatred, would be Anguttara Nikaya,Dasakanipata(book of tens),sutta #80...which at the Metta site would be Anguttara Nikaya, Dasakanipata, Sutta #10 in the Akankhavaggo. Take Care Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > I am trying to find another translation of > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine 20717 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:17am Subject: Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Dear Kom How are you? Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to be Abhidhamma For Kids. I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate deconstruction. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn you up-front. When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are having, and your past impression about those experiences. This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as you run into something you don't like, you can become unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you can't make them come and go at will, do you own these feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their own conditions, they are non-self. This is also the same with other things you may think of being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all these things come and go at will, and they don't last forever. All of these things are non-self. It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a way that we can understand. The understanding of these questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist believe that the understanding will lead us toward the cessation of suffering. We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, are non-self. kom 20718 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: < snip > In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." KKT: I like this expression very much. Could you give me the reference in what sutta it is found. Thanks. KKT 20719 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:07am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi James, Thanks for your letter. I was expecting to receive a response such as this one day. I know I have been stating quite boldly against formal practice that I felt that it must not feel too pleasant to read it for someone who believes in it. A couple of months ago I wrote a little bit suggesting the same attitude on another list, but soon after I decided never to do it again since most members on that list engaged in formal practice. Here on dsg it is different, so I sometimes take advantage of the situation, even though I also wonder if I am not making the moderators feel uneasy ;-). (James: Believe it or not, my feelings of alarm are not for myself. My feelings of alarm are for you and those who are convinced by you. With all the wrong teachings out there, all the blind alleys, all the selfish people, the one thing that is pure and brilliant, the one thing that offers comfort and truth, is the Buddhadhamma. When I see that one thing being turned into something that it is not, infected if you will, and then presented so convincingly that others are going to swallow it, I naturally become alarmed. I can't help that. I don't want to make you feel unwelcome to this group, you fit right in. Believe me, most of the outspoken members are cut from the same cloth. I am the one who doesn't quite fit in with this group, but they keep me around because I make it lively. ;-) My response is interspersed between yours. > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. I think it is easy to be 'stuck in a web of false view' because there is still so much ignorance and yearning for security of one form or the other. If it is not in wealth, company or some idealistic activity, then it is very likely be on some conclusions we make about the nature of reality. It is hard to have an attitude of detachment even a little bit let alone every step of the way towards ultimate liberation. (James: This is a very smooth paragraph, but I don't feel you really know what this means. You have discovered what to say that will get you a favorable response from others, but it doesn't mean anything to you.) My views are mostly based on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, but slowly confidence grows as I reflect on what has been heard, all seeming more true as compared to other interpretations. But if you say that my expressed views are not what the Buddha taught, please let me know what the correct views are. (James: Sukin, I don't mind explaining basic Buddhist concepts to the Star Kids because they genuinely want to know. You really don't want to know what I have to say; you want me to say something so that you can smoothly turn it. You want me to tire myself by basically arguing with myself…that has worked for you many times I am sure. If knowing `Right Mindfulness' and `Right Concentration' from the Eightfold Path isn't enough to convince you, nothing that I have to say will either. Actually, maybe you are starting to convince me...???) > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? I think we both agree that there is no 'self' behind even intention, so lets not bring this up. My point is intention can be either kusala or akusala depending on the accompanying mental factors. Having the intention of doing good, have metta, grow in understanding or to attain final liberation does not automatically make it kusala. Most of mankind has such aspirations, how many reach the goal? I think we are so conditioned by such concepts as love, compassion, doing good, liberation etc, that we become captivated by the mere 'thinking' about them. And there is so much identification with these 'good' qualities, that we often think wishing to actualize them as being 'enough' motivating factor. Of course there are varying degrees supported by varying views of each person's own religious philosophy, but "conscious intention" still seems to be the main motivating force. (James: Yea, you're right. Wanting to do good, be good, and teach good is just so overrated nowadays. I think we should all just do and think whatever our heart desires…no use fighting it. If other people get stepped on along the way, so much the better. Serves them right for letting themselves get stepped on. They should have been more mindful.) My favourite quote by Rob K. from Thein Nyun, >>"Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions.<< This gives me an idea of how hard it is to independently arive at the truth of anatta. And how necessary it is to have heard the teachings before in previous lifetimes. We are caught in the above process, our intuition is to pursue further in the same direction until the answer has been got. This is the path the Buddha took before he attained enlightenment, but he realized because previous accumulations, that this was not the direction to take. He did not go beyond jhana in the same direction, he simply realized that he had been looking in the wrong way. I know this is speculative, but it shows the difference in view as compared to those people who conclude that Buddha "sat" so we also must "sit". (James: Yea, you're right. Why bother to achieve anything? So what that meditation worked for the Buddha, we don't need to follow that example. Who needs all that silly, bellybutton contemplation, hogwash? But we mustn't forget that we are Buddhists and follow the teachings of the Buddha. That is really important. We just don't have to really do what he taught. It is such a bother…let's go shopping instead. That is a lot more fun.) Back to intention, given that different people have different understandings about sitting or not sitting, should the actiivity then be given priority over understanding the 'real motive' and intention? If so, why focus on intention? Isn't it more important to develop understanding? And because we realize that we are so deluded and that we often deceive ourselves, that the Buddha has laid out a detailed description of the realities that we encounter again and again in the course of our lives, should we not carefully study and consider what he taught? (James: Yea, the Buddha wrote it all out for us to read and consider. That was really nice of him. Now I can just sit in my chair, in front of my computer, and read, study and consider myself all the way to enlightenment. No, wait, that would be wanting something and then the whole thing would be ruined. Hmmm…I'll get back to you on this one. I'm sure if I think real hard I can figure out a solution.) I believe that the Dhamma is good in the beginning, the middle and the end. Between them there is absolutely no contradiction. Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all reflect the same underlying truth, only each with the corresponding level of penetration. Some have suggested that one must first practice ritualisticaly, only when enlightenment has been reached can one do away with rituals. But this is to say that the beginning level of dhamma contradicts the latter level. The Sotapanna does not see the need to do away with ritual practice, he realizes that it is not the way whether now, before or later. (James: Yea, you have a good point here. There aren't any differences between the beginning, middle, and end of Buddhist practice. I see this truth bears itself out in life also. Everything is the same. Same, same, same. The end of this letter is just the same as the beginning, middle and end. You are the same as when you were born, were a teenager, and now an adult. I wish more people could see how everything is the same and never changes. That would make life so much easier to understand.) I will skip commenting on the rest of your post, as I think this is already too long. Look forward to your response. (James: Well, I'm not quite sure if you would look forward to this response, but that is okay. You have me convinced.) Metta, Sukin. Metta, James 20720 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) > (James: Well, I'm not quite sure if you would look forward to this > response, but that is okay. You have me convinced.) Hi James, No James I didn't look forward to such a response. I think I will just back off from this. For now I will just read your posts and the response of other members to them. Maybe when I have developed more patience, metta and understanding, I might write to you again. Sukin 20721 From: nidive Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken H, > Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every > second. In amongst them, we experience illusory > realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we > don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. Are you truly 'uninstructed' given the Dhamma? > I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter > of mastering a technique. As far as I know, the technique leading to enlightenment that needs to be mastered is as follows: "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until > enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters > of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as > is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is > valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the > ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. > Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will > arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door > citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma > accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a > Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. And what are fabrications? There are these six classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas. These are called fabrications. "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html "[Mental] fabrications are not self... [Thanissaro Bhikkhu - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self... [Ñanamoli Thera - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059a.html Fabrications (or determinations) is one of the five aggregates. It seems that you have not properly understood this aggregate well. Whatever self that is perceived within as the controller is not-self. This self that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely a cetasika that comes and goes. When this "self" cetasika arises in conjunction with the "cetana" cetasika, the perception of or belief in a controller doing the controlling arises. Seeing the difference between these two cetasikas is very important. > Thanks for answering my question, but what you have > quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. It bears repeating: "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20722 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi, Kom - In a message dated 3/28/03 3:52:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > You are definitely one of the posters that give people wonder if DSG > members actually sleep... :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: Shhh! I'm sleeping!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------ > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 PM > > > > >the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having > >indicated anywhere in any > >sutta that mindstates or perceptual states > >occurred as discrete quanta. > > By discrete quanta, I assume you meant that the abhiddhama says that there > is a mind moment, one following one another. What do you think the Buddha > means, then, when he say consciousness is impermanent, and is suffering > (must fall away)? What falls away? When the states of attachment arise > and fall away, followed by those of anger. Are these attachments and anger > separate, or they are concomitants of one another? I am just wondering > because you said "fuzzy". > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Something is impermanent if it does not remain indefinitely - on one occasion it is present, and at a later time it no longer is. This does *not* imply that there is a point-moment which is the last for it: (Even by classical, non-fuzzy mathematics there are intervals on the real line open at the right end. Moreover, a discrete, non-fuzzy, model is just that, a model. It may or may not truly apply.) ------------------------------------------------- > > >Frankly, I think it likely that the > >compliers [I meant "compilers", of course] of the Abhidhamma > >took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of > >mindstate, and came up with a > >concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment > >to which they applied a > >general word for mind, 'citta' (much like > >'nama'), in a new and innovative > >(or, if one wishes, distorted) way. > > Are you saying (or edging toward) that each mind moment is independent of > one another (according to the abhidhamma)? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No. ------------------------------------------------------- > Although the abhidhamma talks about the distinct characteristics about the citta > and the cetasikas, so that people can understand their differences (like > kindness, and attachment, of which some are very close to one another). I > don't think it is ever meant to be taken as being encapsulated, not > conditioned by one another. Although the abhidhamma explains the vedanas > in details, sounding in some spot as if vedana could exist by itself, or > sounding as if vedana is of one type, but in other places, the abhidhamma > also discusses how the same kind of vedana (sukha, for example) varies > among different cittas. For example, sukha vedana in akusala, and sukha > vedana in kusala, are different. Sukha vedana in sensuous (born out of the > 5 senses) plane is different from that in the rupa (jhana) plane. Clearly, > the vedana cetasikas (or khandha, if you prefer) are conditioned by its > concomitant (sanna, sankhara, vinnana). Knowing these allows one to know > how inter-related the mental states are, as well as to give one opportunity > to verify such intricate teaching. > > > I personally find the use of 'citta' for a > >state of mind which arises > >on any occasion that either a new object of > >dicernment [should be "discernment"] arises or the set of > >mental functions concomitant to the discerning of > >that object changes by the > >loss/gain/replacement of one member function to > >be a useful and reasonably > >well defined one. > > The discernment during jhana is said to take only one object (no changes > during Jhana), and in many cases, the co-committants will be relatively > identical (except when moving higher or lower in jhana levels). Do you say > such jhana citta (which is said to last up to 7 days an 7 nights for a > human) is a single citta (only one object, relatively the same > concomitant)? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, I've never seen anything along the lines of "one jhana - one citta" in any sutta. Is it in the Abhidhamma, itself? What I *have* seen in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, while in the 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, including, for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. Secondly, what is a citta if not a mindstate characterized by the discernment of a single arammana accompanied by a specific set of cetasikas associated with that same arammana? --------------------------------------------------------- > > >It may > >well be that "the edges are > >fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things > >really are is much more of a > >fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one > >way, maybe the other. But, > >so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of > >this in the suttas. > > > > You would be right in your assessment that Abhidhamma doesn't teach fuzzy > states. