From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha(larry) --- Dear Larry and Swee Boon, Larry you write that "My main point is that rupa shouldn't be considered to be more real than concept. Though it seems solid and substantial, rupa is just as empty and vacuous as concept and ultimately is a concept/representation. But any object is a reality simply by the meaning of the word "object" and all objects are ultimately subject representations."" Rupa is an aggregate(khandha) it is sabhava dhamma, paramattha dhamma . Concept is not a khandha, it is asabhava dhamma. They are utterly different. Relating this to the question Swee boon asked: "Some people say the crux of the crux of the Buddha's Teachings is to differentiate the distinction between concept and reality. Is there any sutta that supports this?" There are many hundreds of suttas where the Buddha talks about paramattha dhammas – the khandhas, dhatus and ayatanas. For example in this sutta he tells the story of a king who was so entranced with the sound made by a lute.. And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. Once the `whole' of lute was analysed and found to be merely a term for a collection of diverse elements the King lost interest. Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute : `…Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: 'Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?' Then they say to him : 'That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousness, [ie. The five khandhas, paramattha dhammas] so far as there is scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. Jon quoted from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation from the Abhidhammata Sangaha Ch I, section 2 on realities and concepts: Guide to #2 Ultimate realities [paramattha dhammas - the khandhas, ayatanas and dhatus] are not only the ultimate existents, they are also the ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma. Ultimate realities are knowable only to wisdom- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. Thus `paramattha' is described as that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge."endquote RobertK 21001 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Different Roads Dear Group, Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same time. I wonder what others think? I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever that is? metta, Christine 21002 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:30pm Subject: Way 72, Clear Comprehension 7 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 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth Now we come to the explanation of the instruction dealing with clear comprehension "in walking, in standing in a place, in sitting in some position, in sleeping, in walking, in speaking and in keeping silence" = Gate thite nisinne sutte jagarite bhasite tunhibhave. By the words: "When he is going a bhikkhu understands 'I am going,'" and so froth, postures of long duration are indicated. And by the words, "in going forwards and backwards... in bending and in stretching," postures of middling duration; and by the words, "in walking, in standing... In sleeping," postures of short, brief duration. Therefore in these three parts of the instruction the practicing of clear comprehension should be known even by the triple method stated here. [Tika] Postures of long duration [addhana iriyapatha]: postures kept up long or postures existing in a process of going for or of one wayfaring long. [T] Postures of middling duration [majjhima]: postures proceeding neither too long in time nor involving too long wayfaring, namely, those connected with wandering for alms and so forth. [T] Postures of short duration [cunnika iriyapatha]: postures become diminutive, by reason of brief duration and proceeding by way of going about and so forth in the monastery or elsewhere. The Elder Tipitaka Maha Siva indeed said: Who, after walking or exercising long in the ambulatory, stands and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of exercises on the ambulatory ended just there on the ambulatory", is called a doer of clear comprehension in walking. When, after standing for a long time in study or answering a question or minding a subject of meditation, sits and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of standing ended just at the time of standing," is called a doer of clear comprehension in standing. Who, after sitting for a long time in study or other similar work, lies down and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed when sitting ended just at the time of sitting," is called a doer of clear comprehension in sitting. Who, after lying down falls asleep, and, then, after getting up from his sleep, reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of sleep ended just during sleep," is called a doer of clear comprehension in sleeping and waking. [T] By reason of proximity of the word "waking", here the action of lying down is only sleep in the sense of the descent of the mind into the state of the life-continum. It is not merely the stretching out of the back. 21003 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:50pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Dear RobertK, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: Dear KKT, < snip > KKT: Thanks for your long post, it's very instructive. ------------ > > The main point raised by > the question is its criticism > of the theory of Momentariness > of Abhidharma. The author > of the criticism is Shankara, > founder of the Advaita Vedanta > school of Hinduism (8th century) if you tell me more about this criticism i'll be happy to respond. RobertK KKT: According to Shankara, << Ultimate Reality is Pure Consciousness >> which is also Atman/Brahman of the Upanishads. Only Consciousness is << real >> The world is unreal, illusory because it is subjected to change. Consciousness is the << ground >> underlying everything. It is eternal and not bound by time and space. Therefore, it is not a surprise if Shankara had to attack the Theory of Momentariness of Abhidharma (in fact, he attacked Abhidharma of the Sarvastivada school because at this time there was no more Theravada in India) The main point of his criticism of Abhidharma is that << the MOMENTARY ultimate dhammas (paramattha dhamma) cannot combine by themselves >> Take the example of << computer >> The << whole >> thing called computer is represented either by the << concept >> computer or by << in reality >> a series (or combination?) of utimate dhammas. Shankara objected that without an intelligent principle which may unite them, the series is impossible because: __Rupa, citta, cetasika are << momentary >> and in addition rupa is << unintelligent >> __If this is citta (ie. consciousness) that unites them then citta must come into existence in the first moment and must unite them in the second moment which would mean that citta exists at least for two moments and is therefore not << momentary >> __If the series is formed on account of Dependent Causation then in the Wheel of Causation (Paticca-samuppada) each preceding link is the immediate efficient cause of the succeeding link only, but not of the << whole >> series. This is summarily Shankara's criticism. Metta, KKT 21004 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Robert, All I can say is I find this concept/reality dualism incoherent. How can an object of consciousness not exist? What is a concept if not a mental formation (sankhara)? What is a ditthi without a concept? Can we not divide a sound into as many pieces as a lute? However, you are correct that the texts don't support the view I concocted. Larry 21005 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" Regards, Victor KKT: No objection, Victor. What is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" is certainly dukkha. Why? Because this << feeling >> of I, me, mine, myself is inherently charged with << conflict, contradiction >> and thus suffering (dukkha) But don't say that I hold a wrong view since this feeling is very << vivid >> inside myself and is not simply a thought or a pure concept :-)) Peace, KKT 21006 From: azita gill Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina (& Lodevijk), > > Perhaps if Lodevijk has no problem with computer as > concept, he can send a > few helpful comments to Victor too;-) > > Perhaps the jump from ‘computer as concept’ to ‘Nina > as concept’ is too > big and so the babyhood reminds me that we need to > introduce some baby > steps;-) How about a plant and then an insect and > then a dog before > Nina??? > > We cling to ‘computers’ and ‘Ninas’ as being > realities and perhaps fear > that the world we’re so familiar with will fall > apart or we find it too > painful to consider the world through the 6 doors. I > understand this, but > instead of being fearful, I find it the greatest > comfort to understand at > this moment that there is just the world of seeing, > the world of hearing > and so on. K.Sujin always reminds us that anything > can happen at any time. > We don’t know when we will get sick or experience > good or bad vipaka. > Understanding realities a little more helps us to > face up to any test. > > When we take the concepts for truths, it’s so > disturbing ....snip... > For Victor and Lodevijk, the question also is, if > Nina is real, what > doorway is she experienced through? > > I hope you both have a good trek. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > dear Sarah, such good reminders, Sarah, and so relevant for me at this moment. I am feeling very distressed about my daughter, Zoe, who seems to be very unhappy and also non-communicate about anything. I am finding it quite difficult living with her. When I read Rahula's letter on worry and fear, I thought, yep, that's me, the only difference being I know what's worrying me. I remember K. Sujin's words about real life being the best test, and how true that is. There are many good reminders here in this group and how I appreciate them at this time especially. Mostly, I keep my personal life to myself, but this situation is causing me some anxiety and like Rahula, I look to this group for support - in a Dhamma sense. There are many other 'conventional' helpers out in the community, but what I look for here are the reminders about the only Truth - the Dhamma. I wish I could teach the Buddha's truth to Zoe but she is totally uninterested, seemingly in most things. When our loved ones are unhappy we generally are affected. At moments of interaction with her, there is no sense of 'no-one', or of anything kusala!!!! I appreciated RobK's reply to Rahula. So succinct. from a not-so-cheerful Azita > > 21007 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:44pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT < snip > Each of the 5 aggregates has the characteristic of 'no-self'. The more understanding there is of the true nature of the 5 aggregates, the more there is the seeing of 'no-self'. Jon KKT: Could you tell me what is the meaning you give to this phrase << Each of the 5 aggregates has the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21008 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was not "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." dukkha? My question to you is: Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I > am. This is my self?" > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: No objection, Victor. > > What is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" > is certainly dukkha. > > Why? > > Because this << feeling >> > of I, me, mine, myself > is inherently charged with > << conflict, contradiction >> > and thus suffering (dukkha) > > > But don't say that I hold > a wrong view since this feeling > is very << vivid >> inside myself > and is not simply a thought > or a pure concept :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21009 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, I think the quote from the discourse Digha Nikaya 21 Sakka-pañha Sutta Sakka's Questions is relevant to your questions. Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's words, asked him a further question: "Dear sir, do all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" "No, deva-king, not all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." "Why, dear sir, don't all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" "The world is made up of many properties, various properties. Because of the many & various properties in the world, then whichever property living beings get fixated on, they become entrenched & latch onto it, saying, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' This is why not all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." "But, dear sir, are all priests & contemplatives utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate?" "No, deva-king, not all priests & contemplatives are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate." "But why, dear sir, are not all priests & contemplatives utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate?" "Those monks who are released through the total ending of craving are the ones who are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate. This is why not all priests & contemplatives are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same > time. I wonder what others think? > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever > that is? > > metta, > Christine 21010 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi again, James - In a message dated 4/5/03 8:25:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, James - > > Your point is well taken. The primary venue is that of meditation. But > there is also an everyday analogue that us useful. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 4/4/03 11:38:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > >Hi Howard, > > > >I hate to belabor this point, but this article, and what you are > >describing, relates to meditation, not to everyday mindfulness. > >This type of Right Effort, as taught by the Buddha, was intended to > >be performed during meditation and was very specific to overcoming > >the hindrances to meditation. I really don't believe this is > >related to what I have been saying about everyday mindfulness and > >futile attempts at mind control from the top down. But thank you > >for drawing my attention to this interesting resource. > > > >Metta, James > > > > ============================= With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from ATI, is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha Nikaya, dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: (Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... One tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. This is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. But it does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details that might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so that reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. 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) 21011 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hello my good friends in the dharma. My name is Jeff Brooks, I live in Tucson, AZ and I sat my first vipassana retreat with Robert Hover here in Tucson in 1985. I have been an active member of the vipassana and other contemplative communities for 30 years and I now publish an electronic newsletter called the Southwest Insight E'letter which is focused on the practice of vipassana and sangha related issues. I also publish a resource guide for retreats and centers in the Southwest. Back issues for both are available on the Albuquerque Vipassana Sangha website at http://www.cs.unm.edu/~richards/sangha/home.html. I arrived here in your webspace while seeking a forum for dialog on Theravadan Buddhism and the practice of vipassana. May you all be free from suffering, Jeff 21012 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Dear Selamat, I was delighted to hear about all your activities and your interest in Abhidhamma. It is really encouraging to hear this. And then all your efforts going around to different places. If you can, it is very nice if you write more often about what you discuss. I had no ID card copy now, but I wrote to Mrs Sasmita and told her about the case. I hope this helps. Tomorrow I am going away for three days. I still keep the bell from Burobudur you gave me in my shrine corner. Anumodana for all your good works. It is good you share this with us so that we can have anumodana, Nina. op 06-04-2003 13:41 schreef cbn op nana_palo@c...: > In last three years, Abhidhamma has a growing interest by many Buddhists in > many Viharas in line with the growing interest for practising Vipassana in > Indonesia. 21013 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help (Fear, Worry, etc...) Dear Mike, very well said and in such a nice way. Good for Lodewijk, Thanks, Nina. op 06-04-2003 17:10 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: It's worth noting > that there's no one afraid behind the fear--just fear itself fearing for a > very brief moment, then disappearing. If you're walking down the street > afraid and suddenly hear birdsong, or see a nice smile, for a moment there's > delight--but no one behind the delight. 21014 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was not "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." dukkha? My question to you is: Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor KKT: If this is your question then my answer is yes, what is dukkha is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." and dukkha is much more, for example anicca (impermanence) is also dukkha. Regards, KKT 21015 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:38pm Subject: sound and lute Hi Robert and all, Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? Larry ps: I think this sutta is more about the flimsiness of compounds than differentiating concept and reality, but I would like to pursue the concept/reality question. ------------------- Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute : `…Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: ´Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?´ Then they say to him : ´That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.´ Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousness, [ie. The five khandhas, paramattha dhammas] so far as there is scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. 21016 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, “You let Sarah have the last word...and that just won't do! ;-).” ..... LOL, and now I’m here to spoil your fun again;-) --- buddhatrue wrote: > > I see that Howard isn't going to pick up this thread anymore, so I > am. ..... Perhaps you meant that he wasn’t tough enough on me;-( Apologies in advance for lots of snipping and hope I don’t take your comments out of context too much as a result. >It would be very much > like these fad diets which are supposed to work for everyone all the > time, dream on! ;-) We all have different metabolisms and there > isn't one type of diet that will work for everyone every day. The > same goes for meditation. Surely you can appreciate and understand > this reality? ..... Not really - different concepts and stories, but the truths, the realities appaearing and to be known are the same for all. Hence the universality of the teachings. ..... > > For example, when the Buddha came to the first five ascetics and > taught them the Four Noble Truths, some reached enlightenment almost > immediately but some did not. He taught meditation, one-on-one, > with the remaining monks for several days until they also reached > enlightenment. But the suttas don't describe what he taught them or > what they each needed, because that wouldn't be helpful or necessary > to others. ..... On the contrary, I find the teachings in all parts of the Tipitaka to be very detailed indeed and to contain exactly what is ‘needed’. ..... > Surely you don't believe that there were so many arahants during the > Buddha's time because they walked around labeling nama and rupa? ..... No. On the other hand I do believe there were so many arahants during this time because when they heard him talk about namas and rupas they were able to comprehend the truth of his message - the truth that our whole world we cling to so dearly are merely these namas and rupas, arising and falling away, inherently unsatisfactory and not-self. ..... > Meditation is the key to truly discovering anatta. ..... I agree. However, when I use the word ‘meditation’ it is as a translation of bhavana or mental development as applied to samatha or satipatthana with right understanding. Do you agree there can be meditation at this moment and that this moment is the only moment there ever is for meditation? ..... >I stress and > sincerely believe that anatta cannot be known without some type of > meditation practice…period, the end. .... No problem depending on the understanding of ‘meditation practice’. .... > Not every technique of Vipassana meditation is > going to fit every person; ..... I’ve never seen a reference in the texts to any ‘technique of Vipassana meditation’. I know exactly what you mean, having studied with a ‘Vipassana meditation technique’ teacher, but I think this is not the understanding of vipassana as taught by the Buddha. ..... >it is up to the teacher to instinctively > know what will work for his/her student. ..... It’s true that the Buddha would know at anytime what object was appropriate for anyone at anytime as object of samatha or what particular realities a person needed to hear about, such as his son Rahula. In that instance and the gold lotus one discussed before, even Sariputta could not know exactly what was appropriate. I would be very hesitant to agree that teachers today could “ instinctively know what will work for his/her student.” ..... >Like Howard, I have gone through periods of intense > meditation and no meditation; I have focused on calmness, > concentration, and/or both at various times; and I have also had > Enlightenment Experiences (`Sati') and they are quite real and life > transforming, as Howard explains…which you don't seem to understand, > which is understandable. ..... No problem;-) What is the object of sati or the EEs at these times? What is the purpose of focussing on calmness and concentration? Is there any panna (understanding) and if so, what does it know? ..... > This will be my first of two posts. In my next post I will > address `catching' moments as they arise to foster wisdom and `real' > wholesome mind states vs. `artificial' ones. ..... Right, I’ll get back on part 2 also. Thx for splitting it up. I like your challenging comments and agreeable disagreements;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 21017 From: christhedis Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: equanimity Hi James, Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be stuck with the results? Anyone else? Thanks, Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Thanks for your reply. It's very nice. > > > > Although I am interested in what might happen after death, I am > > more "concerned" right now about what might happen to me now in > this > > lifetime if I practise Buddhism. > > Hi Chris, > > I wasn't completely sure what you were 'concerned' about, just that > you were 'concerned'. As far as the results of Vipassana > meditation, I only have one bit of advice through such a medium as > the Internet: It will get worse before it gets better. > > Metta, James 21018 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi again James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > To paraphrase what you further > explain, Vipassana means to be aware of arising and falling reality > in the present moment, and that should be a 24-Hour endeavor, not > just something done during meditation. I hope that I am following > you correctly. ..... Not bad;-) I would stress the development of insight with the emphasis on panna (wisdom). If there is no awareness of the present reality, there cannot be the development of insight or the higher stages of directly understanding and being aware of the arising and falling realities. I wouldn’t refer to vipassana as an endeavour as that sounds like a kind of special work or effort again. Also, while we’re fast asleep, no chance, so not quite 24hrs of possible realities to be known;-) Nina discusses more in detail about the meaning of vipassana in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954 > First of all, Vipassana, meaning the awareness of reality, cannot be > practiced while you are typing, reading, cooking, shopping, > teaching, or anything else of that nature, it can only be practiced > while you are meditating. ..... Did the Buddha say this? ..... >The mind has far too many things to > attend to during those activities to really see the process that is > going on. What is needed is to slow the mind down, concentrate it, > and focus on just a few sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. at a > time. If it was possible to do Vipassana during everyday > activities, we would all be enlightened by now. ..... We have a different understanding of sati and panna. To my understanding, there is no need and no way to ‘slow the mind down’ as others have commented and I think that the idea of focussing on selected (or unselected) phenomena suggests a lack of confidence in the power of sati and panna to be aware and know what is appearing at this moment. Never mind whether it’s one ‘finger-snap’ or many of awareness. Any idea of slowing down the mind, suggests an idea of self and control as I read it. I agree that if ‘it was possible to DO Vipassana during ......we would all be enlightened....’. the point is that it isn’t possible to do or to control in anyway. No self to do anything. .... > ego. It is with the tool of awareness, directed to each of these > moments as they occur, that stops the process. ..... I’d put this differently It is the mental state of awareness that cannot be directed but with understanding can be aware of one dhamma (i.e a nama or a rupa) at a time. It doesn’t stop, slow down or affect the process, but is accumulated and a condition for more awareness to arise in future. ..... >Why? Because then > there is awareness of it…no more ignorance. It isn't by force or > will that they process is stopped, it is only by knowledge of it. ..... Not stopped but understood. .... > My understanding is that you are advocating the ability of panna > (higher wisdom), which is supposed to come about through reading and > consideration of the Tipitaka (especially the Abhidhamma), to bring > about wholesome mind states and awareness of present realities. ..... Yes;-) ..... > This sounds really lofty so let me put it in more simple terms. You > believe that awareness of unwholesome mind states and wholesome ones > will allow a person to substitute one for the other, namely good for > bad, whenever they arise and that this will increase awareness of > present reality. ..... Instead of ‘a person to substitute’, I’d rather say ‘will allow understanding to develop and gradually be a condition to see the benefit of the good, the danger of the bad and will increase awareness of present realities’. ..... >You also recognize that this will take a long time > to perfect in a person. Sarah, I'm sorry, but this isn't Buddhism, > this is bio-feedback. ..... What you describe in the substituting, slowing down, stopping, focussing and labelling - yes. You’ll also be amused to hear that in subsequent posts between you and Howard, I agreed with comments you made about guarding the senses NOT referring to ‘replacing one mind state with another’, though I also don’t understand it to refer to any ‘refocus’ or re-center’ which imo are also attempts to control rather than understand and be aware. I know someone Howard has posted a useful passage from the Sammannaphala Sutta which we can look at later.I haven’t read his comments yet. ..... >Meta-cognition of mind states, seeing > negative ones and replacing them with positive, is simply cutting > the tree of desire down again and again…and each time it re-grows > because the roots are still present. This is the same type of > technique that psychiatrists use to stop smoking, over-eating, or > other destructive behaviors caused by negative thoughts. It isn't > necessarily a bad thing to be doing (except for the mistaken belief > that it is somehow `special') but it isn't destroying the roots of > suffering. ..... Agreed;-) .... The Buddhadhamma isn't a `self-help' teaching interested > in superficial happiness that has to be self-cultivated > continuously, it is interested in elimination of the root of the > problem, which requires Vipassana meditation practice along with the > remainder of the eightfold path. ..... Fine until we come back to the understanding of practice. ..... > Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone and their long-held beliefs. ..... Thanks and likewise to all. This is a very pleasant and cordial discussion and I’m appreciating the dialogue. Metta, Sarah ====== 21019 From: cbn Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Dear Nina, anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. Dear all, Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me how to give some reasonable answers. Anumodana. selamat ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group > Dear Selamat, > I was delighted to hear about all your activities and your interest in > Abhidhamma. It is really encouraging to hear this. And then all your efforts > going around to different places. > If you can, it is very nice if you write more often about what you discuss. > I had no ID card copy now, but I wrote to Mrs Sasmita and told her about the > case. I hope this helps. Tomorrow I am going away for three days. > I still keep the bell from Burobudur you gave me in my shrine corner. > Anumodana for all your good works. It is good you share this with us so that > we can have anumodana, > Nina. 21020 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi KKT, > > I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was > not > > "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This > is my self." dukkha? > > My question to you is: > > Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I > am. This is my self."? > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: If this is your question > then my answer is yes, what is > dukkha is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." > and dukkha is much more, for example > anicca (impermanence) is also dukkha. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21021 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: No objection, Victor. > > What is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" > is certainly dukkha. > > Why? > > Because this << feeling >> > of I, me, mine, myself > is inherently charged with > << conflict, contradiction >> > and thus suffering (dukkha) > > > But don't say that I hold > a wrong view since this feeling > is very << vivid >> inside myself > and is not simply a thought > or a pure concept :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21022 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry (and Robert) - In a message dated 4/7/03 1:39:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Robert and all, > > Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but > every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute > is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. > Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it > that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? > > Larry > > ========================== The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. 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) 21023 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Hi Robert and all, > Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but > every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute > is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. > Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it > that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa. This is a theoretical distinction for me; I make no claim to profound insight or understanding. > ps: I think this sutta is more about the flimsiness of compounds than > differentiating concept and reality, but I would like to pursue the > concept/reality question. I think so too, though I would say specifically about the 'not-selfness' of compounded things, sankhaarakha.nda. I think the question of concept/reality differs between the suttanta method and the abhidhamma method mainly in the degree of detail of analysis. Because of this, it's harder (I think) to approach the abhidhamma from the perspective of the suttanta method (fitting 'bigger' concepts into 'smaller' ones) than to approach the discourses from the abhidhamma (fitting 'smaller' concepts into 'bigger' ones). I wouldn't tell an automechanic, a physicist, a metallurgist, a thermodynamicist, a crystalographer etc. that a car doesn't exist. I would say, though, that through their various disciplines, they can understand the nature of the cars they're driving in greater detail than can someone without any of these kinds of knowledge. This is the way it seems to me, anyway--my apologies for the strained metaphor. mike p.s. Thanks for the reminder of this great sutta. 21024 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Regards, Victor KKT: To regard something as << not mine, I am not, not my self >> presupposes that you know << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> otherwise how could you deny something without knowing it? So what is for you this << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? I asked you this question sometime ago but you have not yet answered. Regards, KKT 21025 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:34am Subject: Re: equanimity --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: > Hi James, > > Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning > my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be > stuck with the results? > > Anyone else? > > Thanks, > Chris. > Hi Chris, Yes, the insight that arises from vipassana cannot be reversed. Once you do it, you will begin a journey that is nearly impossible to stop. If that scares you, don't do it at this time. Metta, James 21026 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > "You let Sarah have the last word...and that just won't > do! ;-)." > ..... > LOL, and now I'm here to spoil your fun again;-) Hi Sarah, Well, it was fun, but these two posts of yours disturb me. Not for my sake but for yours. I am just going to let you have the last word...or this would go on forever. If you CAN notice, every response of yours to my text is basically the same. No matter what I say, you have the same response. You call this 'sounding like a broke record', but I think it is far more serious and dangerous...it is a clear sign of the brainwashing of a cult. And I don't mean this in a discourteous way, I just can't think of a more euphemistic way to state it. I would hope that if I started showing signs of the indoctrination of a cult, someone would come right out and tell me also. It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong and just the "Followers of A. Sujin" to be right. Think about that. Metta, James 21027 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The question you asked is misguided. It is misguided in the sense that it is based on the assumption of self view. It is based on the assumption that one must see something (whatever it is) thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." in order to see what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing something, whatever it is, thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." is in itself an assumption, a self view. Now, regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, my question to you is: Is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > > What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: To regard something as > << not mine, I am not, not my self >> > presupposes that you know > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> > otherwise how could you deny > something without knowing it? > > So what is for you this > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? > > I asked you this question sometime ago > but you have not yet answered. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21028 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The question you asked is misguided. It is misguided in the sense that it is based on the assumption of self view. It is based on the assumption that one must see something (whatever it is) thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." in order to see what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing something, whatever it is, thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." is in itself an assumption, a self view. KKT: Before deciding whether this is a self << view >> or not, we must at least understand each other on the level of language. Because to communicate to each other we use words which represent concepts. Concept could be purely imaginary, for example: a flying purple elephant or stands for a << real >> object for example: a computer. So my question to you is: when you use the words << mine, I, my self >> in your question, what do they stand for? You cannot talking about something without referring to a real object or a concept, it is absurd, right? So you have to answer to my question firts before we could go further. Regards, KKT =========== Now, regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, my question to you is: Is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > > What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: To regard something as > << not mine, I am not, not my self >> > presupposes that you know > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> > otherwise how could you deny > something without knowing it? > > So what is for you this > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? > > I asked you this question sometime ago > but you have not yet answered. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21029 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Before deciding whether > this is a self << view >> or not, > we must at least understand > each other on the level of language. > > Because to communicate to each other > we use words which represent concepts. > Concept could be purely imaginary, > for example: a flying purple elephant > or stands for a << real >> object > for example: a computer. > > So my question to you is: > when you use the words << mine, I, my self >> > in your question, what do they stand for? > > You cannot talking about something > without referring to a real object > or a concept, it is absurd, right? > > > So you have to answer to my question firts > before we could go further. > > > Regards, > > > KKT [snip] 21030 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: equanimity Hi Chris, I am sure someone here will have a far more lucid explanation for you, but I thought I would make a small contribution here. It maybe worth reflecting first on what the word vipassana means. It is often translated as 'insight.' When we often speak of vipassana, we often erroneously think of a meditation technique that we were taught in a retreat. But, the technique of body scanning, or whatever, is just a technique that leads to the subjective state of insight, it is not actually the state or condition itself. So, to answer your question, body scanning, and the many other methods that are used to bring the practitioner to the state of insight, are just techniques. They are forms of mental gymnastics, that are intended to expose the natural state of insight. If you just keep in mind that you are a thinking and reasoning being, and you therefore have your freedom to choose at all times, then you can choose to do whatever you want with your mental training. If you want to maintain an endlessly agitated mind, your are free to do that. If you want to endlessly practice body scanning and thereby avoid the revealing of insight, then you are free to do that as well. Once you realize that insight is a natural condition, which is a product of the stilled and calmed mind (equanimity), then the technique becomes irrelevant, and you simply pursue and maintain equanimity at all times, even in your sleep. Just remember the technique is just meant to bring you to the necessary precondition of a calm and stable mind for which you will discover insight, which is a natural condition of the calm mind. I hope this helps, Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 12:30:53 AM, charnett@y... writes: << Hi James, Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be stuck with the results? Anyone else? Thanks, Chris. >> 21031 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group My good friend, Anumodana, I believe it is always best to find a way, if possible, to articulate the dharma in the native language of the student, and to, whenever possible, avoid specialized terminology and adherence to pali terms that may not be familiar to the student. This way the student can quickly understand the dharma and be satisfied with little effort. Best regards, Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 4:10:54 AM, nana_palo@c... writes: << Dear Nina, anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. Dear all, Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me how to give some reasonable answers. Anumodana. selamat >> 21032 From: nidive Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Robert (& Sarah), > And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. "Self" is not merely a concept. It is also an ultimate reality that arises and falls away. It is not-self. If "self" were merely a concept, we would all be sotapannas. There would be no difference between a worldling and a sotapanna. There is an ultimate reality that arises and falls away and is not-self. Its function is to construe a self as being real. If the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is the crux, then which is the crux of the crux: mindfulness of the concept of self, or mindfulness of the ultimate reality of 'self'? I just think that it's horrible how Sarah goes at length to play down concentration. > Concentration is not a rarity, everyone has it. But our objects of concentration are the > concepts built upon ignorance accumulated over eons. This is why according to my > understanding, any development along the path of buddhadhamma, hinges upon the > distinction between concept and reality. And that distinction can only start with the > intellectual knowledge of the Teachings. Saying the above is just like saying that mindfulness is not a rarity and that everyone has it. Why bother about mindfulness then? Just do the minimum (or the maximum ?): know the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities. I don't think this is the crux of the Buddha's Teachings (although I think that this distinction is important). In short, this distinction does not override the development and strengthening of the factors of the Noble Eight-fold Path. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21033 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:15am Subject: Re: Defining Self-view: For Victor Hi Suan and all, I am fine. Thank you for your explanation. I think this link on self-view/self-identity view/personality-belief might be of some interest. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#sakkaya Let me know what you think. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Victor > > How are you? > > You asked: > > "I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you > define it." > > Buddhists do not accept the existence of self because they accept > only the four ultimate selfless realities, which are matter, mind, > mental associates and nibbana. > > But, the selfless view of the Buddhists at the pre-awakening level is > mainly based on reasoning. They haven't penetrated the selfless > nature of things like an Ariyan has. To become an Ariyan, one must > reach at least the stage of a stream insider (sotaapanna). > > In short, Buddhists still work with self-view while they know > intellectually that there is no self. > > A pre-enlightenment Buddhist does not believe in the existence of > self, but behaves as though there were self. > > Self-view can be defined in terms of the result of failure to observe > and deconstruct the natural phenomena thoroughly. > > To cure the illness of self-view, one must regularly observe the > natural phenomena and learn the practice of their exhaustive > deconscruction. > > Someone who regularly observe and deconstruct the natural phenomena > exhaustively is called a specialist in Abhidhamma. Only specialists > in Abhidhamma are true followers of Gotama the Buddha becuase the > Buddha taught only the natural phenomena in various formats, > combinations and lengths. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Suan, > > I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you > define it. > > Regards, > Victor 21034 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:27am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a personality view. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Robert (& Sarah), > > > And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. > > "Self" is not merely a concept. It is also an ultimate reality that > arises and falls away. It is not-self. > > If "self" were merely a concept, we would all be sotapannas. There > would be no difference between a worldling and a sotapanna. > > There is an ultimate reality that arises and falls away and is > not-self. Its function is to construe a self as being real. > > If the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is the > crux, then which is the crux of the crux: mindfulness of the concept > of self, or mindfulness of the ultimate reality of 'self'? > > > I just think that it's horrible how Sarah goes at length to play down > concentration. > > > Concentration is not a rarity, everyone has it. But our objects of > concentration are the > > concepts built upon ignorance accumulated over eons. This is why > according to my > > understanding, any development along the path of buddhadhamma, > hinges upon the > > distinction between concept and reality. And that distinction can > only start with the > > intellectual knowledge of the Teachings. > > Saying the above is just like saying that mindfulness is not a rarity > and that everyone has it. Why bother about mindfulness then? Just do > the minimum (or the maximum ?): know the distinction between concepts > and ultimate realities. > > I don't think this is the crux of the Buddha's Teachings (although I > think that this distinction is important). > > In short, this distinction does not override the development and > strengthening of the factors of the Noble Eight-fold Path. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21035 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. Regards, Victor KKT: So what do << me >> and << I >> refer to in your experience? For example, a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept or whatever ? Regards, KKT 21036 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 1:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I use the word "I" as a pronoun that refers to the one who is speaking or writing. The word "me" is an objective case of the word "I". Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, is that feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer, although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: > > The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; > the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and > the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: So what do << me >> and << I >> > refer to in your experience? > > For example, a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept or whatever ? > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21037 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group ---Dear Selamat, I am also very happy to hear of your long continuing Dhamma work. I know you do so much in Indonesia. For your question for the new members: "" differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them."" Remember that the object of insight is always the present moment. When there is trying to catch the reality this can be with subtle clinging. And clinging can look 'right'- but if it is clinging (tanha) then it is only adding to samsara. Also the present moment may be akusala or kusala OR it could be sound or kiriya or feeling. The characteristic of anatta is lack of mastery, powerlessness over dhammas, including sati. So insight should come with detachment; no idea of 'me' making it happen. Then one doesn't mind if there is akusala - the object is to understand not to change. And then change comes by conditions not by 'self'. RobertK 21038 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I use the word "I" as a pronoun that refers to the one who is speaking or writing. KKT: Could you elaborate a little bit more about this << the one >> in your experience? Is it a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept, etc. ? ----------- The word "me" is an objective case of the word "I". Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, is that feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? KKT: In my experience, the feeling I mentioned I have clearly described many times as << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> ie. the feeling of exclusive self-interest, self-centeredness. Therefore it is naturally fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." -------------- You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer, although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor Regards, KKT 21039 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." This feeling 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." The question that you are asking is leading to self-identity view. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Could you elaborate > a little bit more about this > << the one >> in your experience? > > Is it a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept, etc. ? [snip] > > KKT: In my experience, > the feeling I mentioned > I have clearly described many times as > << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> > ie. the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > > Therefore it is naturally fit > to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > [snip] > Regards, > > > KKT 21040 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, I would like to voice the same sentiment. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > My good friend, Anumodana, I believe it is always best to find a way, if > possible, to articulate the dharma in the native language of the student, and > to, whenever possible, avoid specialized terminology and adherence to pali > terms that may not be familiar to the student. This way the student can > quickly understand the dharma and be satisfied with little effort. > > Best regards, > > Jeff Brooks > president, UofA Meditation Club > editor, Southwest Insight E'letter 21041 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I hadn't considered what is *really* delighted in. Could you expand your reply. The sutta says the sound is delighted in. Are you saying the melody is a noncompounded concept? What is your view on what is negated, what doesn't exist? Also, do you see any difference between sound and lute (are they both real or not)? What is the lute? Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. 21042 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." This feeling 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." The question that you are asking is leading to self-identity view. Regards, Victor KKT: Before saying that << The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." >> you have to tell me first what you << experience >> when you mean by << mine, I, my self >> in this phrase. I have suggested to you whether it is a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept, etc ? Without knowing what you mean how could I understand your point? Regards, KKT =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Could you elaborate > a little bit more about this > << the one >> in your experience? > > Is it a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept, etc. ? [snip] > > KKT: In my experience, > the feeling I mentioned > I have clearly described many times as > << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> > ie. the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > > Therefore it is naturally fit > to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > [snip] > Regards, > > > KKT 21043 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Mike, You wrote in answer to the question: "What is it that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound?" M: "As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa." L: I would say "lute" refers to the physical assembly we call lute. Because this assembly is composed of disparate parts does that mean that it is not real (as an assembly) and unconditioned? I would say the word "lute" and the meaning of the word "lute" are concepts and therefore _possibly_ are not objects of vipassana. But the object the word "lute" refers to is an object of vipassana because it is real. The same goes for the word "sound". A sound rupa has a beginning, middle and end. If we think of a sound as a group (or hear a sound as a group), does that make it unreal? The main difference I see between sound and lute is one of simple and complex, although there is something about the parts of sound or enchantment being all sound or all enchantment while none of the parts of a lute are lute. How do you see this? Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. Since that is the main point, how does differentiating between concept and reality lead in the direction of disclosing that undesirability? I think you made a good point about the difficulty of mixing suttanta method and abhidhamma method. I'm not sure, at this point, how to resolve that. It certainly makes for endless debate. Larry 21044 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, I'm glad you responded to this. I've admired your posts. ----- Original Message ----- From: > You wrote in answer to the question: "What is it that doesn't exist in > the lute but does exist in the sound?" > > M: "As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; > disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be > cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from > various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a > mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa." > > L: I would say "lute" refers to the physical assembly we call lute. > Because this assembly is composed of disparate parts does that mean that > it is not real (as an assembly) and unconditioned? As I understand it, two different answers: In the abhidhamma method, yes--in the suttanta method, no. > I would say the word > "lute" and the meaning of the word "lute" are concepts and therefore > _possibly_ are not objects of vipassana. But the object the word "lute" > refers to is an object of vipassana because it is real. In my opinion, the object the word 'lute' refers to can be an object of conventional understanding but not of vipassanaa. This is mostly a borrowed opinion but I do find it convincing. > The same goes > for the word "sound". A sound rupa has a beginning, middle and end. If > we think of a sound as a group (or hear a sound as a group), does that > make it unreal? I'd say 'no', just because sound (in the abhihdhamma method) is a paramattha dhamma even though 'compounded' in the sense of having a middle, a beginning and an end. > The main difference I see between sound and lute is one > of simple and complex, although there is something about the parts of > sound or enchantment being all sound or all enchantment while none of > the parts of a lute are lute. How do you see this? I hope this doesn't sound like a cop-out, but I still think the answer differs according to method. In abhidhamma method, 'sound' might be said to be 'simple' (an instant of hearing consciousness) or 'complex' (a word or a chord, say)--the former a paramattha dhamma, the latter a concept. The metaphor in the sutta is, I think, about the absence of self in conditioned phenomena--a different matter, if correct. > Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in > the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. Agreed, in both methods, I think--although I THINK 'not worth desiring' is also outside the focus of the sutta. > Since > that is the main point, how does differentiating between concept and > reality lead in the direction of disclosing that undesirability? I think that 'differentiating between concept and reality lead(s) in the direction of disclosing that undesirability' only in the abhidhamma method or in the suttanta method informed by the abhidhamma method. > I think you made a good point about the difficulty of mixing suttanta > method and abhidhamma method. I'm not sure, at this point, how to > resolve that. It certainly makes for endless debate. I feel the same way, and I don't much like debate even when not endless. I hope that discussing these differences can help to resolve them and to understand both better. Thanks for the thoughtful response. mike 21045 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Selamat, Apa kabar? I teach Abhidhamma in Malaysia. My wife is Indonesian and we were married in Jakarta. I would be very interested in getting electronic copies of the texts that you have translated into Bahasa for her. if you have them available, please email them to me at rob.moult@j... . Terima kasih. Perhaps this analogy might help address the question for your discussion group. From a distance, a beach looks like a continuous band of white colour. When you change your perspective and move closer, you can see that the beach is made up of countless individual grains of sand. As you change your perspective again and move even closer, you can see that each grain of sand is itself unique. Even though you intellectually "know" that there are countless unique grains of sand, from a distance, the beach always appears continuous. "From a distance", our mind appears as continuous. When we learn the Abhidhamma, we "know" intellectually that there are countless cittas arising in progression. I have heard, from multiple teachers, that meditation can allow one to "change one's perspective" and "experience" individual cittas. I suspect that some on this list may also say that one can "change one's perspective" outside of a meditative experience. Hope this analogy helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "cbn" wrote: > Dear Nina, > anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. > > I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. > > Dear all, > Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in > our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could > differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this > phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me > how to give some reasonable answers. > Anumodana. > selamat 21046 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute (p.s.) p.s. I sent a draft of this missing a change or two: ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease > > Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in > > the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. > > Agreed, in both methods, I think--although I THINK 'not worth desiring' is > also outside the focus of the sutta. I don't think this was correct--sorry. 'Not worth desiring' clearly is within the focus of the sutta. mike 21047 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Mike, Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Aren't you left with a bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? Larry 21048 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 8:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add > at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating > between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Good and fair question. I think that it's the nature of understanding to arise with dispassion. If this difference is as important as I think it is (that one can be the basis of vipassaana and the other can't), then it's an important piece of understanding. Conceptually, for me at least, it leads to dispassion because I see less profit in concept, the rarity of the arising of insight into paramattha dhamma and the impossibility of creating the latter by an act of will (as in Bhumijasutta). > Aren't you left with a > bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? I'm not (if you meant me, personally). I'm habituated now to the idea that naama is just as real as ruupa. Clearly a preference for naama/ruupa vs. concept would be a matter of attachment, which is always a problem. However, I think vipassanaa can also arise with regard to attachment (since it's 'real'). Thanks again for the interesting discussion. Really great talking with you, Larry. mike 21049 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Thanks Mike, a good discussion. Larry 21050 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Interesting metaphor my good friend Rob, comparing the sand granules to mind moments. I should probably point out that I am not an orthodox Theravadan, I am a contemplative in a somewhat Theravadan context. But, when I speak on some subject it is usually more informed by my personal experience than on scholarly research. So, while I am aware of the Theravadan tripitaka and its concept of mind moments, in which 'consciousness' seems to oscillate, I have to say I have not had that experience, but we may be again at that naughty question of an agreement on what is consciousness. To me when I use the word consciousness it is not sense dependent, as it often is in the translations of Pali texts that I have read. I think of consciousness as my awareness domain, which has deepened into alternate realities through many years of meditation practice. I would be more than happy to change my use of the term 'consciousness' to some other word, but I do think 'mind' is an unsuccessful translation of the word 'chita.' But, let me say, that I can only speak from experience, and as I meditate in the body I become increasingly aware of oscillations in all of the sense gates. Some have told me this is called anicca (another use for the Pali term for 'impermanence') So, yes, in the body these oscillations, I am quite sure, overlay this Theravadan concept of mind-moments quite nicely. And, I think the oscillations are no doubt due to the nature of the nervous system which functions based on the oscillations, computer-like, of the synapses (the individual cells) turning on and off as they function. But, in deep meditation, when the body awareness is left far behind, either in out-of-body experiences or during merger in infinite time-space-consciouseness, etc., there is no oscillation. In that domain consciousness always seems to be an uninterrupted continuity to me. There are no mind moments there, whether I have focused down to the infinitely small subatomic domain, or the infinitely large galactic and beyond level. So, yes, in my experience we can change the domain of our consciousness, but it never seems granular, unless as I have said, when the neurology is the domain of my awareness. I hope this helps, Jeff In a message dated 4/7/03 7:51:58 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Selamat, Apa kabar? I teach Abhidhamma in Malaysia. My wife is Indonesian and we were married in Jakarta. I would be very interested in getting electronic copies of the texts that you have translated into Bahasa for her. if you have them available, please email them to me at rob.moult@j... . Terima kasih. Perhaps this analogy might help address the question for your discussion group. From a distance, a beach looks like a continuous band of white colour. When you change your perspective and move closer, you can see that the beach is made up of countless individual grains of sand. As you change your perspective again and move even closer, you can see that each grain of sand is itself unique. Even though you intellectually "know" that there are countless unique grains of sand, from a distance, the beach always appears continuous. "From a distance", our mind appears as continuous. When we learn the Abhidhamma, we "know" intellectually that there are countless cittas arising in progression. I have heard, from multiple teachers, that meditation can allow one to "change one's perspective" and "experience" individual cittas. I suspect that some on this list may also say that one can "change one's perspective" outside of a meditative experience. Hope this analogy helps. >> 21051 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Jeff (& Rob M in a p.s), Many thanks for introducing yourself and for telling us a little about your background. You may bump into James in AZ one day;-) Thank you also for the information about the resource guide and newsletter. You’ve certainly come to the right place for dialogue on Theravada Buddhism and you’ll find plenty of it on the ‘practice of vipassana’. Just watch out for the cults;-) ;-) Just joking - we’re all good friends here and different understandings in friendship make a healthy discussion group, I think. I’ll look forward to listening to some of your other thread discussions with Rob M and others. Metta, Sarah p.s