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, is that really so? Does the Abhidhamma, itself, and not the commentaries, commit itself to sharp occurrence-boundaries, or does it allow of gradations, gradual moving away from one state into another? It seems to me that the notion of arising, maintaining, and dissolution stages of a citta already points somewhat in this direction of non-discreteness. Kalupahana, for one, distinguishes between the Abhidhamma and commentaries on this issue. I, of course, speak out of ignorance of what is said in the Abhidhamma, itself, because I have no English-language translation of any of it. Now *there* would be a worthwhile project for scholarly Abhidhamma officienados - translate the Abhidhamma Pitaka into a English (or French) in a manner similar to what Bhikkhus Bodhi and ~Nanamoli, and Maurice Walshe have done with the Sutta Pitaka through Wisdom Publications. ------------------------------------------------------ > Kusala is kusala and is never mixed with akusala, and the same for akusala with > akusala (like anger cannot co-arise with attachment). It appears fuzzy only > because the speed of the states, and the fact that they can alternate. > > In my opinion, abhidhamma teaches, very explicitly, about the dhamma. For > certain people, it may not be obvious what the Buddha really teaches (for > example, although a "Buddhist", I had never understood what he teaches > about the kandhas until I begin to understand from studying the > abhidhamma). It makes known the dhamma (the kandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, > etc) as they truly are: conditioned dhamma, not beings, not self. The > processes are really nice theoretically, and explain many things, but on > the other hand, how true it is cannot be known (except to perhaps a very > few). However, that doesn't matter: the most important teachings are those > that are knowable to us. A. Sujin kept reminding us (her students, of > course!) that we need to develop our own wisdom (instead of just repeating > stories from others), and wisdom takes what is true as its object, and > hence, wisdom can only be developed having the objects that can be known > (to the wisdom), not those that cannot. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The Abhidhamma, as I have come across it through secondary and tertiary sources, provides a very nice conceptual framework for me to think about the Dhamma. But in my opinion, it is only what I read in the Sutta Pitaka that I am reasonably confident in taking as the Buddhavacana. -------------------------------------------------------- > > kom > =========================== With metta (sharp even at the edges! ;-), Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20723 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam and all, You said something I really like: "Disagreeing does not have to be disagreeable". This is Indian wisdom to me. I feel very comfortable with this. It all comes back to what Christine said: we have to look inside, consider our own citta. We like to share what we learnt with others, and it depends on others whether it appeals to them or not. How can we know their accumulations from past lives? You were talking of mental baggage, it should not be a problem at all. We all come from different backgrounds, religious or not. We should not have any idea of having to break these off, this belongs to our accumulations. No problem, development should go very gently. When I first came to A. Sujin, I went to the temple on Saturday and to the church (catholic) on Sunday. No problem. A. Sujin would never say do this, or don't do that. Now as to your questions: op 24-03-2003 17:54 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...:> > > N: She (A. Sujin) also reminded me: > ³There is no Lodewijk, there is just our own world of thinking, > thinking of Lodewijk. When we were born we were alone. When seeing, > we are alone, there is just citta that sees. We are alone because > there is no self. Seeing arises and then thinking of the world of > concepts and this hides the reality of seeing, visible object and the > other realities.²> Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? > > Dh: Yes, Nina, very hard indeed! It runs counter to the most basic of > (conventional?) understanding/experience/knowledge. Yes, we are born > alone, we die alone, and some may live alone too. However, > rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to > swallow. Why is it hard? The 'proper' answer is because of > clinging to the idea of self. Okay. Nina: How long did I have to listen to A. Sujin to begin to understand this. It takes so long. It has to sink in little by little. You say, "rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to swallow. " I try to explain this a little more. We do not reject the world, our social life, but we see it differently. We can test for ourselves whether it is beneficial or not. Through the Buddha's teachings, all three parts, not just Abhidhamma, we come to have a more dynamic vision of life: this is contrary to a static way. Life goes on as usual but, we gain more understanding of the different moments of which life consists. Life is in a moment. An example: metta, loving kindness or friendship. When we were on a trip with A. Sujin and Dhamma friends in India, we said: now we go back to our different countries, we shall be lonely. Here we have to remember what A. Sujin said about metta: friendship is with the citta, it depends on our citta, not on persons or their reactions. Then we are less disturbed by their reactions or by feeling lonely. We can see the difference between clinging to persons and developing true metta, without clinging to persons, and that is real, genuine friendship. But difficult, and of course, defilements get the better of us very often. My father: life becomes very complicated when I think of a whole story, or his person, his background. But there can be different moments: thinking with akusala or with metta. When there can be metta with the citta, it does not matter whether I help my father or someone else. True metta does not select any person. Don't you find this practical? It can be applied. But I do not pretend that it is easy. A. Sujin often reminds us: do not expect anything. Such a good lesson, we expect too much from others, affection, appreciation, and that is clinging. This point she stressed with regard to the development of the perfections. The follow up is lacking most of the time, but at least we know the direction into which we should go. And, very beneficial: we realize more than before when defilements arise. A good pointer. Everything should proceed very naturally and gently. But the Dhamma gives us a new approach to life: before it was always: the person, the situation, what is outside . Now it becomes more: what is going on inside: how is the citta. You said: it is a revolution to > completely negate self (mine or that of others). This negation seems > to me to be a mental construct, itself a concept that one can > possibly come to accept, given sufficient belief and concentration on > such a view. Is it verifiable? N: Do not feel it as a revolution, it is understanding that grows in the course of many lives. It is understanding that can eventually realize the truth of non-self. It has not to do with belief or concentration, or anything you have to do yourself. I like to quote what Kom wrote to a starkid: > Dh: I am afraid, I am completely with Lodewijk, on this one, and I must > say I do assume he exists. He exists, just like your father does. > Is it possible to lead a social life without accepting the existence > of yourself and others? Is it honest to lead a social life, if one > rejects the existence of others? N: I hope I explained this above. Not a matter of rejecting anything, but a matter of seeing life just in a moment. As Kom wrote: not the person. Not self. I asked A. Sujin once whether she was tired. Answer: just a moment. If we cling to a whole story of being tired, and I am so tried, lots of akusala comes in. It is natural that many moments we think of story, situation and person, but in between we can consider (Rob K calls this: thinking in the present moment) different realities, namas and rúpas. I have to explain a great deal more about this. It is a matter of beginning to understand, laying the groundwork, this forms up conditions for the arising of sati and panna which directly understands. Now this in itself needs more explanation, impossible to say all in one post. It is apt to arouse misunderstandings. Dh: You may say, why not go the whole > hog? That does not appear to be the middle-path choice. > Talking about middle-path, if everything is conditioned, why did the > Buddha advise choosing the middle alternative? N: We should understand more what the middle path is first. I think it is what I said above. Going gently, naturally, but surely. Nina. 20724 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:07am Subject: Typo Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi again, Kom - In a message dated 3/28/03 12:09:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > What I *have* seen > in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, while in > the > 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, including, > for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an > absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. > ========================== The last word in the foregoing was meant to be 'cittas'. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20725 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello KKT, I think KenH is referring to the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya Ch. 1 Book 1 '1 Devatasamyutta I Connected Discourses with Devatas: A Reed 1 (1) Crossing the Flood' p.89 of Bhikkhu Bodhi trans. Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Then, when the night had advanced, a certain devata of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one side, and said to him: "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." {The devata:} 1. "After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world." This is what that devata said. The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, "The Teacher has approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One and, keeping him on the right, disappeared right there. As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html#n1 Here the Devata is described as a 'she'. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Ken, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > < snip > > > In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable > paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the > flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." > > > > > KKT: I like this expression > very much. Could you give me > the reference in what sutta > it is found. Thanks. > > > KKT 20726 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:01am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Hi Suan, I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you define it. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Kom > > How are you? > > Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to > be Abhidhamma For Kids. > > I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) > would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive > power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for > deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. > > When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from > the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique > insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate > deconstruction. > > With kind regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, > > The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn > you up-front. > > When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When > you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, > isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you > see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, > not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or > unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are > having, and your past impression about those experiences. > This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are > said to be non-self. > > When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last > forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as > you run into something you don't like, you can become > unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or > unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy > sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This > is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said > to be non-self. > > If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you > can't make them come and go at will, do you own these > feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are > you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say > happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those > feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their > own conditions, they are non-self. > > This is also the same with other things you may think of > being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, > compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all > these things come and go at will, and they don't last > forever. All of these things are non-self. > > It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there > is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a > way that we can understand. The understanding of these > questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not > happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go > because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist > believe that the understanding will lead us toward the > cessation of suffering. > > We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we > say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other > persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past > impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe > or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the > feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, > are non-self. > > kom 20727 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi NEO Swee Boon, I think you run into a contradiction by saying self is not self. I think you also run into the self-view that self is a cetasika that comes and goes. Regards, Victor [snip] > Whatever self that is perceived within as the controller is not- self. > This self that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely > a cetasika that comes and goes. [snip] > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 20728 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta 'Hatred' > Anguttara Nikaya X.80 > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine 20729 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 3/28/03 2:14:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi NEO Swee Boon, > > I think you run into a contradiction by saying self is not self. > > I think you also run into the self-view that self is a cetasika that > comes and goes. > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== I took Swee Boon's first mention of 'self', the "cetasika self" to mean something that is mistakenly perceived as self, but is not. I did not take him to be saying that there *is* a self which is not-self, certainly a contradiction, but only that whatever seems to be self is merely an impermanent, conditioned dhamma. Perhaps it would have been clearer had he used double quotes around the first use of the word 'self', as follows: << Whatever "self" that is perceived within as the controller is not-self. This "self" that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely a cetasika that comes and goes. >> We all sure do get hung up on language here, myself included. It's hard, of course, to go beyond specific terminology to the intended meaning, especially in the internet discussion group context. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20730 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Hello KKT, I think KenH is referring to the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya Ch. 1 Book 1 '1 Devatasamyutta I Connected Discourses with Devatas: A Reed 1 (1) Crossing the Flood' p.89 of Bhikkhu Bodhi trans. Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Then, when the night had advanced, a certain devata of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one side, and said to him: "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." {The devata:} 1. "After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world." This is what that devata said. The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, "The Teacher has approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One and, keeping him on the right, disappeared right there. As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html#n1 Here the Devata is described as a 'she'. metta, Christine KKT: Many thanks, Christine. This sutta is very beautiful. First the Buddha stated that << by not halting and by not straining >> He crossed the flood. We don't know if He made allusion that the flood here means << samsara >> But then the devata said: << After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world >> and the Buddha approved. Therefore << by not halting and by not straining >> should be the key for the Buddhist << training >> Take this phrase as a koan :-)) Metta, KKT 20731 From: bodhi2500 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:58pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa/Flood Hi ------------ How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html ------------ To my understanding the above Sutta has a similar meaning to Anguttara Nikaya VI.55,Sona Sutta. > "Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?" "Yes, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned (lit: 'established') to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?" "Yes, lord." "In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune ('penetrate,' 'ferret out') the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an06-055.html Take care Steve 20732 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Dosa, Moha, Lobha Dear Group, I've been thinking about the three unwholesome roots - Dosa, Moha, Lobha Nobody likes Dosa (aversion, hatred) - neither those in whom it arises, nor those experiencing the behaviour of those in whom it arises. It doesn't feel good (increased heart rate, anger, worry, fear, sadness etc.), and it doesn't sound or look good. (harsh speech, frowning, flushed, tearful, shaking etc.) I don't think anybody would purposely seek out Dosa or encourage it to arise. But is Dosa always so easily recognisable? Perhaps there are some subtle forms of Dosa? Similarly, nobody would purposely seek out Moha/ Avijja - (delusion, ignorance) or encourage it to arise. And how would you? It covers understanding like an eiderdown. This is the least likely unwholesome root that someone would even be aware of having - we usually think *we* are on the right track, and it is the *others* who have 'wrong view'. I wonder what some examples of difficult to see Moha are? The Root that 'seems' the least harmful and even enjoyable, is Lobha/Tanha/ Raga - (greed, attachment, lust, craving). Mostly it is pleasant to experience in any form, it is desirable, it is addictive. I think someone has said that there can even be Lobha for Jhana, Lobha for calmness and concentration - hard to see it when the object is seemingly wholesome. What are some subtle forms of Lobha? Perhaps Lobha is more dangerous than Dosa because it is so subtle, deceptive and alluring? Just some thoughts, metta, Christine 20733 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi James, > Hi Ken H, I won't go into great detail with this post because much of it has been covered in other posts. I just think the idea that there are trillions of cittas in a second is rather extreme and improvable (and I don't believe in `cittas', really, as they are described in the Abhidhamma [which I am assuming because I don't have access to an English version], I believe in more the idea of `peaks' in the main flow of brain function, like a cardiogram of the heart. It never completely stops, but it does peak. Additionally, the peaks can increase and decrease in frequency, just like the heart. I believe the heart and brain are similar in more ways than most think… do I have Tipitaka evidence for this? No, I can reach some conclusions myself because I meditate and investigate my mind…I don't go looking into a book for everything. As everyone keeps screaming, the suttas don't have all of the details. Well, there is a reason for that. The Buddha wanted us to find out some things for ourselves.). But, there is one section that you write that I find very interesting: "For me, the appropriate way to enlightenment is to develop vipassana on its own. So, I have no intention of concentrating on the breath (the most difficult of all forms of jhana practice)." First, how do you develop vipassana on its own? What does that mean? It was my understanding that vipassana required yogic meditation. Second, where did you get the information that breath was the most difficult of all jhana practice? I am not arguing, just interested. Regarding your last sentence, let me make something a little clear about me. Even though I strongly support meditation, that doesn't mean I am a fanatic. If you picture me as some kinda ascetic dressed in a loin cloth meditating for hours in a cave in the Arizona desert, you have the wrong idea ;-). I meditate, at the most, an hour each day, except during retreats. Then I meditate for about six to eight hours a day for three or ten days. Actually, I don't think I meditate enough, but that might change this summer. I hope to do a month-long retreat the month of June. And Ken, I wasn't criticizing your Buddhist practice, because I don't know your practice, I was just criticizing your unfounded/misdirected opposition to meditation. Metta, James 20734 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:59 AM > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Something is impermanent if it does not remain > indefinitely - on one > occasion it is present, and at a later time it no longer is. This > does *not* > imply that there is a point-moment which is the last for it: (Even by > classical, non-fuzzy mathematics there are intervals on the real > line open at > the right end. Moreover, a discrete, non-fuzzy, model is just > that, a model. > It may or may not truly apply.) > ------------------------------------------------- That went over my head, but o well, I won't press... > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > First of all, I've never seen anything along the lines of > "one jhana - > one citta" in any sutta. Is it in the Abhidhamma, itself? No, my impression of the abhidhamma (and commentaries) is that it teaches that a citta lasts a very specific duration of time, and this is infinitesimally short. A meditator in Jhana would have countless number of cittas in that state. I asked because I understand your definition of a citta to be a discernment, along with its concomitants, of a single object. ? What I > *have* seen > in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, > while in the > 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, > including, > for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an > absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. When a extremely skilled meditator achieves supernormal power (the passing of beings, knowledge of previous life, etc.), the Abhidhamma teaches that the person is no longer in a typical jhana states. During a meditation, the jhana cittas (lots of them) may rise and fall away rapidly, uninterrupted by bhavanga and other sensuous cittas (seeing, smelling, etc). The cittas that allow the occurrence of supernormal power are very specific in sequence, alternating both Jhana and sensuous cittas. > Secondly, what is a citta if not a mindstate characterized by the > discernment of a single arammana accompanied by a specific set of > cetasikas > associated with that same arammana? The Abhidhamma teaches that a similar citta arises following another one. Even two cittas have the same object and the similar states, they are still 2 cittas according to the teaching. With the model suggested in the Abhidhamma, we won't be led to believe that if the entire jhana session consists of only one citta. > Howard: > Well, is that really so? Does the Abhidhamma, itself, and not the > commentaries, commit itself to sharp occurrence-boundaries, or > does it allow > of gradations, gradual moving away from one state into another? It depends on what you mean by gradations. Kusala states are completely separate from akusala. There is no such thing as Kusala states, then kusala states mixed with akusala, and then akusala. There might be purely akusala states, kusala states alternating with akusala (but still separate), and then kusala states. There are also degrees of kusala and akusala. Some akusala are so refined that, without sharply developed wisdom, the person wouldn't even recognize it as akusala because it also seems peaceful. > It seems to > me that the notion of arising, maintaining, and dissolution > stages of a citta > already points somewhat in this direction of non-discreteness. Yes, even within this single moment of citta, the citta goes thru phases (of arising, maintaining, and dissolution), but yet the entire three subphases are still counted as submoments within a single citta: the citta has definite lifetime (which probably is fixed). > I, of course, speak out of ignorance of what is said in the > Abhidhamma, itself, because I have no English-language > translation of any of > it. Now *there* would be a worthwhile project for scholarly Abhidhamma > officienados - translate the Abhidhamma Pitaka into a English (or > French) in > a manner similar to what Bhikkhus Bodhi and ~Nanamoli, and Maurice Walshe > have done with the Sutta Pitaka through Wisdom Publications. Ah, that would be a very worthwhile project, indeed. Then you can truly see for yourself how the Abhidhamma is different / similar to the other two tipitaka. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The Abhidhamma, as I have come across it through secondary and > tertiary sources, provides a very nice conceptual framework for > me to think > about the Dhamma. But in my opinion, it is only what I read in the Sutta > Pitaka that I am reasonably confident in taking as the Buddhavacana. > -------------------------------------------------------- > I think ultimately, what the Buddha teaches points to the truth. If the concepts we learn doesn't translate to understanding more about the current moment, then the concepts are not as useful as other concepts that allow one to do so. I think we have many theories in the Suttanta as well, for example, seeing is impermanent. Is this impermanence remain conceptual, i.e., thinking about the fact that things change, which implies nothing lasts, or really knowing directly the impermanence of seeing. I think the Abhidhamma points the truth out in the same way, except that while it is pointing out these truths, it leaves out stories of beings and normal societal-economic interaction, making it very clear that it is the dhamma that the Buddha teaches. kom 20735 From: smallchap Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa To all, Just sharing my thought. A toddler while learning to walk, will struggle to balance the body, will fall and hurt himself. But once he muster the techniques of balancing the body while walking, it becomes his second nature. He walks "not by striving and not by standing still." Likewise, is vipassana meditation. smallchap 20736 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:33pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Dear Suan, > -----Original Message----- > From: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:18 AM > > Dear Kom > > How are you? > > Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to > be Abhidhamma For Kids. > I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) > would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive > power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for > deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. Only if they are available in English! > > When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from > the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique > insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate > deconstruction. > Yes, I think self-view and person-view can be eliminated by knowing the truth as they are, as kandha, as ayatanas, as sense bases, as Abhidhamma, as conditioned realities. Feeling has no self or person. kom 20737 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:10am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Victor, I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it matter". I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at all. Here's the translation from the Metta site: 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What ten? 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > Regards, > Victor 20738 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:46am Subject: Religion with no-self Dear James How are you doing? I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your reply. It is little bit hard to understand but I think I had a good lesson about Buddhism. I found most interesting that Buddhism can be a religion even if there is no-self. The bits of information that you gave me made me impressed. One of my friends asked me a question why monks build the temple up in the mountain and I answered him that I didn't know. I thought about the question and guessed that they need a quiet place to pray to Buddha. Is it correct? Take care James Tom 20739 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:50am Subject: My First Ever Letter Hello sirs or madams, My name is Lucio. I'm from Canada but I'm born in the U.S amd I'm Chinese. This is my first ever letter writing and definitely my first letter to you people. Everyone is asking questions about the religion Buddhism. I think that Buddists are very religious about everything. I have some questions to ask: 1.Why do Buddhists/monks shave their heads bald? 2.Why do they wear orange robes? 3.Why do they meditate 5 times a day? 4.Do you have to be a monk to be a Buddhist? 5.Why are there levels for the monks(like if a certain monk is advanced or a beginner?) Thank you for reading my letter Sincerly, Lucio 20740 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aghata - Hatred Chris --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta > 'Hatred' > Anguttara Nikaya X.80 > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming > system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine I've not been able to find anything on this, but my guess is that this refers to the (wholesome) reflection that such things have to be accepted as an necessary part of life (related, perhaps, to the past deeds of the recipient of the harm). Jon 20741 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:58am Subject: Dear Everyone! I have a big question! dear everyone, hello! This is Jan...again.. well I was really curious if most of you are Buddhists or Christians? I think that most of you are Buddhists...but im not too sure so I wanted to ask. James- Hi James! I hope you were able to answer all my questions from my last letter to EVERYBODY! haha..there were a lot of questions(in case you didn't see it) Kom- Hello Kom! I didn't write to you in the longest time! Christine- Hello! How's your dog? I hope he already recovered! plz all reply asap! thx!!!!!!! LoVE, JaN 20742 From: Sarah Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah and All, > > I looked in the useful posts and I don't see any discussion of how > the Abhidhamma defines time. ..... You might like to look at these in u.p. - I think the last three may be relevant: ***** Timescale 4550, 4549, 11532, 11539, 11886, 11927, 12391 ***** >However, there is a book > titled 'Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness > and Time' by: Nyanaponika Thera,Nyanaponika,Bhikkhu Bodhi. Have you > read it? How does this book define time? ..... The last post (12391) refers to the book and definitions of time I have. Several of us have this book and it’s a small, relatively inexpensive book ($17 from Wisdom). Glad to hear of your interest and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments on the posts or if you want to know anything further from Nyanaponika. Metta, Sarah ====== 20743 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:55am Subject: Re: Dear Everyone! I have a big question! Hi Jan, Thank-you for asking after Rusty. He has recovered really well from the operation, and only limps if he has had to stand for a long time (like forty minutes with his head out the car window when I drive to visit my mother.) He had to be scolded and put outside ten minutes ago for drinking out of the toilet bowl. Even dogs can be deliberately naughty. :-) To answer your other question - I am a buddhist, but I only became one after my children were in high school. That was the first time I heard the Teachings of the Buddha. Before that, I was a Christian. May you and all the Star Kids be safe and well Jan, metta,(loving-kindness or friendliness) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > dear everyone, > > hello! This is Jan...again.. well I was really curious > if most of you are Buddhists or Christians? > > I think that most of you are Buddhists...but im not > too sure so I wanted to ask. > > James- Hi James! I hope you were able to answer all my > questions from my last letter to EVERYBODY! > haha..there were a lot of questions(in case you didn't > see it) > > Kom- Hello Kom! I didn't write to you in the longest > time! > > Christine- Hello! How's your dog? I hope he already > recovered! > > plz all reply asap! > > thx!!!!!!! > LoVE, > > JaN 20744 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as desirable/undesirable object Rob M --- robmoult wrote: ... > 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? I hope I'm not repeating something already mentioned, but as you know a computer is not actually a sense-object (it is a concept; only in conventional speech is there an 'object' called a computer). It is the visible object or hardness that is taken for computer that is the sense-object. So the desirable or undesirable nature of a sense-object is not in any way determined by the nature of the conventional 'object' with which we associate it. Does this make the intrinsic nature of sense-objects any less difficult to accept (in theory)? Likewise, there is no actual seeing of a computer or a person, but only visible object that is taken for computer or person. It is for this reason that there cannot be awareness of a computer or person; not being dhammas they are not capable of being the object of panna of the level of satipatthana. Jon 20745 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, ... > Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna > break. Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, to my understanding. Jon > Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling > does not last forever. > > Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to > them or not. > > Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more > microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. > > One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of > mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". > > Regards, > Victor 20746 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Nonduality of Subject and Object Howard Thanks for sharing your thoughts (below). You ask for comments. My comment/question would be as to the usefulness of thinking in terms of duality/nonduality at all. Why this particular frame of reference? Would it not be better to consider conditioned nature, or some aspect specifically dealt with in the texts? Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The knowing of an object and the known object, itself, are > mutually dependent, and, in that interdependence there is a form of > nonduality implying the corelessness of each. On the other hand, it > is an error, I think, to misinterpret this nonduality, this > interdependence, as a unity or identity. As with all > conditionality, what is implied is at the middle in some sense > which avoids the extremes. > But I would like to point out something that occurred to me > while meditating earlier today - a matter of practicality. It > occurred to me that there lies a danger at early stages of > practice, and even further on, to put too much emphasis on the > nonduality of subject and object (in the sense of the > interdependence of the two). My reason is that at early and middle > stages of practice the sense of self is stil extremely strong. > When, particularly during meditation, we have this nonduality in > the back of our minds, it may strengthen the tendency to identify > subject with object, to identify the breath, say, or pleasant > sensations with an alleged knowing self, and instead of awakening > to the impersonality of these objects and the knowing of them, we > merely grasp onto a kind of "unified self" of our making. Perhaps > this is why one of the early stages in the cultivation of insight > is, in fact, not an insight into nonduality of subject and object, > but pretty much the opposite - the distinguishing of the knowing > from the known, so that each can get to be seen as impersonal. Just > some thoughts, folks. Comments anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 20747 From: robmoult Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Jon, Boy this is an old post! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob M > > --- robmoult wrote: > ... > > 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? > > I hope I'm not repeating something already mentioned, but as you know > a computer is not actually a sense-object (it is a concept; only in > conventional speech is there an 'object' called a computer). It is > the visible object or hardness that is taken for computer that is the > sense-object. > > So the desirable or undesirable nature of a sense-object is not in > any way determined by the nature of the conventional 'object' with > which we associate it. > > Does this make the intrinsic nature of sense-objects any less > difficult to accept (in theory)? > > Likewise, there is no actual seeing of a computer or a person, but > only visible object that is taken for computer or person. It is for > this reason that there cannot be awareness of a computer or person; > not being dhammas they are not capable of being the object of panna > of the level of satipatthana. I understand that "computer" is not a paramattha dhamma. There appear to be two views on what a visible object is; a "dot of colour" or a "snapshot". I still don't understand how a visible object can be intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely desirable. My wife loves spicy food and I can't take it at all; how can a flavour object be "intrinsicly" anything? I had hoped to ask Khun Sunjin when I saw her, but it looks as though it won't happen. Can you help me here? Metta, Rob M :-) 20748 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Swee Boon, You asked: ------------- > Are you truly 'uninstructed' given the Dhamma? > -------------- It is usual to refer to anyone who hasn't attained the first stage of Path Consciousness as being 'uninstructed.' Needless to say, 'uninstructed worldling,' is conventional language for a particular five khandhas arising together as a moment of consciousness. Those five khandhas are inferior, in an ultimately real way, to any five khandhas conventionally known as a Learner. There was a dsg thread recently, that explained how dhammas can be ultimately superior, inferior or equal; I wish I had followed it more closely. ----------------- > As far as I know, the technique leading to enlightenment that needs to be mastered is as follows: > "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." > ------------------ What you have quoted is a description of the Tathagatha. Any five khandhas conventionally known as a Tathagatha are superior to those known as [any other] Arahant, which are superior to those known as a Learner. It is helpful to see the entire Tipitaka as descriptions of the five khandhas. The points you have labelled A, B and C can be seen that way. (Sorry if I'm sounding a bit fanatical, here :-)) You discussed the term 'fabrication' as found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and you concluded: -------------- > Fabrications (or determinations) is one of the five aggregates. It seems that you have not properly understood this aggregate well. > -------------- I can only agree with you, since I certainly don't understand that sutta. Hopefully, it is mainly because I am not familiar with the terminology it uses; I'd be grateful if you or anyone else will explain it for me. Kind regards. Ken H 20749 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the mental complications. A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon 20750 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:24am Subject: Re: Euthanasia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi, James > > I am Ki Yong. I am glad that you are not mad at me. Hi Star Kid Ki Yong! Yes, I am not mad at you; and I am glad that you are not sad about the subway accident anymore. But please don't be mad at the person who caused it. It is a waste of your energy and will make you think bad things about ALL people. Forgiveness could be the best thing you could do for yourself and everyone. I may or may not write a book. I don't feel that the time is right for me right now. That isn't really on my mind too much at the moment. But if I do decide to put your letters in a book, I will let your teacher know…and I would change your name. I am glad that you are learning about Euthanasia by writing about both sides of it. That is a good way to learn critical thinking skills. Yes, I have heard of Jack Kevorkian, Dr. Death, and he had a lot of publicity for a while, but I haven't heard about him lately. I am not sure if he is in jail, or what. I think he killed so many people not because of mercy and compassion for them, but because he wanted publicity. No, Euthanasia isn't legal in the U.S. Okay, here is my opinion about Euthanasia: Unlike you, I am not in favor of it and yes I believe it should remain illegal (with some flexibility in the laws to meet individual circumstances). Ki Yong, as you know, Euthanasia occurs because someone is going through a lot of pain, is going to die, and they want someone else to kill them early to `take them out of their misery'. Well, the main reason I am against that is because it will interfere with the karma of the person dying. Secondly, it is interfere with the karma of the person doing the killing. Pain and misery is a part of life and we have it for a very valuable lesson. It teaches us what it is to be human and why the human state is one of suffering and pain. Both people in a situation of Euthanasia are cheating on that lesson. Both of them want life to be without pain and suffering, but that isn't possible. It would be better for the person who is in pain, and going to die, to be mindful of every second up to that last minute of life. That will teach them many important things for the next life. We can't go around killing each other just because someone wants it and they are in pain. That could really get out of hand! I can't speak for all Buddhists as to if they are in favor of Euthanasia or not, but I can speak to Buddhism itself. Buddhism is not in favor of Euthanasia. The Buddha himself knew that he was going to die three months before it happened. He didn't tell his monks to just go ahead and kill him then because he didn't want to wait. Not only that, his death was very painful and suffering because he ate bad meat (which he knew was going to happen) and he didn't tell him monks to kill him then either. He remained mindful, gave final lessons, and let loose the final form of his body. Much would have been lost if `a Jack Kevorkian type' monk had been there and decided to `put him out of his misery' early. Okay, it was nice answering your questions. I hope that you continue to study different social issues and reach your own conclusions about them. That will make your mind very sharp and ready for anything. Take care and keep studying hard. I am very proud of you. Metta, James 20751 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, Thanks for the reference. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm > still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in > the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it > matter". > I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at > all. > > Here's the translation from the Metta site: > 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. > > 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What > ten? > 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is > the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was > done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my > near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near > and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, > what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be > done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no > reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > > > Regards, > > Victor 20752 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:41am Subject: Re: Me Again! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > It's me again Janice! Thanks for answering > my questions. Now here are another few questions! > > How old is the Buddha now? Do you pray in the temple > every once a week?(at least) Do you take any classes > in the temple? > > For a change I shall share a poem with you- > > YELLOW WITH AGE > See how old paper withers and looks > Ancient old photographs dusty old books > Watch how old leaves, linens and skin > Alter to mirror the changes within > Mark how with age things gradually mellow > React to the air and oxidize yellow. > Metta, > Janice Hi Star Kid Janice, You are very welcome for the answers. Concerning your other questions, the Buddha isn't alive anymore, so he has no age. He died about 3,500 years ago. No, I haven't really taken any classes in the temple but I have helped to teach some, which I guess is kind of like taking them? I have helped to teach meditation and Buddhism classes. I would like to take some of the classes on Thai culture and language, but I don't get a chance because they are kind of sporadic (look up that word in a dictionary ;-). Now I am starting to learn the Arabic language and culture to prepare to live in Egypt. Thank you very much for the poem! It was nice to read. It teaches us that everything gets old; that is a natural process of life. But no matter how old you get, I hope you always stay young at heart. Take care and keep reading poems! ;-) Metta, James 20753 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:19am Subject: RE: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Jan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:32 PM > > This letter is going to be extreamally boring, because > it is full of questions. If you don't ask a question, sometimes you don't get to know the answers! I can only answer some questions, so here we go. > > 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? Buddha means one with knowledge. The Buddha is one perfected in the knowledge of life, and hence he is called a Buddha. > 4. When was the Buddha born? About 2500 yrs ago. > > 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About > the Prince) There are texts describing the birth of Buddhism, when the Buddha first gave his teachings to the first 5 disciples, one of which became enlightened after the teaching. Buddhism is considered started at this point, as all three triple gems (the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha) came into existence. There are now shrines and markers built near where this happened. > > 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? The most 2 common symbols used in Thailand are probably the lotus and the dhamma wheel. In one of the sutta, the Buddha equate the kinds of people who can receive his teachings as different stages of lotus, and the lotus probably can be said to represent his compassion for beings because he became a Buddha so that he could teach them. The wheel represents two things: 1) cycle of life which last virtually forever, and 2) the teaching of the Buddha itself, which is sometimes called the wheel of dhamma. > > 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? I think there are all kinds of reasons, and I only list a few here: 1) They see the benefits of Buddhism. You can see that some people in this group were Christian before, but because they have been studying the teaching of the Buddha, and see the benefit of the teachings, they become a Buddhist. 2) Their parents are Buddhists, and therefore, they automatically "adopt" the religion. > > 10. This letter is boring right? Not really. I haven't fallen asleep yet ;-). kom 20754 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: What is the most popular religion? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > Thanks for your reply and I'm really glad that you > answered my question! > In Hong Kong, Hi Star Kid Jan! You're welcome for the answers. Yes, I have been reading about "SARS Pneumonia", which they are also calling the `Asian Flu'. That is very scary and sad for you. I hope that you keep your hands washed and avoid crowds of people…at least until it is under control a bit more. I am glad that you liked the funny quotes. Goethe, whose full name is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, was born August 28, 1749, and died March 22, 1832. He was from Germany and, yes, his writing is a little old fashioned, but it is very beautiful. I hope that you read some more of his poetry. He is very famous. Yes, high school is the same as secondary. I am glad to hear that you got two guinea pigs. Guinea Pigs are really cute…I like the sounds they make ;-). Make sure that you keep their food and water fresh and cage clean. They will bring you a lot of fun. I never could have Guinea Pigs because my mother is very afraid of mice, and they reminded her of mice. `Metta' is a Pali word which is traditionally translated as `Loving kindness', but it is also translated as `Friendliness'. Personally, I think the word means `Wise Love', which is love that isn't based on superficial things like appearance, sex, age, nationality, or even humanity. It is a type of love that neither attaches nor can be attached to. Children can have this type of love more easily and more frequently than adults…so consider yourself lucky! ;-) As far as the most popular religion, here is a breakdown of the number of adherents to each of the world religions from 2002 stastics: 1. Christianity: 2 billion 2. Islam: 1.3 billion 3. Hinduism: 900 million 4. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million 5. Buddhism: 360 million 6. Chinese traditional religion: 225 million 7. primal-indigenous: 150 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 14 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 6 million 14. Jainism: 4 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 3 million 17. Tenrikyo: 2.4 million 18. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 19. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 20. Rastafarianism: 700 thousand 21. Scientology: 600 thousand 22. Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand If you would like to learn more about the world religions as they relate to each other, I would recommend this web site: http://www.adherents.com Thank you for writing again and I hope you have fun with your Guinea Pigs! Metta, James 20755 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:28am Subject: Re: Me Again! Hi Star Kid Janice, Oops, I did a typo. I wrote that the Buddha died 3,500 years ago, but I meant 2,500 years ago. Was going too fast again! ;-) Metta, James 20756 From: m. nease Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: "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 at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem to refer to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates are dhammas. mike 20757 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and Victor) - In a message dated 3/29/03 6:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > >Hi Howard, > ... > >Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > >if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > >dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > >manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna > >break. > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon > > ============================ I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. My second point is that with regard to a conventional object such as a computer, I agree with you completely that both pleasant and unpleasant feeling arising from it, per se, and dukkhic reaction as well, pertain not to any rupa, but rather to the mental construct of 'computer', to what it signifies to us, and to how we think about it. Thus, the unpleasant feeling follows upon mental, not physical, contact. But, in fact, many of our feelings, especially the pleasant and unpleasant ones, it seems to me, arise not in response to sense objects such as hardness, brightness, sounds, etc, but rather to thoughts we have as the result of mental proliferation following upon sensory contact. Moreover, even with regard to vedana arising directly from rupic contact, the vedana is generally not intrinsic to the rupa, but is mediated by our cultivated tastes. Those flavors (or moreso, odors) I find unpleasant, for example, others may find very pleasant. An exception to this, it seems to me, is the feeling of discomfort we have with regard to strong or sharp pressure that we call pain. This seems to be a feeling arising directly from the rupic contact, alone, though thinking about it can certainly worsen the pain. (I suspect that even physical masochists find the sensations of extreme bodily assault to be unpleasant, but their *reaction* is perverse, namely reacting with craving for that very unpleasantness.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20758 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:52am Subject: Re: Religion with no-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James > > How are you doing? Hi Star Kid Tom! That was good thinking on your part! Yes, temples should be built away from crowds of people so that they are quiet and peaceful. I am not sure if it is correct to say that the monks `Pray to Buddha', but some actually do. Maybe that temple you are referring to is one where the monks do that. Otherwise they meditate and learn dhamma; but either way they need quiet. Again, good thinking! You are a smart boy, keep up the good work! ;-) Metta, James 20759 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: My First Ever Letter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hello sirs or madams, > > My name is Lucio. I'm from Canada but I'm born in the > U.S amd I'm Chinese. Hi Star Kid Lucio! First, I like the way you address your letter, `Dear Sirs or Madams', which is very respectful and nice. It is nice to meet you. My name is James Mitchell and I live in the USA and I was born here. I would agree with your observation that Buddhists are `religious about everything' if that means Buddhism influences every aspect of a Buddhist's life. That is true…it isn't just a weekend, church kind of religion. Please allow me to try to answer your other questions: 1.Why do Buddhists/monks shave their heads bald? (Answer: Monks shave their heads bald 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.) 2.Why do they wear orange robes? (Answer: Monks can wear orange, dark red, or brown robes and the color is to symbolize renunciation. Just like a leaf that is about to fall off of a tree will turn orange, dark red, or brown, that is what colors the robes can be. They are to symbolize that the monk is about to fall out of the round of life and not be reborn again.) 