We ask everyone on DSG to make it clear who they are addressing in the salutation as well as signing off as you do. (Rob M - I’ve been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time - hope you’re managing OK. We’ve now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so perhaps we’ll all make it later:-)) ====================================== 21052 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 10:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > (Rob M - I've been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time > - hope you're managing OK. We've now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so > perhaps we'll all make it later:-)) I'm grounded and it suits me fine! It means more time for family, less time for airplanes, hotels and DSG! Metta, Rob M :-) 21053 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > So, while I am aware of the Theravadan tripitaka and its > concept of mind moments, in which 'consciousness' seems to oscillate, I have > to say I have not had that experience, but we may be again at that naughty > question of an agreement on what is consciousness. ===== I have not personally experienced this either. The analogy of the beach came from a dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm. A few months ago, I attended a course by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon (author of "Abhidhamma Ultimate Science" - now on the internet at: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf ). Dr. Mon spoke of many people experiending the granular nature of the mind during meditation. I agree with you that the term "consciousness" is dangerous. It carries with it many connotations (unconscious, subconscious, etc.). The Pali term citta has less baggage associated with it. My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure awareness": - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object) Do you agree with this definition? ===== > > To me when I use the word consciousness it is not sense dependent, as it > often is in the translations of Pali texts that I have read. ===== I'm not sure what you mean by "sense dependent"; in the Abhidhamma list of 121 different types of cittas, only 10 have a sense base (two seeing consciousness, two hearing consciousness, etc.). The remaining cittas have a mind-base. ===== > I think of > consciousness as my awareness domain, which has deepened into alternate > realities through many years of meditation practice. I would be more than > happy to change my use of the term 'consciousness' to some other word, but I > do think 'mind' is an unsuccessful translation of the word 'chita.' ===== According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for changing mind states. Does this make sense? ===== > > But, let me say, that I can only speak from experience, and as I meditate in > the body I become increasingly aware of oscillations in all of the sense > gates. Some have told me this is called anicca (another use for the Pali > term for 'impermanence') So, yes, in the body these oscillations, I am quite > sure, overlay this Theravadan concept of mind-moments quite nicely. And, I > think the oscillations are no doubt due to the nature of the nervous system > which functions based on the oscillations, computer-like, of the synapses > (the individual cells) turning on and off as they function. ===== I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== > > But, in deep meditation, when the body awareness is left far behind, either > in out-of-body experiences or during merger in infinite > time-space-consciouseness, etc., there is no oscillation. In that domain > consciousness always seems to be an uninterrupted continuity to me. There > are no mind moments there, whether I have focused down to the infinitely > small subatomic domain, or the infinitely large galactic and beyond level. ===== You speak of putting your focus on the subatomic and the galactic. Very interesting. Have you ever turned your focus onto the workings of the mind itself? The commentaries list the following for each "reality": - Characteristic: Main quality, essential property, specific or generic attribute - Function: Performance of a task, achievement of goal - Manifestation: How it presents itself in an experience, the effect it has - Proximate Cause: Conditions upon which it depends When defining "citta", the commentary states: - Characteristic: Knowing of an object - Function: Be the forerunner of mental factors (cetasikas); preside over and be accompanied by the mental factors; citta is the "leader" - Manifestation: Continuity of process (Jeff, perhaps this is what you are describing) - Proximate Cause: Mind and matter (namarupa); citta requires mind (cetasika) and matter (rupa) to exist ===== > So, yes, in my experience we can change the domain of our consciousness, but > it never seems granular, unless as I have said, when the neurology is the > domain of my awareness. > > I hope this helps, ===== Metta, Rob M :-) 21054 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully Dear Azita, --- azita gill wrote: > dear Sarah, > such good reminders, Sarah, and so relevant > for me at this moment. I am feeling very distressed > about my daughter, Zoe, who seems to be very unhappy > and also non-communicate about anything. > I am finding it quite difficult living with her. > When I read Rahula's letter on worry and fear, I > thought, yep, that's me, the only difference being I > know what's worrying me. I remember K. Sujin's words > about real life being the best test, and how true that > is. ..... Thx Azita. Just before you wrote I had commented to Jon that you’d gone quiet, so we were very glad to hear from you. I’m sorry to hear about your anxieties and about Zoe. (Perhaps she’s missing Abby, your other daughter or concerned about her in the M.East??) I was chatting a little while ago with Mike about whether any lobha (attachment), even attachment for dhamma or family, can ever be considered good. The conclusion was that attachment always brings suffering and of course, you know this. We’re bound to feel distressed when those we’re close to are affected, suffering or unhappy, but really the problem, I think, is attachment to ourselves. Last week when the SARS virus really seemed at its most out of control here, I was very aware of this. I was nervous and panicky like everyone else, but it was all out of attachment to MY stories, MY world, MY fears and worries about the future and MY lack of control. Understanding the problem to be the thinking about various stories, knowing that vipaka is just this moment of seeing or hearing as usual and seeing the problems are all self-created is immediately a condition for calm and even a smile for me. It doesn’t mean any less concern or help for those around one. On the contrary it means much more when one continues with one’s life showing a little equanimity and metta, smiling as usual and perhaps occasionally giving useful reminders to others. Worrying about others sick or dying in hospital or about people losing jobs and so on isn't going to help anyone. It’s funny, after I wrote and said I knew K.Sujin would just say “anything can happen’, I called her briefly to cancel our trip and that was exactly what she said. I laughed and told her. I think as Christine said, a lot of people have been feeling a lot of background anxiety with regard to the War and now these health and economic concerns. Chris mentioned that we might not know the cause, but I think that often we think the cause is the War or the SARS or some other ‘situation’ when in truth the cause is the accumulated attachment to having life run as we’d like it to. ..... > There are many good reminders here in this group > and how I appreciate them at this time especially. > Mostly, I keep my personal life to myself, but this > situation is causing me some anxiety and like Rahula, > I look to this group for support - in a Dhamma sense. ..... I feel the same. Last week when I was nervy, it helped me to read and write some dhamma a lot and sometimes by sharing our difficulties it can help others who are also experiencing troubles. I appreciated Rahula’s sincere post and the very kind and helpful answers from RobK, Mike, Chris and others too. Like Mike explained, I think, the trouble doesn’t last - one moment happiness, one moment unhappiness. ..... > There are many other 'conventional' helpers out in the > community, but what I look for here are the reminders > about the only Truth - the Dhamma. I wish I could > teach the Buddha's truth to Zoe but she is totally > uninterested, seemingly in most things. ..... Not the right time perhaps. Like Mike said and quoted from AN, it should be the right time and right way for the person. Perhaps old friends at Maleny might help her? Perhaps you can encourage her to email to Abby more. ..... > When our loved ones are unhappy we generally are > affected. At moments of interaction with her, there > is no sense of 'no-one', or of anything kusala!!!! ..... I think this is very natural and there shouldn’t be any expectation to feeling any otherway. Still, knowing what the problem is and understanding the difference between kusala and akusala can help a lot. Don’t be too tough (in terms of expectations) on yourself. We are all beginners on the path;-) Metta and best wishes, Sarah p.s Is there any chance of helping Zoe to express her thoughts and feelings and doubts about Buddhism and life on the list, like the Starkids? She must have a lot of background knowledge, having been brought up by a group of Buddhists. 21055 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > > I'm grounded and it suits me fine! It means more time for family, > less time for airplanes, hotels and DSG! > ..... I think that's the best way to be right now (i.e. grounded) in this region. (Btw, if you do fly, I think the back seats in the section are the safest in terms of not catching the virus). I hope this was meant to mean MORE time for DSG, otherwise we'll all be urging you to fly again;-) Seriously, I'm glad you're having some catch-up time with your family and we'll keep you posted when we plan another trip to Bkk. Metta, Sarah ======= 21056 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > The Buddha repeated this phrase very often in that sutta: "And as he > remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves > related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning > his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered.". > > To my understanding, this sutta describes the development of right > mindfulness culminating in right concentration. ..... The sutta and these phrases are very similar to those in the Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary discussed in detail about the meaning of aataapi (ardent), sampajaano(clearly comprehending) and satima (mindful). It also discussed in a similar section that it referred to the abandoning of covetousness and grief in the 5 khandhas. “Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world”. I understand the eightfold path factors to develop together. Just as in the Satipatthana Sutta, when sati is mentioned, it also implies right understand, effort, concentration and so on, so too here, all factors are developed. ..... > At the end of the sutta, the Buddha said: "Monks, for one in whom > mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, > handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, > consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten benefits can be expected. Which > ten?". ..... So we have to know what mindfulness of the body (kaayagataasati) means. Whether here or in other suttas such as the one addressing Rahula, the Greater Elephant’s Footprint, Sariputta’s Lion’s Roar in AN or others, I understand it to refer to the awareness of rupas and the understanding that what is taken for body are merely a conglomeration of elements. It mentions in this sutta in MN that you quoted (119) about the benefits of conquering ‘discontent and delight’ and ‘fear and dread’ which relate to my post to Azita. Instead of being fearful to develop more understanding and be aware that ‘computer’ and ‘Nina’ or ‘Zoe’ are elements experienced as visbile object, sound, hardness and so on, it is actually the tonic to remove fear and susceptibility to discontent and delight. ..... > "[10] Through the ending of the mental effluents, he remains in the > effluent-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known > and made them manifest for himself right in the here & now." > > Relating to the ending of the mental effluents, the Buddha said in > Anguttara Nikaya IV.41: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where > a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the > five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such > its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its > passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its > passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such > their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such > its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, > when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. > > When right concentration cultivated through right mindfulness is used > to investigate the arising and falling away of the five > clinging-aggregates, it leads to the ending of the mental effluents. ..... I think that when we understand that the fivefold or eightfold factors have to arise together and that right understanding is the ‘forerunner’, we know that when concentration is being referred to as it is here, it implies all the other factors too. Focussing here means ‘clearly comprehending’ or understanding and being aware. When there is a moment of understanding, there is right concentration and calm at that moment, regardless of any conventional concentration or not. We see that all 5 khandhas are referrred to and have to be understood. ..... > I don't understand what you mean. I don't select, as far as I know. ..... Like RobertK mentioned in his post to Selamat, the subtle clinging creeps in all the time, wishing to have kusala, to focus on an object, to know the rupas or elements or to concentrate on a particular object. ..... > > Isn't it motivated by desire that makes one wish to discern particular > > mind states in this way? What about just understanding what is > conditioned > > now for just a moment without any wishing to know any particular > state or > > wishing to be able to discern in this way. > > I don't think I made any wishes at all. I am aware of the my own mind > states most of the time. ..... When there is a concentration on movements or volitions in order to understand impermanence or anatta I believe it is motivated by wishing. Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind states (though I probably wouldn’t;-)), but in terms of satipatthana and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there is very little awareness. ..... Sarah:>> Where does the Buddha suggest > just > > focussing on cetana (volition)? > SB> I don't think I said anything to that effect. If I did, then I > apologize to you. No, all the five aggregates have to be comprehended. > I do discern the arising and falling away of the rest of the > aggregates. But I think focusing on volition makes a stronger impact > for me. Some people may like to focus on feelings for stronger impact. > For example, Christine. Some people may like to focus on form for > stronger impact. For example, the Buddha's son, Rahula. ..... We agree about ‘all the five aggregates....’. I believe there are different kinds or levels of discerning the arising and falling away of the aggregates. For example, there is thinking about them now or the kind of knowledge that anyone has about the change of feelings and so on. The understanding of impermanence that we read about in the texts (as in the one you quoted above) depends on a very clear understanding and awareness first of different namas and rupas without any selection or preference or idea of focussing or concentrating on them by ‘me’ or anything else, I believe. It’s one thing for the Buddha to give helpful reminders at a given time about particular realities to someone like Rahula who can appreciate them and it’s another thing for us to have the idea that by concentrating on rupas or feelings that this is the way for insight to develop. ..... > Some people say the crux of the crux of the Buddha's Teachings is to > differentiate the distinction between concept and reality. Is there > any sutta that supports this? ..... The quote was from Sukin’s post (not to be confused with Sujin;-)). I think RobertK has answered this part of your post. Remember all the suttas in SN on this subject such as in Salyatana -Vagga,ch1V, par84, Transitory: ‘ “The World! the World” is the saying, lord. Pray how far, lord, does this saying go?” “What is transitory by nature, Ananda, is called “the world” in the ariyan sense. And wht, Ananda , is transitory by nature? the eye, Ananda, is transitory by nature...objects...tongue...mind is transitory by nature, mind-states, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, whatsoever pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling which arises owing to mind-contact, that also is transitory by nature. What is thus transitory, Ananda, is called “the world” in the ariyan sense.’ ***** On a similar reference to ‘this world’ in the Satipatthana Sutta, Nina translated from the commentary and added a note: Nina: “Way 25: <"In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world[loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling.As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world."> N:It crumbles away: lujjanapalujjana,t.thena, in the sense of crumbling away. Remember Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, §82: The world. It crumbles away. What crumbles away: the eye... objects... eye-consciousness... Very meaningful: when the whole is taken apart by pa~n~naa, dissolved into elements, realities can be seen as they are. Lujjati and loko are associated in meaning. We can begin now: whatever appears can be object of awareness. That is satipatthana.” ***** I hope that what I’ve written isn’t too disturbing, Swee Boon. It’s not my intention. As James says, we just can do our best according to our present understanding and appreciate the opportunities for testing out of equanimity regardless of the praise or blame we all hear;-) Actually, we can see why they are called ‘worldly’ conditions. What is taken for the world or wordly in this case are merely sounds and visible objects on account of which there are stories about kind or harsh words, heavenly or horrible views;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 21057 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/7/03 6:43:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I hadn't considered what is *really* delighted in. Could you expand your > reply. The sutta says the sound is delighted in. Are you saying the > melody is a noncompounded concept? What is your view on what is negated, > what doesn't exist? Also, do you see any difference between sound and > lute (are they both real or not)? What is the lute? > > Larry > ------------------ > Howard wrote: The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it > is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is > delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is > not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something > constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a > multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but > mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. > > > ============================== I'm glad you questioned this. The second sentence that I wrote is incorrect and misleading. What I should have said was the following: "The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and each actual lute sound, while certainly conditioned, is not a complex." What I missed writing was "each actual lute sound". To clarify my entire statement: As a lute is played (warning: conventional expresion! ;-), there is produced a multitude of lute sounds, each heard by the listener and not delighted in. Each momentary sound heard is a paramattha dhamma, conditioned but not, itself, a complex. (Of course, when we "hear" such a sound, when we perceive it, sa~n~na is already operative, separating out (and wordlessly identifying) that specific sound element from the entire content of hearing at that moment (which might include speech sounds, wind sounds, car sounds etc, etc.) The "lute sound" that is delighted in, however, is a mental construct, actually the lute melody or lute music, a mind-made complex that *is* compounded from the the heard sequence of actual lute sounds, reflecting a discerned pattern among those sounds. It is this mental construct, the lute melody/music, a well grounded pa~n~natti (is that the singular?) like the tree I now see in the garden, that we delight in. We can imagine ourselves back in ancient India, sitting on the balcony of the king's palace on a full-moon night. There is a stillness all about, and then we hear this lovely sound, this enchanting sound, and we ask what it is, we are told it is the sound of the Royal Musician's lute. What was it we found so delightful? Not a moment of hearing. By the time that we discerned "this lovely sound, this enchanting sound," a multitude of sounds had passed, and our mind had constructed from them what we took to be a single thing. As far as what the lute is, that is another pa~n~natti, either a specific one built of specific sight percepts and touch percepts and possibly sound percepts as well, and an instance of the general concept of 'the musical instrument called a lute', or an inferred one. (Of course, in these modern times, there might be no lute at all, but only a compact disc that recorded synthesized lute music! ;-)) 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) 21058 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] equanimity Chris Welcome to the list from me. I meant to reply to your post sooner, but have not been able to do so until now. --- christhedis wrote: > Is it a good idea to train oneself to be equanimous in all > situations > (vipassana meditation)? Doesn't this take the 'spice' out of life? > If a person transcends all worldly attachments, then what is > beyond? You define vipassana meditation as 'training oneself to be equanimous in all situations'. I think by this you mean, not reacting with attachment or aversion, but being unmoved by what goes on around. In other words, having wholesome mental states instead of unwholesome ones. I hope I have understood you correctly. Wholesome mental states are of course always to be encouraged. To my understanding, however, vipassana means something a little different than this. It means insight into the true nature of the presently appearing dhammas (basic phenomena). For this purpose it is not important whether the present mind-state is wholesome or unwholesome, since either can be the object of insight/understanding. What matters is that a presently arising dhamma is directly experienced by a moment of consciousness accompanied by insight/wisdom. Even moments of attachment accompanied by strong pleasant feeling can be the object of insight. You may wonder what this insight into the true nature of things has to do with overcoming unwholesomeness, which as we all know is one of the outcomes of enlightenment. The connection is that it is ignorance that the Buddha identified as being the root of all unwholesomeness, and only by developing insight can this root cause be permanently eradicated. Chris, I hope this makes sense. I know no-one likes hearing anything that questions their understanding. But look at it on the bright side: at least this way there's no danger of all the spice suddenly going out of your life ;-)) Jon 21059 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor In my previous post I agreed that it would be correct as a matter of everyday speech to say that a computer is impermanent. Does it follow that, as a matter of everyday speech, it would also be correct to say that computer was therefore dukkha/unsatisfactory? I'm not sure. This does not seem to be an everyday use of 'unsatisfactory'. However, as before, I'm sure many 'thinking' people would agree with the underlying sentiment, namely that something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. So perhaps I can give a qualified 'yes' to your question above. But again, the important question, to my mind, is what the Buddha meant when he talked about impermanence. I would be surprised if you could find in the suttas many (or any) instances of the Buddha asking whether what is impermanent is dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful, where the subject-matter is conventional objects (such as the then equivalent of computer). Most (or all) of these references are found in the context of conditioned phenomena, I believe (I regard references to the eye etc as being references to the rupa that is eyebase etc.). Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > If you do see that computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not > last forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually, > > then let me ask this: > Is what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful? > > Regards, > Victor 21060 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: Could you tell me > what is the meaning > you give to this phrase > << Each of the 5 aggregates has > the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Anicca/dukkha/anatta are the 3 characteristics (Pali: lakkhana) that are common to all conditioned phenomena. This I understand to mean that they are attributes of conditioned phenomena. That is to say, they are not qualities to be contemplated in the abstract, nor are they something that we are supposed to 'see' in everything -- both of these are I would consider to be a kind of 'thinking about' anicca/dukkha/anatta, not the direct experience of anicca/dukkha/anatta as an aspect of conditioned phenomena. As I see it, the knowledge or understanding of the 3 characteristics can only be developed by developing insight into different conditioned phenomena. As insight is developed and conditioned phenomena are seen more truly as they really are, the 3 characteristics become more and more apparent as attributes of those conditioned phenomena. Does this answer your question? I haven't said anything about the 5 aggregates, but I don't think that was the focus of your question (let me know if otherwise). Jon 21061 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, > Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind > states (though I probably wouldn't;-)), but in terms of satipatthana > and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there > is very little awareness. The above statement says it all. You lack the concentration needed to be aware of these dhammas. Sporadic mindfulness is one thing. Concentrated mindfulness is another thing. "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is . When his mindfulness is , then mindfulness ***as a factor for Awakening*** becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn54-013.html Regarding concepts and ultimate realities, this sutta appears to blur the distinction between them in that both concepts and ultimate realities can be "insighted", to borrow a word from Robert. "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21062 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hello Victor, > The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > personality view. This matter has not been comprehended by you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21063 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - In a message dated 4/8/03 11:56:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hello Victor, > > >The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > > >Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > >personality view. > > This matter has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ========================== Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) Sorry, I just couldn't resist! ;-)) With good-humored 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) 21064 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT: Could you tell me > what is the meaning > you give to this phrase > << Each of the 5 aggregates has > the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Anicca/dukkha/anatta are the 3 characteristics (Pali: lakkhana) that are common to all conditioned phenomena. This I understand to mean that they are attributes of conditioned phenomena. That is to say, they are not qualities to be contemplated in the abstract, nor are they something that we are supposed to 'see' in everything -- both of these are I would consider to be a kind of 'thinking about' anicca/dukkha/anatta, not the direct experience of anicca/dukkha/anatta as an aspect of conditioned phenomena. As I see it, the knowledge or understanding of the 3 characteristics can only be developed by developing insight into different conditioned phenomena. As insight is developed and conditioned phenomena are seen more truly as they really are, the 3 characteristics become more and more apparent as attributes of those conditioned phenomena. Does this answer your question? I haven't said anything about the 5 aggregates, but I don't think that was the focus of your question (let me know if otherwise). Jon KKT: It's my fault for not being very clear with my question. I try another approach. Take the famous phrase: Sabbe dhamma anatta (All dhammas are no-self) Atta is usually understood as self/soul. Therefore if we say: a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) then this phrase is understandable. But if we say: a table is anatta. Does it make sense? How do you understand this phrase? Metta, KKT 21065 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, What matter are you referring to? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > > The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > > > Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > > personality view. > > This matter has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - > [snip] > > Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) Sorry, I just > couldn't resist! ;-)) > > With good-humored metta, > Howard 21067 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/8/03 1:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? > > Regards, > Victor > > ========================= LOL!! ;-)) 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) 21068 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 3:52pm Subject: Way 73, Clear Comprehension 7, cont. 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 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth...cont. The non-occurrence of processes which make action or are made of action is sleep; the occurrence, waking. [Tika] Action is doing, function of body and so forth (i.e., bodily expression or verbal expression, kayaviññatti va vaciviññatti). The processes which make action produce the function of bodily expression or the function of verbal expression. Or action is the double function of adverting. The things made of or produced from that action or double function are processes made of action. For by way of adverting, when there is the stoppage of the life-continum, courses of cognition arise [karanam kriya kayadikiccam. Tam nibbattentiti kriyamayani. Athava avajjanadvayakiccam kriya; taya pakatani, nibbattani va kriyamayani. Avajjanavasenahi bhavangupaccede sati vithicittani uppajjanti]. [T] Processes are things which go on, move changing, by arising gradually in different ways. Somewhere there is the reading "of mental states", "of action-making mental states, kriyamaya cittanam." It should be understood that this is not a reading of the Ancients as it is against the commentary and explanation to the Abhidhamma and other books [aparaparuppattiya nanappakarato vattanti parivattantiti pavattani. Katthaci pana cittananti patho. So Abhidhammatthakathadihi tattikahi ca viruddhatta na Parana pathoti veditabbo]. [T] Impulsion of either course of cognition (mind-door or five-door course of cognition) is a process made of action. Therefore it is said in the explanation to the Abhiddhamma, "On account of the condition of processes making action of body and so forth and by reason of the condition of originating action of adverting, impulsion of either course of cognition, or lust of every process of the six doors gets known as a process which makes or is made of action." [javanam sabbampi va chaddvarika vithi cittam kriyamaya pavattani. Tenaha Abhidhammatikayam kayadi kriyamayatta avajjamakriya samutthitatta ca javanam sabbampi va chaddvarapavattam kriyamayapavattam namati].[25] [T] Non-occurrence: Non-arising (of the processes which make action or are made of action) at the time of falling asleep is called sleep. Thus the thing should be understood. Otherwise sleep could be called the proceeding of even all states of door-free consciousness (namely, every instance of the supervention of the life-continum), before and after the six-door states of consciousness; so, it should be understood that the supervention of the life-continum at a time other than that of falling asleep is included in waking [appavattanti niddokkamana kale anuppajjanam suttam namati attho gahetabbo. Itaratha chaddvarika cittanam pure caranucaravasena uppajjantanam sabbesampi dvaravimutta cittanam pavattam suttam nama siya, evañca katva niddokkamana kalato aññasmim kale uppajjantanam dvaravimutta cittanampi pavattam jagarito sangayhatiti veditabbam]. He who whilst speaking thinks: "This sound arises dependent on the lips, teeth, tongue, palate, and the act of the mind that accords to that sound," speaks, mindful and clearly comprehending. He who for a long time has studied or expounded the Teaching or recited the words of the subject of meditation, or cleared a question, and later, on becoming silent, thinks: "The bodily and mental things which arose during the time of speaking ended just then," is called a doer of clear comprehension in speaking. He who, after remaining silent long considering the Teaching or his subject of meditation, thinks that the bodily and mental things that existed in the time of silence ended just then, that the occurrence of derived material qualities is speech, and that the non-occurrence of these is silence, is called a doer of clear comprehension in keeping silence. This dominance of non-delusion stated by the Elder Maha Siva is intended here in this Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness. But in the Discourse on the Fruit of the Homeless Life (Samañña phala Sutta) even the entire fourfold clear comprehension is found. Therefore in a special way, here, only by way of clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood the state of doing clear comprehension. [T] The occurrence of the sound-base is speech; its non-occurrence is silence [saddayatanassa pavattanam bhasanam appavattanam tunhi]. [T] Since, indeed, in the exposition of the Elder Maha Siva the state of clear comprehension is considered by way of the vision of the ending then and there of material and mental qualities occurring in posture after posture, without a break, the state of clear comprehension should be known by way of the insight portion of the clear comprehension of non-delusion come down in the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness; not by way of the detailing of the fourfold clear comprehension. Therefore, only, in the Discourse on the Fruit of the Homeless Life (Samaññaphala Sutta) is that fourfold clear comprehension intended. [T] The dominance of non-delusion refers to the statement to which non-delusion is the dominant or principal thing. This statement of the Elder Maha Siva contains the reason that is found only in the Satipatthana Sutta in this connection, namely, clear comprehension of non-delusion, by way of the insight portion or turn; and not the detailing of fourfold clear comprehension as given in the Samaññaphala Sutta. 25. "Waking -- the state of being awake; there, when there is non-occurrence of the process which makes or is made of action, what is called waking does not exist; the bhikkhu laying hold (of the matter), thinking, 'waking comes to be when a trace of the process which makes or is made of action occurs' is called a doer of clear comprehension [jagarite ti jagarane. Tattha kriyamayapavattassa appavattiya sati jagaritam nama na hoti. Kriyamayapavattavalañje pavattante jagaritam nama hotiti parigganhanto bhikkhu jagarite sampajanakari nama hoti]. Sammoha Vinodani, Jhana Vibhanga, p. 364 P.T.S. Ed. 21069 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 4:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, Are you saying the object of the root cittas (like, dislike, bewilderment) is always only a concept? I wonder about your saying sound is not a compound. Does that go for all paramatta dhammas? Do you consider all compounds to be concepts? I guess this would jive with the linear pointilism of citta process, not sure. In your view is concept the only possible object of satipatthana? Larry 21070 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/8/03 7:29:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Are you saying the object of the root cittas (like, dislike, > bewilderment) is always only a concept? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was saying that the individual sounds, as ear-door objects, are not found to be pleasant, and certainly not delightful (i.e., very pleasant), but that music/melody, which is apprehended through the mind-door, may be. ------------------------------------------------- > > I wonder about your saying sound is not a compound. Does that go for all > paramatta dhammas? Do you consider all compounds to be concepts? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The word I used was 'complex' rather than 'compound', because sometimes the English word 'compounded' is given as the translation of 'sankhata', meaning "conditioned," and I wanted to avoid that. Yes, every complex is concept-only: A complex is a collection, and it is the mind that does the collecting; so, yes, every complex is (an instance of) a concept. The keyboard key with the letter 't' that I tapped a moment ago is pa~n~natti, it is a mental construct and no more, though a well grounded one based on a multitude of phenomena that were directly apprehended and not conceptually constructed. Think about the chariot described in the Milindapanha: it has no core, no self-identity, no own-being, because it is concept-only, and that is shown by showing that it is a complex. The chariot, per se, is nowhere to be found. -------------------------------------------------------- I guess> > this would jive with the linear pointilism of citta process, not sure. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure either. I think it is compatible with it, but I'm not at all sure it requires it. -------------------------------------------------------- > > In your view is concept the only possible object of satipatthana? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Just the opposite! At the early stages of insight practice one attend to conventional objects, but when true insight practice is underway, when the process is really "on a roll", it is paramattha dhammas that are examined with increasing mindfulness and growth of wisdom. That's my understanding. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Larry > > ============================ 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) 21071 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I'm getting confused when you shift from "sound" to "music". By music I thought you meant a group of sounds (a concept according to you). But you don't want to say the object of delight could only be a concept (group). If the object of delight cannot be a single sound rupa, what is it? If the object of delight can only be a group, the object of wisdom (panna) can only be a group because delight and wisdom are both root cittas. Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: I was saying that the individual sounds, as ear-door objects, are not found to be pleasant, and certainly not delightful (i.e., very pleasant), but that music/melody, which is apprehended through the mind-door, may be. 21072 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] equanimity My good friends, Jon's response is quite excellent, but I thought I would just add one small point with respect to the question of whether one would lose "the spice of life" upon arriving at equanimity. When one strips away the layers of the self, through excellent and deep meditation, to reveal the underlying equanimity, then one would have also arrived at the 5th jhana as well. The jhanas, as you may know, are ecstatic absorption states. The consequence then of either causing equanimity to arise (in the common language), or stripping the layers of the self away (or as in the tripitaka purification) to expose the underlying natural state of equanimity, then one arrives at jhana. Therefore instead of losing the "spice of life" you gain ecstasy. Best regards, Jeff In a message dated 4/8/03 7:18:31 AM, jonoabb@y... writes: << Chris Welcome to the list from me. I meant to reply to your post sooner, but have not been able to do so until now. --- christhedis wrote: > Is it a good idea to train oneself to be equanimous in all > situations > (vipassana meditation)? Doesn't this take the 'spice' out of life? > If a person transcends all worldly attachments, then what is > beyond? You define vipassana meditation as 'training oneself to be equanimous in all situations'. I think by this you mean, not reacting with attachment or aversion, but being unmoved by what goes on around. In other words, having wholesome mental states instead of unwholesome ones. I hope I have understood you correctly. Wholesome mental states are of course always to be encouraged. To my understanding, however, vipassana means something a little different than this. It means insight into the true nature of the presently appearing dhammas (basic phenomena). For this purpose it is not important whether the present mind-state is wholesome or unwholesome, since either can be the object of insight/understanding. What matters is that a presently arising dhamma is directly experienced by a moment of consciousness accompanied by insight/wisdom. Even moments of attachment accompanied by strong pleasant feeling can be the object of insight. You may wonder what this insight into the true nature of things has to do with overcoming unwholesomeness, which as we all know is one of the outcomes of enlightenment. The connection is that it is ignorance that the Buddha identified as being the root of all unwholesomeness, and only by developing insight can this root cause be permanently eradicated. Chris, I hope this makes sense. I know no-one likes hearing anything that questions their understanding. But look at it on the bright side: at least this way there's no danger of all the spice suddenly going out of your life ;-)) Jon >> 21073 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group My good friend Rob, my answers to your comments are as follows In a message dated 4/7/03 11:30:03 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: ===== I have not personally experienced this either. The analogy of the beach came from a dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm. A few months ago, I attended a course by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon (author of "Abhidhamma Ultimate Science" - now on the internet at: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf ). Dr. Mon spoke of many people experiending the granular nature of the mind during meditation. I agree with you