3.Why do they meditate 5 times a day? (Answer: I think you are confusing Buddhism with Islam, where the adherents pray five times a day…and it lasts for only a few minutes. Buddhists don't have to meditate five times a day…and because meditation lasts usually longer than a few minutes, that would be a lot of meditation! ;-) 4.Do you have to be a monk to be a Buddhist? (Answer: No.) 5.Why are there levels for the monks(like if a certain monk is advanced or a beginner?) (Answer: Nowadays there are levels of monks, but during the Buddha's time there really wasn't. During the Buddha's time, the Buddha would ask that someone who was a monk in another faith be a novice monk for six months before becoming a full monk. But everyone else would just become a full monk, right on their first day. Nowadays there are levels of monks that vary from temple to temple, like in the army. Personally, I don't agree with this new tradition because it isn't what the Buddha taught.) Take care Lucio and I hope you work hard in school. Metta, James 20760 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one and the same. They are dependent on each other, and this interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon 20761 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and Jon) - In a message dated 3/29/03 11:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say > that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the > concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one and > the same. They are dependent on each other, and this > interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The situation as I see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a relatively general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises a host of interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, which the mind collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based object associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a computer". This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed from actual physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the concept, itself, and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is based on. It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some Abhidhammikas, it seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific instances of that concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those instances are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as actual existents - though I know that you do. There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha dhamma such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The hardness is experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is not. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20762 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, I think the answer is that he who commited the harm didn't gain anything. Not only did he not gain anything, he will reap the suffering he caused many times over in the future. So how can I be angry. It's just senseless. Btw, a better trans. of agha might be evil or darkness. See PTS dict. Larry 20763 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Rob & Jon, Rob: Intrinsically wholesome or unwholesome is conventionally so. There is something in CMA about this. We've discussed it a couple of times. Maybe Sarah can remember. Jon: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. Larry 20764 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Aghata - Hatred Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:54 AM > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? The commentaries actually don't shed more lights on this sutta except on the last item: the commentator say the rest are obvious. We can see how different accumulations carry us along in understanding the teachings! I think it has to do with the knowledge of kamma and the result of kamma. If we understand (or remember) that doing something unbeneficial can't bring beneficial thing to the person doing it (be it ourselves or others), and that doing something beneficial can't bring anything else but something beneficial, then this knowledge/remembrance has a calming effect (unless of course, you wish that the person doing something unbeneficial deserve every bits that are coming to them ;-) ---- this might bring satisfaction but not calm ). Although the last item has commentaries associated with it, I can't really decode what the commentaries say, you may have to ask others with access to pali to comment on this. In my opinion, this is most readily understood. It's pretty silly to be angry at a rock, or a chair, or a desk (when you kick them), which is why it is called being angry for no good reason. If you notice it within yourself (I definitely notice it in me), we don't stay angry at a rock for every long: we search for some other beings to be angry at (why did he/she put this chair in my way, etc.). kom 20765 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - [snip] > I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The situation as I > see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a relatively > general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises a host of > interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, which the mind > collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based object > associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a computer". > This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed from actual > physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the concept, itself, > and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is based on. > It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some Abhidhammikas, it > seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific instances of that > concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those instances > are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as actual > existents - though I know that you do. > There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha dhamma > such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The hardness is > experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is not. > > With metta, > Howard 20766 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Concepts and Realities was Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Group, (and Howard, Jon, Victor) What exactly is a "concept" and what exactly is a "reality"? Are the dictionary meanings below the same as the meanings used in the Buddhist sense on this list? Reality (Dictionary.com) The quality or state of being actual or true. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. That which exists objectively and in fact: Concept (Dictionary.com): A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. Wouldn't seeing my computer just initially be seeing a whole coloured mosaic or panorama i.e. what appears to my eyes - then in a split second being differentiated into individual clumps - then 'recognised' as particular objects and given names, or known as 'not recognised'? Doesn't the naming mean that there is a record of something similar from the past in my mind, so that I know this object is the same or similar? If one is able to name some 'thing', does that mean there is a concept? I hope I'm not unintelligible - I struggle with this sort of discussion. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not > accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - > [snip] > > I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The > situation as I > > see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a > relatively > > general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises > a host of > > interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, > which the mind > > collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based > object > > associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a > computer". > > This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed > from actual > > physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the > concept, itself, > > and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is > based on. > > It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some > Abhidhammikas, it > > seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific > instances of that > > concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those > instances > > are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as > actual > > existents - though I know that you do. > > There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha > dhamma > > such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The > hardness is > > experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is > not. > > > > With metta, > > Howard 20767 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Jon, I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the mental complications. A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > object or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking > about dukkha the Buddha was not referring to the world of > conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is > dukkha, as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling > as you mention below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, > dukkha or anatta, to my understanding. > > Jon KKT: I want to share some thoughts on this topic. The Buddha taught the teaching of << no-self >> by analysing the body/mind into 5 aggregates to show that no self could be found. Therefore this analysis is merely a << means >> to help people to achieve the << aim >> that is the realization of no-self (anatta) (the finger pointing to the moon :-)) From the analysis of 5 aggregates, Abhidhamma made a further exhaustive analysis into 82 irreducible basic dhammas called paramattha dhammas. The purpose of this analysis is another << finger pointing to the moon >> rather than aiming at an exposition of the realities of man & the universe. My point is that << don't take the finger for the moon >> ie. don't forget that the realization of anatta should be the main object. Once is achieved this realization of no-self, ie. one becomes an Arahat, I don't think that when looking at things, an Arahat << sees >> them as paramattha dhammas! :-)) Take another example: We all know that all material is composed of molecules, atoms, particles. But in the daily practical life, we need not to see, for example, a table, a chair, or even our husband/wife as a conglomeration of molecules, atoms, particles! :-)) It's really crazy if we have such vision :-)) For conclusion, I quote the saying of a Zen master: Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters. After he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters. But after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters. (Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki) Peace, KKT 20768 From: smallchap Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Correction (Buddhaghosa) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > To all, > > Just sharing my thought. A toddler while learning to walk, will > struggle to balance the body, will fall and hurt himself. But once he > muster the technique of balancing the body while walking, it becomes > his second nature. He walks "not by striving and not by standing > still." Likewise, is vipassana meditation. > > smallchap muster should read master. 20769 From: smallchap Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does have its funny side. In return, I should warn > you against "striving." ----------------------- The Buddha actually praised those who strive for enlightment. See commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#theraattadattha smallchap 20770 From: Dan D. Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:25pm Subject: 10 great Dhamma quotes I have compiled 10 great Dhamma quotes that I never tire of reading: (1) Realizing the difference between kusala and akusala is crucial: "There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states." (Samyutta Nikaya V, 46:51 -- Bojjhangasamyutta [PTS 104]) -------------------- (2) "Pleasantness" is a lousy indicator of kusala: Lobhamulacittani--8: "Thattha katamam kamavacaram? 1. Somanassasahagatam..." (Abhidhammatha Sangaha I, 4) [Translation: "Consciousness rooted in greed -- (8 types): Amongst them what pertains to the sense sphere? 1. One consciousness accompanied by joy..."] -------------------- (3) "Restlessness" is an aspect of every akusala moment! (Try meditating on that one for awhile...): "Of the unwholesome mental factors, these four factors -- delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrongdoing, and restlessness -- are called universal unwholesome factors. They are found in all twelve unwholesome types of consciousness." (Abhidhammatha Sangaha II, 13) -------------------- (4) Akusala vanishes when clearly seen and understood for what it is: "Then, Mara the Evil One, realizing, 'The bhikkhu Samiddhi knows me,' sad and disappointed, disappeared right there." (Samyutta Nikaya I, 4 --Marasamyutta [variations on this line occur repeatedly in this samyutta]) ------------------- (5) There are no rules and prescriptions for purifying the mind: "That it is possible to purify by rules, that it is possible to purify by rites, that is possible to purify by rule and ritual: -- observance thus taken is called 'wrong observation (or handling) of mere rule and ritual.'" (Atthasalini -- Expositor, p. 451, PTS 34) -------------------- (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? [Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when lobha (greed, lust, craving) arises.] -------------------- (7) The real suffering is caused by the bondage of the mind and not by external factors: "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed...and said to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a great mass of people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala, some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' "Then the Blessed One, having understood the meaning of this, on that occasion recited these verses: 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong Made of iron, wood, or rope; But infatuation with jewelry and earrings, Anxious concern for wives and children-- This, the wise say, is the strong bond, Degrading, supple, hard to escape. But even this they cut and wander forth, Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" (Samyutta Nikaya I, 3:10 --Kosalasamyutta) ------------------- (8) Pointing a finger at others for causing your own suffering only cultivates hatred: "'He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me' -- those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred." (Dhammapada 3) -------------------- (9) Even extremely cruel action by another cannot cause hatred or suffering in one who understands Dhamma: "Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handed saw, he who gave rise to mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching." (Majjhima Nikaya 21 -- The simile of the saw) -------------------- (10) Opinionativeness is a symptom of ignorance: "For to whomsoever...there is no attainment of that learning which represses opinionativeness, nor any access, owing to the non- attainment of what should attained by conduct, such a person, from the absence of such access and such attainment, should be known as 'ignorant'" (Atthasalini -- Expositor, pp. 451-2, PTS 349) Dan 20771 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/29/03 5:57:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not > accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. > > Regards, > Victor > ========================= It almost seems to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't say that a computer is a concept. What I said was different from that, and far more complex. In any case, think it unlikely that either of us will soon come to properly understand what the other is saying on this issue. So let's just wish each other well in following the Dhamma, because I do think we somewhat share the same idea of what Buddhist practice consists of. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20772 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The Buddha taught the each and every aggregate is not self. This characteristics is not the same as the idea that there is no self could be found. The mean is not analysis of the body/mind into 5 aggregates, and the aim is not the realization of the idea "no self", which is in itself mistaken. The goal is liberation/release/cessation of dukkha, which is achieved through disenchantment and dispassion to the five aggregates. One grows disenchant and dispassionate to the five aggregates by seeing each of them as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." The classification of the conditioned, impermanent phenomena as the five aggregates is only one kind of classification. However conditioned and impermanent phenomena are classified, what is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is not self. Trying to see that there is no self won't get any closer to realize liberation/release/cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear everyone, [snip] > > KKT: I want to share > some thoughts on this topic. > > The Buddha taught the teaching > of << no-self >> by analysing > the body/mind into 5 aggregates > to show that no self could be found. > > Therefore this analysis is merely > a << means >> to help people > to achieve the << aim >> that is > the realization of no-self (anatta) > (the finger pointing to the moon :-)) > > From the analysis of 5 aggregates, > Abhidhamma made a further exhaustive > analysis into 82 irreducible basic > dhammas called paramattha dhammas. > > The purpose of this analysis is another > << finger pointing to the moon >> > rather than aiming at an exposition > of the realities of man & the universe. > > My point is that > << don't take the finger for the moon >> > ie. don't forget that the realization > of anatta should be the main object. > > Once is achieved this realization > of no-self, ie. one becomes an Arahat, > I don't think that when looking > at things, an Arahat << sees >> > them as paramattha dhammas! :-)) > > Take another example: > > We all know that all material is > composed of molecules, atoms, particles. > But in the daily practical life, > we need not to see, for example, > a table, a chair, or even our > husband/wife as a conglomeration > of molecules, atoms, particles! :-)) > > It's really crazy if we have such vision :-)) > > > For conclusion, I quote > the saying of a Zen master: > > Before a man studies Zen, > to him mountains are mountains > and waters are waters. > > After he gets an insight into the truth of Zen > through the instruction of a good master, > mountains to him are not mountains > and waters are not waters. > > But after this when he really attains > to the abode of rest, mountains are once > more mountains and waters are waters. > > (Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 20773 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:25pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Realities was Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Christine et al - In a message dated 3/29/03 6:26:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Group, (and Howard, Jon, Victor) > > What exactly is a "concept" and what exactly is a "reality"? Are > the dictionary meanings below the same as the meanings used in the > Buddhist sense on this list? > > Reality (Dictionary.com) > The quality or state of being actual or true. > The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or > essence. > That which exists objectively and in fact: > > Concept (Dictionary.com): > A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or > occurrences. > Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is definitely what I mean by 'concept'. --------------------------------------------------- > > Wouldn't seeing my computer just initially be seeing a whole coloured > mosaic or panorama i.e. what appears to my eyes - then in a split > second being differentiated into individual clumps - > then 'recognised' as particular objects and given names, or known > as 'not recognised'? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sounds about right to me. ---------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't the naming mean that there is a record of something similar > from the past in my mind, so that I know this object is the same or > similar? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a familiar pattern of phenomena has occurred and is noted. ----------------------------------------------------- If one is able to name some 'thing', does that mean there > > is a concept? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe that is so. Of course, there also can be concepts and their automatic (i.e. not consciously willed) application to a bunch of phenomena *without* naming occurring. ----------------------------------------------------- > I hope I'm not unintelligible - I struggle with this sort of > discussion. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I find all that you have said here to be completely intelligible. ------------------------------------------------- > > metta, > Christine > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20774 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:45pm Subject: Questions again....(kom) Dear Kom, Thank You for calming me down about the war in Iraq.You are correct that could create hatred and violence among people. Recently, there has been a serious case of the epidemic, Pneumonia and it is quite frightening. You said that the mindfulness path can get you out of sufferings. Then how do you do this? Do you pray or go to the temple? Here are other questions: 1)Does meditating in the temple help you relax? 2)Do you go to the temple every week? 3) How did the Buddha die? The question you asked me about am I interested about Buddhism, I am fascinated about it! Before I just thought it was a religion and that was it and I now know that there are many things to learn about Buddhism. Well, that is it! Metta, Janice 20775 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:49pm Subject: Temples Hi James, Thanks for that really interesting information about the temple. Now that you told me so much I just can't stop questions coming out. Do the dharmas talk in Pali?Are there special Buddhist foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for lunch? On special events are there there any unique decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Or is there a head of the community to lead the ceromony during special event? Thanks again for the amazing answers. Metta HIlary 20776 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:52pm Subject: Fw: Hello!!!! Dear James, wow, I really didn't know that there are so many things behind the Buddhist religion. Everything has a story or meaning. I really appreciated the answers and I learned a lot. I am quite interested to know more. Could, you please write some rules or details about how the monks use the 'Alms Bowl' !! And why does this religion suit you the best?Is there a meaning behind that? Do monks collect food at a certain time or do they just go on the streets when they want to and collect food? I also heard that long time ago children in Myanmar had to go to monks schools for a certain time and learn their religion, is that true? Did they only learn their religion? Thank you for the reply. Everything I read from the letters which everyone writes to each other about the religion make me learn much more, than I learn in school. Anne-Catherine : ) PS Your poems are really good, How long does it take to write a short poem? It is hard, isn't it ?? 20777 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The Buddha taught the each and every aggregate is not self. This characteristics is not the same as the idea that there is no self could be found. KKT: Self never exists ! There is no such thing as self or soul ! Either the Buddha taught that or did not teach that, the self also never exists ! So what exists then? What exists is people's wrong << belief >> in the existence of such a self. This illusory belief << crystallizes >> in people into the feeling or sensation or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> Therefore liberation means to be free from this feeling. This is the meaning of Buddha's phrase << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> Upon hearing this phrase from the Buddha, some disciples of the Buddha << experienced >> the freedom from this feeling and became right on the spot Arahats. Thus the << dropping >> of this feeling is a << real >> experience and not just the realization of a mere concept or idea. --------------- The mean is not analysis of the body/mind into 5 aggregates, and the aim is not the realization of the idea "no self", which is in itself mistaken. KKT: The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation. And liberation, in my opinion, is synonym of the experience of no-self ie. the realization of no-self. (but not the realization of the << idea >> of no-self which is merely an intellectual stuff) -------------- The goal is liberation/release/cessation of dukkha, which is achieved through disenchantment and dispassion to the five aggregates. One grows disenchant and dispassionate to the five aggregates by seeing each of them as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." KKT: Could you tell me what is the nature of the << discernment >> you talk above? Is it a concept? If it is simply a concept then I'm afraid it is of little use. (In Mahayana Buddhism, this special kind of << discernment >> is called Prajna-Paramita or Trancendental Wisdom and is the << key >> for liberation in Mahayana Buddhism) -------------- The classification of the conditioned, impermanent phenomena as the five aggregates is only one kind of classification. KKT: What is the use of such classification into the 5 aggregates by the Buddha if not for the purpose of liberation? I don't think the Buddha was interested in the psychology stuff just for the sake of itself ! -------------- However conditioned and impermanent phenomena are classified, what is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is not self. KKT: What is impermanent is dukkha, OK. But I don't see clearly how << what is dukkha >> could be << not self >> ? Could you give an explanation? What I see clearly is that the analysis into 5 aggregates is an evident proof of no-self. And this is precisely the << purpose >> of the Buddha in making such analysis. -------------- Trying to see that there is no self won't get any closer to realize liberation/release/cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor KKT: The experience of no-self is a << real >> experience. It is the experience of liberation. It is not the result of just << seeing >> or of mere intellectual reasoning with concept. Otherwise Arahathood would be easy to achieve, would it not? This is my view on this question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Victor. Peace, KKT 20778 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Rob M --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Boy this is an old post! Sorry about that, Rob! I had kept it for reply, but did get a chance to write. I remembered it when I saw Victor's post that also refers to a computer. I thought it might be useful to discuss both ;-)) > I understand that "computer" is not a paramattha dhamma. There > appear to be two views on what a visible object is; a "dot of > colour" or a "snapshot". I still don't understand how a visible > object can be intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or > extremely desirable. I don't think either of the 2 views you mention is itself mentioned in the texts. Personally I would not see it as fruitful to attempt a description of 'what visible object is', since any description will be limited by a conventional frame of reference. The best 'description' of visible object that I know is that it is the dhamma that is experienced through the eye-door. > My wife loves spicy food and I can't take it > at all; how can a flavour object be "intrinsicly" anything? I think it's important to remember, as you already know, that neither 'spicy food' nor what we conventionally understand by 'flavour' is what is experienced through the tongue door. > I had hoped > to ask Khun Sunjin when I saw her, but it looks as though it won't > happen. Can you help me here? Not really, I'm afraid. I'm inclined to assume that it will become clearer if there is a better understanding of the true nature of the reality of the sense-door object. Jon 20779 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be > seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. It seems to me that in the suttas eyes, ears, etc are to be regarded as the faculties of sight, hearing etc rather than the objects that we know as eyeball/pupil/cornea or eardrum etc. I say this because of the context in which these terms are often found, such as the 'sets' of eye, visible object, seeing consciousness, contact, pleasant /unpleasant feeling arising from contact etc. These are the same dhammas as are referred to by the 5 khandhas etc. > To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate > objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the > mental complications. Understanding the distinction between dhammas and concepts is important, I believe. When we read passages in the texts such as 'sabbe sankhara anicca/dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta' we need to know what are the 'sankhara' and 'dhamma' being referred to. Likewise with the 5 khandhas. On my reading these references should be read as excluding concepts. > A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. The question that mainly interests me is, what do the texts say about impermanence and dukkha? In the case of anatta, Victor, you often point out that the Buddha did not say that 'there is no self', but only that the aggregates etc are non-self. I appreciate this particularity on your part. When it comes to anicca and dukkha, there is a similar distinction to be noted. Anicca and dukkha (like anatta) are characteristics that are said to pertain to dhammas rather than concepts, on my reading. Jon 20780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > object > > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > dukkha > > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > objects. ... > This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > "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 > > at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > to refer > to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates > are dhammas. Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. Jon 20781 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Victor) - H: I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. J: I agree that dukkha is not just unpleasant feeling, but nor is it just the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. It is, to my understanding, the inherent unsatisfactoriness in all conditioned phenomena due to their impermanence. This is more apparent to the arahant (who of course no longer has any mental reaction of dissatisfaction) than to the unenlightened or less-enlightened being, because of the arahant's greater degree of penetration of the true characteristic of conditioned phenomena. H: My second point is that with regard to a conventional object such as a computer, I agree with you completely that both pleasant and unpleasant feeling arising from it, per se, and dukkhic reaction as well, pertain not to any rupa, but rather to the mental construct of 'computer', to what it signifies to us, and to how we think about it. Thus, the unpleasant feeling follows upon mental, not physical, contact. But, in fact, many of our feelings, especially the pleasant and unpleasant ones, it seems to me, arise not in response to sense objects such as hardness, brightness, sounds, etc, but rather to thoughts we have as the result of mental proliferation following upon sensory contact. Moreover, even with regard to vedana arising directly from rupic contact, the vedana is generally not intrinsic to the rupa, but is mediated by our cultivated tastes. Those flavors (or moreso, odors) I find unpleasant, for example, others may find very pleasant. An exception to this, it seems to me, is the feeling of discomfort we have with regard to strong or sharp pressure that we call pain. This seems to be a feeling arising directly from the rupic contact, alone, though thinking about it can certainly worsen the pain. (I suspect that even physical masochists find the sensations of extreme bodily assault to be unpleasant, but their *reaction* is perverse, namely reacting with craving for that very unpleasantness.) J: As we agree, sensory contact is one thing and idea of 'computer' is another. In the case of painful feeling arising because of contact with the harness that we take for computer (i.e., in conventional terms, if we knock ourselves against the computer), it is the sensory contact that conditions the painful feeling. At the saem time, there may also be aversion for which the concept of 'computer' is the object. It's interesting to note that what we consider to be the 'same rupas' might be pleasant object at one moment and unpleasant object at another (depending on the 'force of our contact' with the hardness that we take for 'computer'). Of course, in the Buddha's teaching they are not the 'same' rupas at all (since all conditioned phenomena arise and fall away every moment). Jon 20782 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say > that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the > concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one > and the same. They are dependent on each other, and this > interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. I'm not sure if I've understood you here, Victor. Are you are saying that there are: - dhammas such as are analysed and described in terms of the 5 khandhas, namas and rupas etc - concepts, which are wholly mind-constructed - 'objects' that are neither of the above? I am not aware that this 3rd category is found in the teachings (but I may have misunderstood you). Jon 20783 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob & Jon, > > Rob: Intrinsically wholesome or unwholesome is conventionally so. > There is something in CMA about this. We've discussed it a couple > of times. > Maybe Sarah can remember. Are you referring to the passage that I cited recently in a post to Dan (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20504)? > Jon: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. Yes, but the context of this discussion is the objects of the 5 sense-doors. There is no suggestion that the mind-door object is intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant. Jon 20784 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > > object > > > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > > dukkha > > > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > > objects. > ... > > This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > > > "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 > > > > at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > > separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > > to refer > > to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates > > are dhammas. > > Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is > conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, > birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha > dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life > (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. (By the way, an interesting but parenthetical point: what, if any, is the relationship between pa.tisandhi citta and the arising of each moment of consciousness? I'd be very interested in any citations from the texts linking the two). OK, how about 'association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted'? Paramattha dhammas can surely be inferred from these concepts (all pointing at domanassa associated with forms of dosa I suppose) but still these are conventional, conceptual expressions, aren't they? The Buddha often spoke in purely conventional terms (e.g. on the benefits of using a toothbrush in the Vinaya) and didn't, I think, limit his speech or meanings exclusively to paramattha dhammas. Another example: "Sleeping till sunrise, adultery, irascibility, malevolence, evil companions, avarice -- these six causes ruin a man. "The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to ruin does he fall in both worlds -- here and the next. "Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering at unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice -- these nine causes ruin a man. "Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are dear unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and not with elders -- he declines just as the moon during the waning half. "Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking, frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly brings disrepute to his family. "Who by habit sleeps by day, and keeps late hours, is ever intoxicated, and is licentious, is not fit to lead a household life." Digha Nikaya 31 Sigalovada Sutta I think you know that I'm reasonably convinced of abhidhamma and that it is the 'high teaching'. But to deny the conventional expressions in the tipitaka seems to me not only dismiss a large portion of the tipitaka but also to deny the validity of the understanding of those who know the dhamma only on the level of vohaara sacca--a necessary level of understanding to begin to approach abhidhamma for most people, I think. 'Dukkha', like 'dhamma' has different connotations dependent on context, I think. Corrections welcomed! mike 20785 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:42am Subject: The Help From Buddhaghosa For Christine Forsyth: Re: Aghata - Hatred Dear Christine How are you? I now have an opportunity to demonstrate that Buddhaghosa's commentaries do have a very important role to play in our efforts to understand the Buddha's statements found in Suttam Pi.taka. As you are a student of Pali, I made sure that my translation was literal so that you could perform a Syntax Walk-through. Here is the commentary explanation in Section 30,Aaghaatapa.tivinaya Suttava.n.nanaa, Navakanipaata Paa.li, Anguttaranikaayo. "tam kutettha labbhaati "tam anatthacara.nam maa ahosii"ti etasmim puggale kuto labbhaa" "'Tam kutettha labbhaa' means "How could it be possible in this person (for me) to wish that that execution of damage did not happen?" Notes Tam = refers back to "anattham me acari, he inflicted damage on me" Tam = tam anatthacara.nam (that execution of damage) Kutettha = kuto ettha Labbhaa = to be possible, to have a chance, Ettha (in this) = (etasmim puggale )= in this person, in (the context of) this person What the Buddha was teaching here was for us to accept that the damage has been already done. We were unable to prevent it, so no use to dwell on the past. Even though we may not be able to adopt this type of attitude of resignation easily or quickly, the Buddha recommended it as one of the techniques for us to consider in our efforts to manage our anger. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Hi Victor, I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it matter". I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at all. Here's the translation from the Metta site: 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What ten? 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > Regards, > Victor 20786 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and Mike) - In a message dated 3/30/03 6:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: >Hi Jon, > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >>Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > >object > >>or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > >dukkha > >>the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > >objects. > ... > >This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > > >"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 > > > >at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > >separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > >to refer > >to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain &grief); the aggregates > >are dhammas. > > Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is > conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, > birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha > dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life > (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. > > Jon > > ============================== Forgive me, Jon, but it seems to me that you are radically reinterpreting clear language here to force it to fit your preferred framework. It is indeed conventional events here that the Buddha is saying are found to be distressing. The fact that they do not exist as they appear, "out in the world", but only as percepts in the mind, doesn't change matters. It is, indeed, our experiences of loss of those apparent things that we crave, of not getting those things we seem to want, and so on that cause us distress. This is the grossest and most powerful form of dukkha, namely strong distress and grief, that the Buddha is pointing to in these passages. When a loved one passes on, there has actually been a mere continuation of the dhammic flow, and were that all we were to "see", no grief would result - but the primary distress results from the conventional knowledge that "our loved one is gone, that sweet, loving person who was so much a a part of our life is no longer present, and will not be present again (in this lifetime)". That is how it appears to the mind, and that is the source of great distress, not, for example, such a matter as the hardness of a moment ago no longer being present. Our dukkha arises from *mental concocting* - from our thoughts, desires, and hates, virtually all directed towards conventional things. On the other hand, the *solution* to the problem of dukkha, how this can be brought to an end, is the application of skillful means of many sorts taught by the Buddha, operating at multiple levels of our mentality including the conventional levels, but the core ingredient of which is the microscopic, concentrated vipassana that gives insight into the ultimate nature of what is, and especially coming to see the impermanence (and conditionality), unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality of all that is experienced. Step by step, the mind is transformed until sufficient wisdom has arised to uproot the essential defilements and give us peace. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20787 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, I read your post. The reason why I reiterated the point that computer being a concept is not accurate but did not respond to your post is that I don't think the focus of the discussion is about the Dhamma. I think that both of us have come to understand that a object and the concept of the object are not one and the same. And I do think that seeing this distinction contributes to clarity in thought and communication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > It almost seems to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't say that > a computer is a concept. What I said was different from that, and far more > complex. In any case, think it unlikely that either of us will soon come to > properly understand what the other is saying on this issue. So let's just > wish each other well in following the Dhamma, because I do think we somewhat > share the same idea of what Buddhist practice consists of. > > With metta, > Howard 20788 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/30/03 7:12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > H: I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is > important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant > feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the > result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the > "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant > feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that > arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing > away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, > but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and > the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant > feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. > > J: I agree that dukkha is not just unpleasant feeling, but nor is it > just the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect > to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. It is, to my > understanding, the inherent unsatisfactoriness in all conditioned > phenomena due to their impermanence. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why does their impermanence make them unsatisfactory? What is wrong with not lasting? NOTHING is wrong with not lasting! We just don't like it!! We WANT pleasant things to last, just as we want unpleasant things to cease. The unsatisfactoriness comes from our desires and preferences, and are *not* intrinsic in the phenomena themselves. The very fact, as you allude to in the next sentence, that dissatisfaction (dukkha) is gone in the arahant *proves* that it is extrinsic. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is more apparent to the> > arahant (who of course no longer has any mental reaction of > dissatisfaction) than to the unenlightened or less-enlightened being, > because of the arahant's greater degree of penetration of the true > characteristic of conditioned phenomena ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20789 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/30/03 10:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I read your post. The reason why I reiterated the point that > computer being a concept is not accurate but did not respond to your > post is that I don't think the focus of the discussion is about the > Dhamma. > > I think that both of us have come to understand that a object and > the concept of the object are not one and the same. And I do think > that seeing this distinction contributes to clarity in thought and > communication. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== Okay, Victor, thank you. Understood. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20790 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:26am Subject: RE: [dsg] Questions again....(kom) Dear Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 11:46 PM > > Recently, there has been a > serious case of the epidemic, Pneumonia and it is > quite frightening. Yes, I have heard about that too, and I agree that it is quite frightening. It is only frightening when we think about it, though. Do you see that if you don't think about the disease (and about the people who are affected by it), we might not be frightened then. When I was having a dhamma discussion yesterday, I didn't think about the disease (because I was thinking about the dhamma discussion), I wasn't frightened then. I think it is best if we take the best precautions we have about the disease, and don't think about it much, because being frightened is not very useful. > > You said that the mindfulness path can get > you out of sufferings. Then how do you do this? Do you > pray or go to the temple? Mindfulness is the quality of the mind that remembers to do good things, like when you remember to do nice things for other people, to abstain from bad deeds, to develop tranquility of the mind, and to be mindful and recollective of realities. The mindfulness that is the path out of suffering is aware of the realities as they truly are. In normal circumstances, whenever you and I have feelings, we might think of that feeling as being ours, or that we are that feeling. Have you ever thought "I am angry?" --- this thought contradicts the nature of anger. If anger doesn't last, why should one identify that one is the anger? If anger arises whenever we experience something we don't like (and hence we don't have control over anger), why should we identify ourselves with anger which comes and goes with its own conditions? Whenever there is mindfulness of the true nature of realities (as non-self, as a conditioned realities), that is the path that the Buddha taught. There is no special circumstances required: I don't have to do anything (like you don't have to do anything to be angry --- anger has its own conditions just like mindfulness). Mindfulness doesn't happen by itself, though, as it is conditioned. The direct conditions for mindfulness of reality is the firm understanding of the true teaching of the Buddha. Hence, if there is to be mindfulness, one needs to firmly understand that there is nothing beyond the realities that the Buddha has mentioned, and that by learning about these realities, we can understand better ourselves, and eventually, this will lead out of suffering. Beyond the understanding of the Buddha teachings, one need to be as good as one can in order to have mindfulness. Wicked and really greedy people have less opportunities to have mindfulness than one who isn't. So I don't pray in order to have mindfulness, and I don't go to the temple in order to have mindfulness. I pray to the Buddha recollecting his good qualities (as a great beneficial teacher, as a purified person, as a truly compassionate person). > 1)Does meditating in the temple help you > relax? I nowadays don't do much mediations. Yoga helps me relax. Exercise helps me relax. Readings about dhamma help me relax. Discussing dhamma helps me relax. I am certain that meditations, even the wrong meditations, help some people relax. The correct meditations would help all people relax. > 2)Do you go to the temple every week? No, but I do go to dhamma discussions every week. > 3) How did the Buddha die? The Buddha passed away in old age near the city called Kusinara. There is a long story in the Buddhist text telling us about his circumstances and his teachings before his death. The death of the Buddha is very special, as he passed away completely, never to return, unlike us, who, when we die, would be reborn in another life immediately. > The question you asked me about am I > interested about Buddhism, I am fascinated about it! > Before I just thought it was a religion and that was > it and I now know that there are many things to learn > about Buddhism. > I am glad you are interested in Buddhism. The teachings of the Buddha really helps me a lot, and I know some people would benefit from it as well, if they give the teachings a chance. kom 20791 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:20pm Subject: The Help From Buddhaghosa For Christine Forsyth: Re: Aghata - Hatred Dear Suan, I am well and hope you are also. Thank you for your post, I appreciate your taking the time to help - the syntax walk-through will give me 'something to chew over'. I note the value of Buddhaghosa's commentary. I have to say, since starting to study Pali, that I have gained an immense respect for the knowledge and skill of translators, and wince at the memory of some criticisms I voiced about differences in translations. The uni. course is going well, one of the aims in this elementary course is to ignite enthusiasm for studying Pali and allay anxiety. (I'm still at the stage of "The serpent gets food from the poet" and "He carried a monkey to the mountain" - and I am truly astonished by the number of oxen I come across in the text book. :-)) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Christine > > How are you? > > I now have an opportunity to demonstrate that Buddhaghosa's > commentaries do have a very important role to play in our efforts to > understand the Buddha's statements found in Suttam Pi.taka. > > As you are a student of Pali, I made sure that my translation was > literal so that you could perform a Syntax Walk-through. > > Here is the commentary explanation in Section 30,Aaghaatapa.tivinaya > Suttava.n.nanaa, Navakanipaata Paa.li, Anguttaranikaayo. > > "tam kutettha labbhaati "tam anatthacara.nam maa > ahosii"ti etasmim puggale kuto labbhaa" > > "'Tam kutettha labbhaa' means "How could it be possible in this > person (for me) to wish that that execution of damage did not happen?" > > Notes > > Tam = refers back to "anattham me acari, he inflicted damage on me" > > Tam = tam anatthacara.nam (that execution of damage) > > Kutettha = kuto ettha > > Labbhaa = to be possible, to have a chance, > > Ettha (in this) = (etasmim puggale )= in this person, in (the context > of) this person > > What the Buddha was teaching here was for us to accept that the > damage has been already done. We were unable to prevent it, so no use > to dwell on the past. > > Even though we may not be able to adopt this type of attitude of > resignation easily or quickly, the Buddha recommended it as one of > the techniques for us to consider in our efforts to manage our anger. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 20792 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:59pm Subject: RE: [dsg] 10 great Dhamma quotes Dear Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan D. [mailto:dhd5@c...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:26 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] 10 great Dhamma quotes > > > I have compiled 10 great Dhamma quotes that I > never tire of reading: > Very nice. Would appreciate more if you have some more! kom 20793 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Smallchap, > -----Original Message----- > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:21 PM > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does > have its funny side. > In return, I should warn > > you against "striving." > ----------------------- > > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for > enlightment. See > commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#th eraattadattha Dan just posted this: (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? [Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when lobha (greed, lust, craving) arises.] I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. kom 20794 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:26pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & KKT, > -----Original Message----- > From: phamdluan2000 [mailto:phamdluan@a...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:04 PM > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed > One was dwelling at > Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. > Then, when the night > had advanced, a certain devata of stunning > beauty, illuminating the > entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. > Having approached, > he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one > side, and said to him: > "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" > "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I > crossed the flood." > "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and > by not straining > you crossed the flood?" > "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I > sank; but when I > struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this > way, friend, that by > not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." > > {The devata:} > 1. "After a long time at last I see > A brahmin who is fully quenched, > Who by not halting, not straining, > Has crossed over attachment to the world." > > This is what that devata said. > The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, > "The Teacher has > approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One > and, keeping him on > the right, disappeared right there. > > As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01 -001.html#n1 Here are some info from the Thai Commentaries: 1) The commentaries explicitly that this is a he who came to see the Buddha. 