that the term "consciousness" is dangerous. It carries with it many connotations (unconscious, subconscious, etc.). The Pali term citta has less baggage associated with it. My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure awareness": - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object) Do you agree with this definition? ===== Well, I guess I would have to correct my typo from my earlier message to say I don't really like the use of the word 'mind' to translate 'Citta.' Just as you used the word 'aware' in each of your definitions of 'Citta,' I think 'consciousness,' which is perhaps our domain of awareness, is better than 'mind,' which to my use of the word as I said before, links it more to the cognitive processes of the brain. Consequently, when consciousness is in the body, its experience of the sense domain can definitely be granular, because the nerve synapses oscillate, but once out of the body, there is no nervous system as an intermediary between domain and consciousness. ===== I'm not sure what you mean by "sense dependent"; in the Abhidhamma list of 121 different types of cittas, only 10 have a sense base (two seeing consciousness, two hearing consciousness, etc.). The remaining cittas have a mind-base. ===== Very good, and you are quite right, and you no doubt are far more familiar with the Abhidhamma than I am. But, remember the idea in the tripitaka of eye consciousness, ear consciousness, etc. My point is, is English really that stupid that it can't articulate the domain of awareness, or are we depending on someone's unskillful translation? I personally don't buy that English is incapable of articulating the world of gnosis. And, I think if we are going to give rise to a truly Western Buddhism, we better figure out how to articulate it in English. I am sure Pali, like every language, has its faults and its debates of interpretation as well. ===== According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for changing mind states. Does this make sense? ===== No, I disagree. Unless you are coming up with another definition for awareness than what most of us native speakers of English use. I believe the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" I would agree with you in part regarding, "Citta does not deepen, its characteristic is always the same." If we look at consciousness as a continuity in the same sense that the meaning of 'citta' is intended to be. Meaning that the domain of the unconscious is still consciousness, it is just below ones awareness domain. Consequently we could fairly effectively use 'consciousness' as a translation for 'citta.' But I used 'deepen' in the sense of extending one's awareness domain into subconscious domains, in the same sense as we say the sun rises, when we know the Earth rotates and gives us the illusion that the sun rises ever 24 hours. I will accept that consciousness is a continuity. ===== I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== Why not? Is Buddhism such a unique phenomena that it, and only it, can describe gnosis? Or, is gnosis something that has been around as long has human beings have been on the planet? Or, has Buddhism just come up with a pretty good description of it? Is the Western Vehicle going to be a clone of Theravadan Buddhism? Or, are we going to figure out how to articulate the path of purification in our own native language, and use our Western science in part to articulate it? Are Buddhists someday going to be at odds with Western science as orthodox Christianity is today? I believe if Buddhism is going to succeed effectively in the West, and become a truly Western Vehicle, then we are going to have to articulate Western Buddhism in English and include science in our exegesis. ===== You speak of putting your focus on the subatomic and the galactic. Very interesting. Have you ever turned your focus onto the workings of the mind itself? The commentaries list the following for each "reality": - Characteristic: Main quality, essential property, specific or generic attribute - Function: Performance of a task, achievement of goal - Manifestation: How it presents itself in an experience, the effect it has - Proximate Cause: Conditions upon which it depends When defining "citta", the commentary states: - Characteristic: Knowing of an object - Function: Be the forerunner of mental factors (cetasikas); preside over and be accompanied by the mental factors; citta is the "leader" - Manifestation: Continuity of process (Jeff, perhaps this is what you are describing) - Proximate Cause: Mind and matter (namarupa); citta requires mind (cetasika) and matter (rupa) to exist ===== Well, my good friend I could ask you whether you take your nose out of the tripitaka and warm a pillow. But I assume you do so, just as I believe you should assume that my description comes from someone who has applied the method of self discovery on every level possible, and I have found that my experience doesn't always match up to the tripitaka, unless I question the use of words chosen by the translators. Are you willing to ask who decided what words from our language were chosen? Was, whoever decide that 'mind' = 'citta:' a native speaker of Pali; a native speaker of English; and Enlightened? That would be a pretty hard combination to accomplish, don't you think? Thank-you for the thought provoking discussion. I have learned a great deal. Jeff 21074 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Interesting ideas Mike, but don't name (nama) and form (rupa) go together as intimately as the hand in the glove? And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore the foundation of a sense of self? If one grasps at the appearance of things (rupa), is not one also forming concepts (nama) of things? And, how can insight (vipassana) be revealed in a mind that is grasping at the appearance of things (rupa), and forming labels (nama) for its subjective reality? I believe it is self evident that insight emerges when there is no grasping at either name or form (nama rupa), the perception of sensory experience. It has been my experience that equanimity, neither grasping nor averting at sensory experience, is the necessary preexisting condition for insight to be revealed. What a lively and thought provoking group this sangha is. Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 8:15:44 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << > Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add > at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating > between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Good and fair question. I think that it's the nature of understanding to arise with dispassion. If this difference is as important as I think it is (that one can be the basis of vipassaana and the other can't), then it's an important piece of understanding. Conceptually, for me at least, it leads to dispassion because I see less profit in concept, the rarity of the arising of insight into paramattha dhamma and the impossibility of creating the latter by an act of will (as in Bhumijasutta). > Aren't you left with a > bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? I'm not (if you meant me, personally). I'm habituated now to the idea that naama is just as real as ruupa. Clearly a preference for naama/ruupa vs. concept would be a matter of attachment, which is always a problem. However, I think vipassanaa can also arise with regard to attachment (since it's 'real'). Thanks again for the interesting discussion. Really great talking with you, Larry. mike >> 21075 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Thank-you for your warm welcome, and I do indeed look forward to lively discussion of dharma. And, I am very happy to see that more than one cult;-) ;-) is represented. It makes for a healthy dialog. Best, to all, and I hope to meet "James in AZ" soon. What city? Ever come to Tucson? Come and sit with us sometime noon-1 M-F 9-10 AM Sat. & Sun. Jeff In a message dated 4/7/03 10:03:02 PM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Hi Jeff (& Rob M in a p.s), Many thanks for introducing yourself and for telling us a little about your background. You may bump into James in AZ one day;-) Thank you also for the information about the resource guide and newsletter. You’ve certainly come to the right place for dialogue on Theravada Buddhism and you’ll find plenty of it on the ‘practice of vipassana’. Just watch out for the cults;-) ;-) Just joking - we’re all good friends here and different understandings in friendship make a healthy discussion group, I think. I’ll look forward to listening to some of your other thread discussions with Rob M and others. Metta, Sarah p.s We ask everyone on DSG to make it clear who they are addressing in the salutation as well as signing off as you do. (Rob M - I’ve been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time - hope you’re managing OK. We’ve now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so perhaps we’ll all make it later:-)) >> 21076 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor,Howard & Swee Boon, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? ..... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - > > > [snip] > > > > Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) > Sorry, I just > > couldn't resist! ;-)) ..... I also had a good laugh - glad to see there's more than one cult too;-) Btw, Victor's comment that started off the laugh, i.e ' "self is not self" is a contradiction' was one of his few comments I understood and agreed with;-). Maybe the matter hasn't been comprehended by me either, Swee Boon;-). (Pls don't ask me what I mean by matter, Victor;-)) Metta, Sarah p.s On the (growing??) cult topic - Howard, I thought your post to Lodevick on the magic show with the nice quotes and your recent Lute posts to Larry (esp.21057) were beautifully written and I fully agreed with the content. Many thanks. When I read your description I found myself delighting in the lute sound without even hearing it - we can see the power of the imagination and the delighting in pannatti just as you explained. ====== 21077 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine & Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I think the quote from the discourse > > Digha Nikaya 21 > Sakka-pañha Sutta > Sakka's Questions > > is relevant to your questions. ..... I thought it sounded very relevant too. Christine's question below sounded like the kind of Christine question which she's probably considered more carefully than any of us;-)). This being likely, would you kindly share your reflections, Chris? I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance. Metta, Sarah ======= > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow > the > > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the > same > > time. I wonder what others think? > > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - > just > > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the > needs > > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a > person's > > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to > whatever > > that is? 21078 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:33am Subject: What is a Buddhist? Dear Christine, Howard & All, You may find it of some interest to read this article which I was asked to write for ‘Buddhist Quarterly, 1980. (I hadn’t looked at it since then, but note as I retype it now, that the ideas haven’t changed, even if the style may have;-)) Metta, Sarah ================================================== What is a Buddhist? ******************** I was recently invited by Ven. Dr Saddhatissa to give a talk at the London Buddhist Vihara on the topic of ‘Experiences in Buddhist Countries by an English Buddhist’. What is a Buddhist, I wondered? Many people call themselves buddhists and many people have different ideas of what a Buddhist is. It is only by understanding more of the Buddhist teachings that we will have a clearer knowldege of what this really means. The more we follow the Teachings, the more we will see what beginners we are in the practice and how few are the moments of kusala cittas or wholesome states of mind. Many people think that to be Buddhist they need to change their ways of life. For example, some think that they should not have big houses or grand clothes or that they should become monks or at least give away all their possessions. But, who can judge who are good Buddhists or what the others’ states of mind are at any moment from just the outward appearances? In the Buddha’s time, many followed his Teachings and developed enough wisdom to become enlightened. Among these were people from very different backgrounds, rich and poor, monks and laypeople. We may think that Buddhism is impractical and that it means leading inactive lives. This is not so; what it does mean is beginning to understand our lives with more sincerity and courage whatever our lifestyles are. We may think we do not mind about possessions or where we live, for example, but we need to be very honest with ourselves. We all have diferent tendencies and follow different interests. When I was in India last year with friends from Thailand on a pilgrimage, we visited the spot where Angulimala, the robber, was supposedly buried. Angulimala received his name from his attempt to attack a thousand travellers, kill them and take a finger from each to make into a garland. However, there were conditions for Angulimala to hear the Buddha and understand the meaning of his Teachings even though the people were yelling at the king’s palace for the robber’s life. Some people think that Buddhism is specific to Buddhist countries and that it cannot be practised in the West. After my talk, one gentleman from Sri Lanka pointed out how people from Sri Lanka are brought up with Buddhism and knowledge of the Teachings. People have also commented on how fortunate I have been to spend time in Buddhist countries. This is true; however, Buddhism is the teaching of realities that exist from moment to moment for all, whether in the East or West, this culture or that culture. It is very valuable to hear, read and consider the Teachings, but it has to be with right understanding. The Buddha pointed out that there are three different listeners: there is the ‘topsy-turvy-brained’ who pays no heed, there is the ‘scatter-brained’ who pays heed at the time, but when he has risen, he forgets what he has heard. The third is the listener with the ‘comprehensive mind who listens, pays heed, and considers’. We may have read a lot, but one line of the Tipitaka read with right understanding is more valuable than the whole Tipitaka read with no understanding. My friend and teacher in Thailand, Ajarn Sujin, points out that even when one is rushing and tired, there can be awareness. It is not a matter of stopping or going to a different room or moving to the country if one lives in the city. Whatever happens in one’s life happens because of different causes and conditions. Who knows what will happen next? Who can direct it? I was asked what had led me originally to the East and to my interest in Buddhism, and how it compared with my previous studies of Western psychology. On my visits to Sri lanka, I have always been asked why someone brought up in a Christian background becomes so interested in Buddhism. I point out that Buddhism is very logical. The first time I visited Sri lanka, I lived for several months in a temple. I thought this would be useful for following the buddhist path. However, the more I understood that it is impossible to control life because it is conditioned from moment to moment, the less inclined I was to follow a particular practice in order to try and have quick results in a special quiet environment. There is no sudden enlightenment without the gradual development of understanding and awarenes, however much our wishful thinking would like to think otherwise. I understand more clearly, from my reading and considering with friends, that Buddhism cannot be separated from our daily life. It is only some who are naturally inclined to living in a temple. Sometimes we wonder how to help children or friends. If there is no example of beginning to understand more or our lives at this moment with patience and courage, can we help others? If we do not begin to realise the difference between attachment and kindness towards these people, will we follow what is useful? We may think that in order to lead ‘better’ lives, we should be in another place following other occupations. For example, I used to feel guilty every time I heard about the refugees in Cambodia, because I thought I should be helping in some way. However, it was pointed out to me that the greatest gift or help is developing wisdom and giving up the idea of a self who can control life at this moment. We need to be reminded that there is ‘fire on our heads’ and that death can come at any time. The Buddha encouraged us to remember this many times a day in order that we might see the urgency to develop awareness. We need to be aware of the realities appearing through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind at this moment. There is no other moment. This is the meaning of insight meditation or vipassana. The more awareness of that which experiences or is experienced at this moment, the more we can see that it is a world of concepts and dreams we live in and think exists. There is no moment when there is not a truth to be known. Greed, hatred, kindness, generosity, hearing and sound are not just words or labels, but they represent phenomena which can be understood with awareness when they occur. We can question what he aim of our life is and what is the happiness which we consider so important. We considered how it is important to remember that the absolute meaning of dukkha or suffering refers to the impermanence of all conditioned realities. If our aims and happiness depend on our home and marriage and career, for example, we can see how these can collapse at any moment and bring so much unhappiness. What we cling to cannot last. If we are really concerned to follow and understand the Buddha’s teachings, we will begin to live a more contented and skilful lie and discover the real meaning of freedom and what it means to be a Buddhist. "Come, behold this world, how it resembles an ornamented royal chariot in which fools flounder. For the wise, however, there is no attachment to it." Dhammapada, v171 ============================================================== 21079 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, Thanks for continuing this useful discussion. I really enjoy looking at the suttas you quote from or give links to and am always impressed by your familiarity with them all. --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > S:> > Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind > > states (though I probably wouldn't;-)), but in terms of satipatthana > > and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there > > is very little awareness. > SB:> The above statement says it all. You lack the concentration needed to > be aware of these dhammas. Sporadic mindfulness is one thing. > Concentrated mindfulness is another thing. ..... What is ‘concentrated mindfulness? For example, when I do some intensive yoga or Tai chi, there is plenty of concentration on various movements by everyone in class, plenty of focussing on breathing, plenty of knowledge about intentions to move and what we are used to calling mindfulness or even body scanning. Does any of this have anything to do with the development of sati sampajanna (rt awareness, rt understanding, rt concentration and all other rts) as taught by the Buddha? I don’t think so. Would that such concentration lead so easily to anything of real value. Would anyone experiencing restlessnes, high fever or pneumonia in intensive care have less chance of developing satipatthana. Again, I don’t think so at all. ..... > "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of > itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is > . When his mindfulness is lapse>, then mindfulness ***as a factor for Awakening*** becomes > aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its > development. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn54-013.html ..... This is the same as the passage in the Anapanasati Sutta too which Nina discussed in detail. Note that this passage comes under the section of the ‘Fulfilment of the Seven Enlightenment Factors’. In the Bodhi translation it is referred to as ‘unremitting mindfulness’. I understand ‘unremitting mindfulness’ to be the culmination and not the starting point in the development of satipatthana. In fact it mentions ‘clumination’ above I see. ‘Without lapse’ could be misconstrued. For example, we know that sati arises with each wholesome state, but only ever in the javana series of cittas. In other words, there are many bhavanga, vipaka and ahetuka cittas even for ariyans when there cannot be any mindfulness of any level. If we think that there is or should be mindfulness all the time, there is bound to be disappointment I think. Better to be realistic than to continue with any illusion of this. I note that the passage you quote is followed by one stressing wisdom: Nanamoli/Bodhi transl from SN p1783: “Dwelling thus mindfully, he discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom, examines it, makes an investigation of it. Whenever, Ananda, a bhikkhu dwelling thus mindfully discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom, examines it, makes an investigation of it, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states is aroused by the bhikkhu.....” ...... In the sutta you quoted in your last post and in the recent extracts from Way, the development of awareness at any time, during any activity has been stressed. There can be the development of satipatthana whilst washing hair, whilst doing yoga or whilst watching TV. I don’t accept however that it can be equated with the degree of concentration during these activities. On the contrary it is the wisdom, the investigation of dhammas and the understanding of namas and rupas that can be known that is of greatest importance. In other words, the development of right view and eradication of wrong view. Without this, wrong concentration will always be taken for right concentration. ..... > Regarding concepts and ultimate realities, this sutta appears to blur > the distinction between them in that both concepts and ultimate > realities can be "insighted", to borrow a word from Robert. > > "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, > this is what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about > consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the > intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving > that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' > > "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my > self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes > about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at > the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about > craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I > am.' > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid ..... Excellent question and I can understand very well why you come to this conclusion. I agree with comments Mike made with regard to some points in the CMA translation with regard to phrases that can be quite misleading and are not always helpful. Sometimes we have to read between the lines and check elsewhere. Usually one becomes used to different translators and their styles. As we keep discussing, it helps a lot to study the Abhidhamma and texts like the Visuddhimagga. These phrases with and in ATI are usually used in the context of the internal and external ayatanas (sense fields )as here in the Chachakka Sutta. In the above context, I understand < intellect> to refer to manayatana which includes all cittas apart from the 5 sense door experiencing cittas. refers to dhammayatana which consists of all rupas other than those experienced through the sense doors, all cetasikas and nibbana. I’d be very happy to discuss this sutta in more detail. I used to find just the same terms confusing until we had quite a long discussing about ayatanas on DSG and still need to check or pause to remember what I think I know as Rob Ep used to say. You or others may find it useful to read posts under ‘Ayatanas’ and also under ‘Concepts and Realities’ in UP: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts It’s interesting, Swee Boon, so often in the suttas, it seems at first that concepts are being referred to as objects of mindfulness, but on careful study and by experience, just as Howard and RobertK explained in the Lute thread, really only paramattha dhammas can ever be objects of satipatthana. Metta, Sarah ============== 21080 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/8/03 10:34:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm getting confused when you shift from "sound" to "music". By music I > thought you meant a group of sounds (a concept according to you). > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that's what I mean - almost. I do distinguish between the general concept of music/sound-group, and specific music/sound-groups (i.e., percepts). I consider the later, the "percepts", to be instances of the former, I view them as a mental constructs just as much as the general concept, and they carry the primary sense of "pa~n~natti" for me. Likewise, I have a general concept of 'tree' (a mental construct), and there is also "the tree I now 'see' in my garden", a percept which is an instance of the former and is also a mental construct. ----------------------------------------------------- But> > you don't want to say the object of delight could only be a concept > (group). If the object of delight cannot be a single sound rupa, what is > it? If the object of delight can only be a group, the object of wisdom > (panna) can only be a group because delight and wisdom are both root > cittas. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I could be wrong in this, but it seems to me that a single moment of sound would carry a neutral affective tone (vedana), and that some "concocting" would be required, some mental construction, before what we apprehend as a "pleasant sound" would be "heard". ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry ============================= 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) 21081 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute > Interesting ideas Mike, Not sure which ideas you mean... > but don't name (nama) and form (rupa) go together as > intimately as the hand in the glove? In some contexts, 'naama' can refer to 'name' and 'ruupa' can refer to 'form'. In abhidhamma, I take 'naama' to refer to 'mentality' or 'that which experiences' and 'ruupa' to refer to 'physicality' or 'that which doesn't experience anything'. It's the latter pair of definitions that interests me. I suppose your 'hand in the glove' simile may be relevant in some way to the 'name and form' definition but I think not to the latter. The conditioning of one by the other (as explained in pa.ticcasamuppaada, e.g.) is a subject recently discussed by some of our smarter members--I'm afraid it's still a bit(?) over my head. > And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) > the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore the > foundation of a sense of self? An interestingly compound question. Its implicit assumptions are outside the perview of Buddhadhamma in my very limited understanding of it. > If one grasps As I understand it, 'grasping' is the mental factor 'upaadaana' with its own unique set of characteristics--a fascinating subject of its own. Of course, no 'one' who grasps--just the factor arising with a citta. > at the appearance of things (rupa), I'm unaware of any context (in the Pali tipitaka) in which 'ruupa' can be translated as 'the appearance of things'. > is not one also forming concepts (nama) of things? Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of insight, as I understand it. > And, how can > insight (vipassana) be revealed in a mind that is grasping at the appearance > of things (rupa), and forming labels (nama) for its subjective reality? Leaving aside these usages of 'nama' and 'rupa', I think it's true that insight does not arise at the same time as grasping. > I believe it is self evident that insight emerges when there is no grasping > at either name or form (nama rupa), the perception of sensory experience. As I wrote above, I would agree that insight does not arise at the same moment as grasping. Perception (sa~n~naa) is yet another mental factor (cetasika)--one of the 'universals' that arise with every moment of vi~n~naa.na, which is what I take you to mean when you say 'sensory experience'. Vi~n~naa.na, consciousness, is of six kinds--visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory and mental, as I understand it. > It > has been my experience that equanimity, neither grasping nor averting at > sensory experience, is the necessary preexisting condition for insight to be > revealed. Equanimity, upekkhaa, is another mental factor. There are many conditions necessary for the arising of insight (or of any other factor). I don't think that insight is ever 'revealed'--it arises and subsides instantaneously according to conditions, as I understand it. Gotta run-- mike 21082 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, You see that a computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not last forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually. You also see that what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory in the sense that something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. In short, you see that a computer is impermanent and dukkha as it actually is. When the Buddha stated the Noble Truth of Dukkha, he stated that: "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." The Buddha started with stating a few specific instances of conditioned phenomena being dukkha and ended with a general statement: "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." Birth belongs to one of the aggregates, and so does aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair, association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved, or not getting what is wanted. The five aggregates include all the conditioned; they includes the whole range of conditioned things/qualities/phenomena/situations. A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of consciousness. Saying that form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is dukkha is in effect saying that whatever form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness), be it past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near, is dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > In my previous post I agreed that it would be correct as a matter of > everyday speech to say that a computer is impermanent. Does it > follow that, as a matter of everyday speech, it would also be correct > to say that computer was therefore dukkha/unsatisfactory? I'm not > sure. This does not seem to be an everyday use of 'unsatisfactory'. > > However, as before, I'm sure many 'thinking' people would agree with > the underlying sentiment, namely that something that is impermanent > cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. So perhaps I > can give a qualified 'yes' to your question above. > > But again, the important question, to my mind, is what the Buddha > meant when he talked about impermanence. I would be surprised if you > could find in the suttas many (or any) instances of the Buddha asking > whether what is impermanent is dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful, > where the subject-matter is conventional objects (such as the then > equivalent of computer). Most (or all) of these references are found > in the context of conditioned phenomena, I believe (I regard > references to the eye etc as being references to the rupa that is > eyebase etc.). > > Jon 21083 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 1:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Is a table fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, [snip] > > KKT: It's my fault for not being > very clear with my question. > > I try another approach. > > Take the famous phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are no-self) > > Atta is usually understood as self/soul. > > Therefore if we say: > a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) > then this phrase is understandable. > > But if we say: a table is anatta. > > Does it make sense? > How do you understand this phrase? > > > Metta, > > > KKT 21084 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Sarah,(Victor) and All, Yes, I have been thinking over whether it is necessary to follow a particular set of teachings, and to have a particular belief, in order to understand truth and reality. I have been wondering whether one needs be a Buddhist, and take 'the whole package', in order to find Liberation. I am a member of a few Lists, some Thera, some all- tradition, but all ostensibly Buddhist. Often, though, it seems the pride of some Lists is to elevate 'tolerance' even above 'truth'. It is considered bad form to indicate that one believes the Buddha found and taught *the* way to the end of suffering - one is allowed to say the Buddha taught *a* way to the end of suffering, and that every religion's way is equally valid. Did the Blessed One come to teach us The way to liberation, or A way? He doesn't teach that we have an unchanging immortal soul, or that there is a Creator God who will be the final Judge of beings. I was a devotedly practicing Christian for most of my life - Christians in general understand the terms "eternal soul" and "God' to mean just what they state - an eternal self, and an omniscient, omnipotent God. They are not synonyms for anything Buddhist. The Buddha did teach tolerance of others beliefs - but I don't believe that he taught that *any* belief would do - or that we should 'relax, don't worry, be happy - we'll all 'get there' in the end'. I don't believe he taught us to combine bits of all belief- systems into a fuzzy touchy-feely rainbow casserole of what 'feels true' to us; a melange of what fits in and feels good to our 21st century cultural/value systems - that appeals to our ideal of 'fairness' and 'wouldn't it be nice ...'. I don't understand all religious roads to lead to the same destination - anymore than they do in a modern city. There are long delays, dead ends and dangerous places. Spending a long, long time wandering about in a city doesn't mean you are incrementally coming closer to your destination - it means you are spending a long long time wandering about. The Buddha taught that human birth is rare, and to be born during a Buddhasasana (Dispensation of a Buddha) is even rarer. If we have a precious chance to hear the Dhamma, shouldn't we listen and reflect on his words, 'as if our hair were on fire'. I understand the meaning of the word Samsara to be "The Wandering On - the perpetual wandering through the rounds of rebirth." So - is there 'Truth', or is there 'a truth'? And is 'Truth' only what the individual thinks is 'Truth', and if it is different to what the Buddha taught is that O.K.? i.e. no consequences, go with the flow - A+ for sincerity. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine & Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > > I think the quote from the discourse > > > > Digha Nikaya 21 > > Sakka-pañha Sutta > > Sakka's Questions > > > > is relevant to your questions. > ..... > I thought it sounded very relevant too. Christine's question below sounded > like the kind of Christine question which she's probably considered more > carefully than any of us;-)). This being likely, would you kindly share > your reflections, Chris? I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear. > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 21085 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I'm not sure of the below either, but I think I read something similar in a recent "Way" commentary. What is more interesting, however, is the implication. If a single sound rupa is not the object of desire, then is that the case for all paramatta dhamma? Is a single mind moment of pleasant bodily feeling (vedana) a possible object of desire? Is the object of all desire a concept (group)? And further, does wisdom (panna) behave in the same way as desire (tanha) simply because they share similar characteristics as root cittas? In other words, is the object of wisdom always a group simply because the object of desire is always a group and wisdom and desire are in the same class of citta (root citta)? Are paramatta dhammas dukkha if they are not desired? If all dukkha is based on concept, why wouldn't all insight be concerned with that concept? What relevance do paramatta dhammas have except to show, by contrast, the emptiness of concepts (groups)? Is the problem of dukkha really one of misinterpreting togetherness, rather than failing to see impermanence? Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: I could be wrong in this, but it seems to me that a single moment of sound would carry a neutral affective tone (vedana), and that some "concocting" would be required, some mental construction, before what we apprehend as a "pleasant sound" would be "heard". 21086 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is a table fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor KKT: If I look at the table and I say to myself: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? How could it be possible? This << mine, I, my self >> is the << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> KKT feels inside himself. How could this vivid feeling inside KKT = table ? Regards, KKT 21087 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/03 7:48:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I'm not sure of the below either, but I think I read something similar > in a recent "Way" commentary. What is more interesting, however, is the > implication. If a single sound rupa is not the object of desire, then is > that the case for all paramatta dhamma? Is a single mind moment of > pleasant bodily feeling (vedana) a possible object of desire? Is the > object of all desire a concept (group)? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What triggers a reaction (of craving or aversion) is pleasant or unpleasant vedana. As I understand it, and what also makes sense to me on the basis of my experience, is that while bodily sensations may be felt as pleasant or unpleasant, and hence may elicit reactions of craving or aversion, contacts through the other physical senses carry neutral vedana. Mere sound, for example, would be neutral in feeling. An extraordinarily loud sound might cause physical pain or other extreme bodily response which would be unpleasant, but the sound itself would be neutral. Also, for example, the loud sound might interfere with something we're listening to or thinking about, we would mentally note that our listening or our train of thought was interrupted, and that mental note, that mind-door object, could be unpleasant and then lead to angry reaction. ----------------------------------------------- And further, does wisdom (panna)> > behave in the same way as desire (tanha) simply because they share > similar characteristics as root cittas? In other words, is the object of > wisdom always a group simply because the object of desire is always a > group and wisdom and desire are in the same class of citta (root citta)? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: No. ---------------------------------------------- > Are paramatta dhammas dukkha if they are not desired? If all dukkha is > based on concept, why wouldn't all insight be concerned with that > concept? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: All dukkha is due to tanha, and tanha is ignorant reaction to pleasant vedana or unpleasant vedana (in the case of aversive tanha). So, wherever non-neutral vedana occurs, dukkha can arise. I believe that includes the body-door and the mind-door, but you know Abhidhamma far better than I, so I leave that to your determination. In any case, insight practice begins with attention paid to conventional objects. With the growth of enlightenment factors, most especially concentration and mindfulness, we start to see through the conventional objects to the sights, sounds, tastes, etc on which they are based, and the "solidity" and apparent substantiality of the conventional objects goes up in smoke. Then, proceeding further, we come to know first hand the impermanence, insubstantiality, unworthiness, and impersonality of the most elementary elements of experience, and disenchantment sets in. ------------------------------------------------ What relevance do paramatta dhammas have except to show, by> > contrast, the emptiness of concepts (groups)? Is the problem of dukkha > really one of misinterpreting togetherness, rather than failing to see > impermanence? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Concepts aren't groups. Concepts are ideas, and they are apprehended at the mind door. Percepts, in the sense of specific instances of concepts, are also mind-door objects. In both cases, they are created by sankharic (fabricating) operations involving the mental collecting of several (or many) experiences, and associating a mental tag with that collective. (I see this as going beyond the operation of sa~n~na, analogous to emotions being sankharic magnifictions of vedana.) The difference between so-called paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti, is that the latter are mind-constructed (by sankharic function), and the latter are not. Paramatta dhammas may be kamma vipaka, but they are not *constructs* in the sense that pa~n~natti are. The main point, as I see it, is that 99% of "the world we live in" is conceptual. By seeing through that, by truly and directly seeing that pa~n~natti are not actual things "out there", but only mental constructs, that world is dissolved. It is seen to be mere foam. Moreover, in the seeing of this we also see that the so-called paramattha dhammas, themselves, are fleeting wisps of impersonal, dependently arisen phenomena, not lasting, not existing on their own, insubstantial, and unworthy of being clung to. The whole house of cards comes crashing down. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry ============================= 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) 21088 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 8:31pm Subject: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali 'dukkha'? If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. Thanks for your patience. mike > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute > > And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) > > the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore > the > > foundation of a sense of self? 21089 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Thanks Howard, Let's leave it at that for now. Larry 21090 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Thank-you for your warm welcome, and I do indeed look forward to lively > discussion of dharma. And, I am very happy to see that more than one cult;-) > ;-) is represented. It makes for a healthy dialog. > > Best, to all, and I hope to meet "James in AZ" soon. What city? Ever come > to Tucson? Come and sit with us sometime noon-1 M-F 9-10 AM Sat. & Sun. > > Jeff Hi Jeff, Actually, I find discussion with cult members anything but healthy, but, hey, that's me. Thank you for the invitation. I don't get to Tucson too often and probably won't be there at all before I leave for Egypt. Good luck in your practice. Stay cool! ;-). Metta, James 21091 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute In a message dated 4/9/03 9:07:25 AM, mlnease@z... writes: << Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of insight, as I understand it.