2) The flood here refers the ogha 4 which are: a) Kama Ogha - attachment to the 5 sensualities b) Bhav-Ogha - attachment to the jhana attainment c) Ditth-Ogha - attachment to the wrong views d) Avij-Ogha - ignorance, arising with all the akusala states The commentaries expand on the meaning of ogha further: its meaning [ogha] is that it brings large number of beings toward lower destinations, including all the unhappy plane of existence. Or in another way, it doesn't bring the beings to nibbana, but to rebirth in the 3 places of birth [kama-bhava, rupa-bhava, and arupa-bhava]. 3) The buddha's first answer is difficult to understand, because he intended to rid the conceit of the deva who thought he would know thoroughly what the Buddha replied, because one with conceit is still not a suitable receptacle of dhamma. After the deva had listened to the first answer, the conceit is eliminated (because he knew he doesn't know the meaning of what the Buddha just said). 4) The commentaries explained the second answers in the following different ways [each comparing the different states] a) Because of kilesa, one is said to sink. Because of abhi-sankara [bad and good kamma], one is said to be swept away. b) Because of attachment and wrong view, one sinks. Because of the rest of kilesa and abhi-sankhara, one is swept away. c) Because of attachment, one sinks. Because of dithi, one is swept away. d) Because of the wrong view of eternalism, one sinks. Because of the wrong views of annihiliation, one is swept away. This is because bhava-dithi is attached to the self [???], but vibhava-dithi is attached to what is unknown [speculative?]. e) Because of attachment, one sinks. Because of the udhacca, one is swept away. f) Because of self-torture, one sinks. Because of over-indulgence, one is swept away. g) Because of all the akusala states, one sinks. Beause of all the mundane kusala states, one is swept away. 5) The deva achieved sotapanna after the 2nd answer. 6) The deva said after a long time because he saw the Buddha Kassapa, after which there were no other Buddha until this one. The other interpretation is that he said a long time, referring to the time he hasn't achieved the vision (sotapanna). My comment: How is one not halting or straining, not sinking or not getting swept away? Through the one way: the 8-fold path. Through satipathana. When there is mindfulness of realities, one neither sinks nor floats. But the mindfulness that (I think) truly can claim of not sinking or floating is the supramundane path, for it doesn't result in rebirth (unlike the mundane mindfulness). I think the meanings of some or all of the above comparisons will become more evident as one learns what is and what isn't the path. As one is walking on the path in the beginning, one tend to fall off it by staying (sinking) or by overshooting (getting swept away). For example, in 4c), because of attachment to mindfulness, one sinks, and because of the thought that I must follow this and that ritual to have this mindfulness, one is swept away. kom kom 20795 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I don't think that it is useful or skillful here to talk about whether things exist or not. It is speculative to think of self as soul, and I don't think the Buddha taught whether self exists or not. The teaching is not about the view on the existence of self. Liberation is neither the realization nor the experience of no-self, where the idea of no-self is a misconception. The third noble truth, the cessation of dukkha, is realized not by dropping the feeling that you mentioned. It is through dispassion that one is released, and one becomes dispassionate through disenchantmet with every conditioned phenomenon. Every conditioned phenomenon is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory. What is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." In this sense I wrote that what is dukkha is not self. This might sound circular, but the right discernment in this context is stated exactly as "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." And seeing thus, one grows disenchanted with the conditioned phenomenon. There are different classfications of conditioned phenomena. They can be classified as the five aggregates or they can also be classified as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect. Conditioned phenomena also include birth, ageing, death, illness, not getting what is wanted, separation from the loved ones. However they are classified, the purpose of these classifications is not to prove that there is no self. To realize the goal of liberation takes effort. To see each and every conditioned phenomenon in it's three characteristics is a necessary but not sufficient condition that leads to release. In other words, seeing the three characteristics in the conditioned phenomena does not mean one has realized the third Noble Truth, the cessation of dukkha. Before one is fully released, there is work that needs to be done. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > Self never exists ! > > There is no such thing as self or soul ! > > Either the Buddha taught that > or did not teach that, > the self also never exists ! > > So what exists then? > > What exists is people's wrong > << belief >> in the existence of such a self. > > This illusory belief << crystallizes >> > in people into the feeling or sensation > or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> > > Therefore liberation means > to be free from this feeling. > > This is the meaning of Buddha's phrase > << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> > > Upon hearing this phrase from > the Buddha, some disciples of > the Buddha << experienced >> > the freedom from this feeling and > became right on the spot Arahats. > > Thus the << dropping >> of this > feeling is a << real >> experience > and not just the realization > of a mere concept or idea. > --------------- [snip] > > The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation. > > And liberation, in my opinion, > is synonym of the experience of no-self > ie. the realization of no-self. > (but not the realization of the << idea >> > of no-self which is merely an intellectual stuff) > -------------- [snip] > > Could you tell me > what is the nature of the > << discernment >> you talk above? > > Is it a concept? > > If it is simply a concept > then I'm afraid it is of little use. > > (In Mahayana Buddhism, > this special kind of << discernment >> > is called Prajna-Paramita or > Trancendental Wisdom and > is the << key >> for liberation > in Mahayana Buddhism) > -------------- [snip] > > What is the use of such > classification into the 5 aggregates > by the Buddha if not for > the purpose of liberation? > > I don't think the Buddha was > interested in the psychology > stuff just for the sake of itself ! > -------------- > [snip] > > What is impermanent > is dukkha, OK. But I don't see > clearly how << what is dukkha >> > could be << not self >> ? > > Could you give an explanation? > > What I see clearly is that > the analysis into 5 aggregates > is an evident proof of no-self. > And this is precisely the << purpose >> > of the Buddha in making such analysis. > -------------- [snip] > > The experience of no-self > is a << real >> experience. > It is the experience of liberation. > > It is not the result of just << seeing >> or > of mere intellectual reasoning with concept. > > Otherwise Arahathood would be > easy to achieve, would it not? > > This is my view on this question. > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Victor. > > > Peace, > > > KKT 20796 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Way 69, Clear Comprehension 5 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 5. Clear comprehension in the partaking of food and drink As to purpose, there is the eightfold purpose referred to with the words, "Not for sport" and so forth in the formula of reflection on the four requisites of a bhikkhu. As such should clear comprehension of purpose be known. Non-suitable to one is the food by which to that one there is discomfort, whatever the food may be in quality or taste: coarse or fine or bitter or sweet or anything else. Suitable is food that does not cause discomfort. Just irreversibly non-suitable are these: the food acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the food by which good decreases and evils increase in one who partakes of it. Food which is got by right means and food which does not cause decrease of good and increase of evil in the one taking it are suitable. In this matter of the partaking of food, clear comprehension of suitability should be understood according to the explanation given above, and the clear comprehension of resort should be understood by way of the non-abandoning of the subject of meditation. Within there is no eater called a self. As stated already, by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the receiving of food in the bowl; by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the descent of the hand into the bowl; and by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, the making of the food into suitable lumps, the raising of the lumps from the bowl, and the opening of the mouth take place. No one opens the jaws with a key. No one opens the jaws with a contrivance. Just by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, take place the putting of a lump of food in the mouth, the pestle-action of the upper row of teeth, the mortar-work of the lower row of teeth, and the tongue's activity comparable to that of the hand collecting together material that is being crushed. Thus that lump of food in the mouth is mixed together with the thin saliva at the end of the tongue and the thick saliva at the root of the tongue. That food in the mortar of the lower teeth, turned by the tongue, moistened by the saliva, and ground fine by the pestle of the upper teeth is not put into the stomach by anyone with a ladle or a spoon. Just by the process of oscillation it goes on. There is no one within who having made a straw mat is bearing each lump that goes in. Each lump stands by reason of the process of oscillation. There is no one who having put up an oven and lit a fire is cooking each lump standing there. By only the process of caloricity the lump of food matures. There is no one who expels each digested lump with a stick or pole. Just the process of oscillation expels the digested food. It is oscillation [vayodhatu] that does the taking onward, the moving away from side to side; and it is oscillation that bears, turns round, pulverizes, causes the removal of liquidity, and expels. Extension [pathavidhatu] also does bearing up, turning round, pulverizing and the removal of liquidity. Cohesion (apodhatu] moistens and preserves wetness. Caloricity [tejodhatu] ripens or digests the food that goes in. Space [akasadhatu] becomes the way for the entering of the food. Consciousness [viññanadhatu] as a consequence of right kind of action knows in any particular situation. According to reflection of this sort, should the clear comprehension of non-delusion be understood here. [Tika] Taking onward: moving on up to the mouth. [T] Moving away from side to side: taking forwards from there to the belly. Again, taking onward = carrying beyond the mouth-aperture. [T] Moving away from side to side = taking what is going belly-wards, side-wise. [T] Bears = causes to stand in the stomach. [T] Turns round = causes to turn back and forth. [T] Pulverizes = causes the complete powdering as if by a pestle. [T] Expels = causes the depositing outside the belly. [T] In regard to the functions of the process of extension, too, the explanation is similar to that which has been already stated. [T] Indeed, these -- bearing, turning, pulverizing, drying -- the process of oscillation is able to do, only, together with the process of extension. Not singly by itself. Therefore, these -- bearing, turning, pulverizing, the removal of liquidity or drying -- too, are stated by way of the function of the process of extension. [T] Moistens = makes humid. [T] Preserves wetness: Just as there is no very great drying by the process of oscillation and so forth, so the process of cohesion preserves wetness by not wetting quite. [T] The way = the way for entering, turning round, expelling (actually the openings or vacuities which provide the range for such functions). [T] Process of consciousness = mind-consciousness process, the knowledge in regard to seeking food, swallowing and the like. [T] In any particular situation = in any function of seeking, swallowing or other similar act. [T] Right kind of action. The act which even completes a function and becomes a condition for any particular kind of knowledge. That act causes fulfillment of even the knowledge of the scope of that function, by reason of that knowledge not arising without the act. [T] Knows. Perceives, understands, by way of seeking, by way of full experience of swallowing, by way of the digested, the undigested and so forth. [T] It should be understood that as knowledge is always preceded by the adverting or the turning of the mind to a thing, knowledge too is included here. 20797 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Jon, you wrote: "J: Are you referring to the passage that I cited recently in a post to Dan (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20504)? L: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. J: Yes, but the context of this discussion is the objects of the 5 sense-doors. There is no suggestion that the mind-door object is intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant." L: Yes. Good job finding it! I don't see any limitation as to 5-sense door objects only. As this snippet shows, the "intrinsic" is euphemistic, doesn't mean paramatta. Larry 20798 From: smallchap Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Smallchap, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:21 PM > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does > > have its funny side. > > In return, I should warn > > > you against "striving." > > ----------------------- > > > > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for > > enlightment. See > > commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#th > eraattadattha > > Dan just posted this: > > (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: > "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? > [Katamam > tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "That which is mental > endeavor > (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and > harder, > endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, > utmost > exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, > having > sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the > task, > discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of > effort, > power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the > faculty of > endeavor." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when > lobha > (greed, lust, craving) arises.] > > I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the > wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. > > kom ------------- Yes. This I understand. Even right effort have varying degrees of intensities. Some right effort is better than no effort. smallchap 20799 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:31pm Subject: Perfecons, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 10 Perfecons, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 10 We should consider what was said about applying energy for the welfare of beings. We should not have selfish motives, not act for our own sake when we are giving support to others. We need energy, otherwise we could not help others in an unselfish way. We should support others as far as we are able to, such as sharing in the performance of their tasks, alleviating their burden. At such moments we can realize immediately that we need energy when we want to help others. We can understand that, in order to eradicate defilements, we should follow the example of the Bodhisatta¹s practice. We should apply energy for the welfare of beings in whatever way we can, depending on the situation of our daily life, even by way of speech, by giving guidance to others. It may be somewhat troublesome for us to help others, but our support can be a condition for others also to develop a great deal of kusala in their lives. We can give support to others if we apply energy for their benefit. As we read in the Commentary: ³He should be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable.² When we are infatuated with something, we may realize that this not ordinary attachment, but a stronger degree of lobha. We may be absorbed in the object of attachment, but when sati sampajañña arises we can realize that we should endure everything, whether desirable or undesirable. If we very gradually learn to be patient, we shall know what the characteristic of true patience is. We can accumulate patience in all situations, no matter whether we experience objects through the bodysense or hear someone else¹s speech. We can learn to be patient and not complain about cold, heat or difficult situations in life. Then we shall understand what patience is. As we read in the Commentary, ³he should speak without deception.² A righteous person speaks in accordance with the truth, whereas an evil person utters deceptive speech. As we read in the Commentary, ³He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion.² One¹s loving-kindness should be universal, without partiality. Generally, people have loving-kindness for someone who is righteous, not for an evil person. This shows that loving-kindness and compassion are not extended to all beings, that they are not yet universal. If someone has developed loving-kindness, he can extend it to all beings, be they righteous or evil. Then sati-sampajañña is aware and understands what is proper and what is improper. When we are angry and displeased, when we look down upon someone who is evil or commits bad deeds, we have akusala citta; our citta is equal to the citta of the evil person, because we have contempt for him. Even a short phrase of the Dhamma can help us to develop sati-sampajañña and to have a growing understanding of the realities arising within ourselves, so that we can further develop kusala.