>> Well, then we are in agreement here with respect to, concepts cannot be the basis of insight. But, I would disagree with you that concepts are endless. But, then I think you would agree with me that at least on this small point also, that concepts come to an end when there is no grasping or aversion. As for your strictly Pali interpretation of Nama Rupa, I wish to point out that the concept is an ancient one that the historic Buddha borrowed from the vedic tradtion, and I believe my interpretation would hold up within that context, so we may be back to semantics again. Who gets to decide what the interpratation is of a particular word or concept? Personaly, I think we are a whole lot better off if we stick to English, than switching to another language or tradtion to understand the path of enlightenment. <> Well, we are at one of those naughty little semantic problems again. If equanimity is the condition of no grasping and no averting, then you may find if you get there, that this is the necessary and essential preexisting condition for insight, because I have experienced it and I don't care what book you read that says otherwise. And I can certainly quote you some really nice authoritative sources for that point of view, but I believe in speaking from personal experience, not endlessly quoting from books, no matter how old and cool they seem to be. My point is, reading is good for gaining direction, then put the book down and apply the method. One way of finding out whether you maybe doing too much reading and not enough practice is comparing how much time you put in on the pillow, verses how much time you put in with the lamp oil. If you find you are reading twice as much as you are meditating, then it is time to reverse those numbers. Secondly, the issue of whether insight arises, or is revealed, is one of those things like, "Does the sun rise, or is it the Earth that rotates?" You and I probably both believe what our junior high school science teachers taught us about the Earth's relative motion with respect to the sun, even though I'm guessing you haven't been an astronaut, nor have I. Even though we believe the science of the day with respect the relative motion of the Earth, we still say the sun rises. I am sure if you were sharing a sunrise with a lovely young woman (unless you are a monk) you certainly wouldn't make a fool of yourself arguing with her about the uselessness of the term in our space age. And, I certainly wouldn't argue such a tiny little point. I am cool whether you say arising or revealing. But, since you have chosen to challenge me here on so many points based on your reading alone, and not apparently on any realization, and I don't find the wherewithal to tackle every one of your points. But, I will simply point out, that if you recall the Buddha nature is our true nature and it really doesn't arise, it is said to be 'revealed.' And, I think you will find that equanimity is part of our true nature (Buddha nature) and not a 'mental factor.' That is, if we are talking about no grasping and no aversion means equanimity. Try warming the pillow my young friend instead of wearing your eyes out on a book. Then you can argue from your personal experience not from a 2200 year old book that was originally redacted in Pali, then translated into Sanskrit, then the Pali was lost, then the Sanskrit was translated in Ceylonese, then the Sanskrit was lost then the Pali was regained from the Ceylonese, then translated back into Sanskrit, and after a millennia and a half translated into English by a bunch of scholars who spent all of their time reading and not realizing. As I have said, I am not an orthodox devotee of Theravadan Buddhism. I am a practitioner in a Theravadan context. may you be free from suffering, Jeff 21092 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads In a message dated 4/9/03 12:23:57 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > I believe Christine, the answer is within your very excellent question. I believe we should first not forget that Buddhism is basically a Protestant rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment, and as such we Buddhists inherited many concepts from the definitely theistic Hindu progenitor of Buddhism. In that theistic model, the concept of dharma existed long before Siddharta Guatama. To them 'dharma' meant 'truth' and the 'way', or 'path' to enlightenment, in a not too different model of the Taoist concept of 'the way.' Also, while I would agree with the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited, one should not forget that when Buddhism went through its many transformations to suit the Chinese and Tibetan people's, Buddhism most definitely took a theistic appearance. Almost the whole of Vajrayana is arguable a theistic model with the Buddha as the worshipful deity. Clear Land is another example of an overtly theistic religion in a Buddhism context. Even many of the concepts of Buddhism could be incorporated in to a purely Abrahamic tradition as well. Certainly some of the early manifestations of Sufism were an excellent example of Buddhism in an Islamic context. There are aspects of Kabbalah that could also be arguably Buddhistic in a Jewish context, and the Quaker movement could easily be viewed as Buddhism in an 18th century Protestant context. Therefore dharma can most definitely be acknowledged in a theistic tradition, thus there is no reason to argue that dharma can't be placed into a theistic context. One would just have to not be too attached to the name and form (nama rupa) of Buddhism, to make the necessary transition. Thus, I fully agree with your following excellent quote. "Reality (just) wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs doesn't matter so much." Best regards to all, Jeff 21093 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, Greatly appreciating all your posts and fine comments to others. I meant to say a little more on some discussion we were having: S:> > You quoted an interesting passage from CMA from the commentary or > Guide > > section that B.Bodhi helpfully adds to clarify the main text: > M:> "Helpfully"? I wonder. > ..... ;-) I read your comments on this thread and Nina's response with interest. I'd like to find a 'middle path' and agree with both;-) I think I was trying to be tactful in the above sentence and was talking generally about the helpful comments given in CMA. Like you, I have reservations about some turns of phrase used in partsof the Guide sections and I also read many of these to be largely interpretations based on the commentary notes. (Next time you plan to ordain, we'll get you the new commentary to Abhidhamattha Sangaha too, or maybe we won't wait and will order it to bring to Seattle;-)) K.Sujin always reminds me that when understanding is developed or when there is a good foundation (even at a mostly intellectual level, but for this I think it has to be based on direct sati), then whenever one reads or comes across something which seems somewhat suspect, as in the example you gave and Swee Boon's sutta quote about and , one knows the text must be referring to paramattha dhammas, conditioned realities and anatta, no control over them, even if one doesn't have acces to an alternative or the Pali. I can't say the various translations and interpretations don't bother me at all, but not as they used to. For example, before I found it difficult to open the Dhammasangani translation or the Path of Discrimination, but I appreciate Nina's reminders not to feel daunted or put-off. When it comes to CMA, for the most part I find it a really wonderful work and more comprehensive and user-friendly than the earlier translations of AS that we used to rely on for so long. Like others, I also feel immense gratitude for B.Bodhi's work on the sutta and commentary translations, even though quite often there are notes of his which I might not agree with. You may not have been around on DSG last fall when we spent some time with him in Hong Kong. We’ve known him for a long time and always had very agreeable disagreements on certain aspects of the Teachings. I think it’s bound to be like that. Even amongst Pali scholars and translators, the understanding and interpretation will depend on the views held. Hence the value of discussion. Metta, Sarah ==== 21094 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Just as > you used the word 'aware' in each of your definitions of 'Citta,' I think > 'consciousness,' which is perhaps our domain of awareness, is better than > 'mind,' which to my use of the word as I said before, links it more to the > cognitive processes of the brain. > > Consequently, when consciousness is in the body, its experience of the sense > domain can definitely be granular, because the nerve synapses oscillate, but > once out of the body, there is no nervous system as an intermediary between > domain and consciousness. ===== It appears as though my "definition" is from a textbook while yours is from direct experience. I'm not sure that it makes much sense to pursue this (at least until I have spent more time on a cushion). ===== > My point is, is English really > that stupid that it can't articulate the domain of awareness, or are we > depending on someone's unskillful translation? I personally don't buy that > English is incapable of articulating the world of gnosis. And, I think if we > are going to give rise to a truly Western Buddhism, we better figure out how > to articulate it in English. I am sure Pali, like every language, has its > faults and its debates of interpretation as well. ===== I have heard that the Innuit (Eskimo) language has 27 words for "snow". Snow is of critical importance to the Innuit, but only of passing importance to English speakers. I don't think that Pali has a significantly richer vocabularly when it comes to describing mental states when compared to English. The benefit of Pali is that we can "start with a clean piece of paper" and not be burdened with the baggage associated with English terms. For example, the term "citta" as an activity, as an agent and as an instrument is not properly rendered by "consciousness" (and especially not properly rendered by "mind"). Because of the inherent weaknesses of language, there is a lot of emphasis in the commentary on defining terms. Many modern books stress the etymological roots of Pali terms. It is an important issue. ===== > According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness > (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the > analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can > detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the > saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. Does this make sense? > > ===== > > No, I disagree. Unless you are coming up with another definition for > awareness than what most of us native speakers of English use. ===== Help me to understand what you disagree with. ===== > I believe the > whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of > psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as > 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is > to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and > relinquish are grasp on them. > > Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth > > "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" ===== It looks as though we have a very different perspective on dependent origination. My understanding on the purpose of dependent origination is to answer the questions: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) I would venture that the role of the yogi is to "see things as they truly are"; see paramattha dhammas as paramattha dhammas, see concepts as concepts. It starts with study (pariyatti), followed by practice (patipatti), leading to wisdom (pativedha). ===== > > I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology > onto mental experiences. > > ===== > > Why not? > ===== The Buddha made it clear that he only taught a small percentage of what he knew (Simsapa Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya LVI.31) and that he only passed on things that "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". When the Buddha was asked about things outside this scope, the Buddha remained silent. In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 63), the Buddha used the following analogy: "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf- toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." In short, the Buddha did not see the rationale behind putting the quest for scientific knowledge ahead of the quest for sprirtual knowledge (the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta also lists the same subjects as the Simsapa Sutta as being worthy of study). The Buddha did not pretend to be a scientist; the Buddha never proposed a model for reality. An interesting point is that the Tipitaka refers to "that material thing based on which mind-element and mind-consciousness element function (yam rupam nissaya manodhatu ca mano-vinnana-dhatu ca vittanti, tam rupam)." Later commentators took this to be the "heart-base". In ancient India, they believed that sensory data was carried by the blood (it was the only thing they could see that moved in the body) and the heart was the engine behind this movement. So the Buddha never said that consciousness was based on the heart; this was added later (and still persists in common language - emotions come from the heart). The Buddha never talked about the heart-base, but neither did the Buddha talk about the brain or the nervous system. Why is this? Certainly the scientists of today admit that there are many questions that we don't have answers to in the area of consciousness and physiology. I am sure that a few hundred years from now, our decendents will look back on our "scientific" model of the mind and snicker. For example, where is the consciousness in a zygote (the brain and nervous system doesn't form for another five weeks)? When we have "out of body experiences", does the consciousness still rest in the brain and nervous system? Hopefully this explains why I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== > Is Buddhism such a unique phenomena that it, and only it, can > describe gnosis? Or, is gnosis something that has been around as long has > human beings have been on the planet? Or, has Buddhism just come up with a > pretty good description of it? ===== If we define "gnosis" as meaning "insight that brings escape from Samsara", then I believe that the Buddha did say that His was the "only way". The DSG recently had a long discussion on this issue over the term "only way" in the Satipatthana Sutta. If we limit the definition of "gnosis" to mean the "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, then Buddhism certainly has no monopoly. ===== > Is the Western Vehicle going to be a clone of > Theravadan Buddhism? Or, are we going to figure out how to articulate the > path of purification in our own native language, and use our Western science > in part to articulate it? Are Buddhists someday going to be at odds with > Western science as orthodox Christianity is today? I believe if Buddhism is > going to succeed effectively in the West, and become a truly Western Vehicle, > then we are going to have to articulate Western Buddhism in English and > include science in our exegesis. ===== I am not sure what you mean by "Western Vehicle". I see science and Buddhism as independent subjects because they deal with different things. Buddhism focuses on ethical laws and escaping samsara. Science focuses on developing a model for how things work. Along the way, Buddhists have "tacked some science" onto the core of Buddhism and if modern science contradicts what has been tacked on, then Buddhists should have no problem changing because it doesn't touch the core. For example, I don't think that anybody would have a major problem if we replaced the term "heart-base" with "brain-base" in the commentaries (however, I don't think that the scientists have their house totally in order in this area yet). I believe that the Dali Lama has made similar comments; that Buddhists should not be afraid to update their understandings based on science. ===== > Well, my good friend I could ask you whether you take your nose out of the > tripitaka and warm a pillow. ===== I don't meditate enough. Thank you for your compassionate reminder. I hope that one day, my practical "knowledge" can be increased to the level that I can compare my experience with the Tipitaka. ===== > But I assume you do so, just as I believe you > should assume that my description comes from someone who has applied the > method of self discovery on every level possible, and I have found that my > experience doesn't always match up to the tripitaka, unless I question the > use of words chosen by the translators. ===== I believe that you have far more experience than I in meditation. The fact that your personal experience does not always match up to the Tipitaka is not surprising. Each person has their own accumulations. ===== > Are you willing to ask who decided > what words from our language were chosen? Was, whoever decide that 'mind' = > 'citta:' a native speaker of Pali; a native speaker of English; and > Enlightened? That would be a pretty hard combination to accomplish, don't > you think? ===== I agree that "mind" is not a good translation for citta; "consciousness" is better, but still sub-optimal. For this reason, I prefer to leave "citta" as "citta". There is an excellent cartoon on this subject at: http://www.dharmathecat.com/episod49.htm Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. Metta, Rob M :-) 21095 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute I like the way you put this, Howard. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > The main point, as I see it, is that 99% of "the world we live in" is > conceptual. By seeing through that, by truly and directly seeing that > pa~n~natti are not actual things "out there", but only mental constructs, > that world is dissolved. It is seen to be mere foam. Moreover, in the seeing > of this we also see that the so-called paramattha dhammas, themselves, are > fleeting wisps of impersonal, dependently arisen phenomena, not lasting, not > existing on their own, insubstantial, and unworthy of being clung to. The > whole house of cards comes crashing down. > 21096 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, You asked in another post if there is "an explicit reference in the Abhidhamma to the difference between (or especially the equal validity of) 'conventional' and 'precise' language." I quoted this one before, but this time have added in parts I skipped. I hope it satisfies your request;-) In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p 41)is relevant to your comments, I think: ***** QUOTE “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. “Did the Exalted One speak of a butter-jar?” and the following are adduced to show that meaning is not always according to the form of what is said. A jar made of gold is called a golden jar, but one made of butter is not in the same way called a butter jar. What is meant her is this : a butter-jar is only that wherein butter is put. In regard to an oil-jar, and so on, this is the sense. A (‘permanent’) meal or a congey is not eternal and permanent as is nirvana. ‘A meal provided in perpetuity, a constant supply of congey’ implies the sense that we ar to give in charity every day without any limit of time. Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, thre is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the sense here. Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: “These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.” (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence,ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. ‘they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.’ Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e known). Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular taching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.” ***** Sarah: More relevant quotes on the two kinds of truth can be found in these posts: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m6685.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5838.html The following is a quote from the second one with a helpful translation of Nina's included: ***** Sarah: Nina recently sent this post to Jon, in which we can note the reference to khandhas included: Nina: I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti evaruupa sammutidesanaa. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m deseti. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. ******************** Sarah: I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: ‘....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,’ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: ‘...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” " End earlier post ****** Metta, Sarah ====== 21097 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Well, it was fun, but these two posts of yours disturb me. Not for > my sake but for yours. I am just going to let you have the last > word...or this would go on forever. ..... No problem either way;-) ..... If you CAN notice, every > response of yours to my text is basically the same. No matter what > I say, you have the same response. You call this 'sounding like a > broke record', ..... ....actually ‘a STUCK record’ was what I suggested (not BROKE to my mind);-) ..... >but I think it is far more serious and dangerous...it > is a clear sign of the brainwashing of a cult. And I don't mean > this in a discourteous way, I just can't think of a more euphemistic > way to state it. ..... James, don’t mind about the words. I just appreciated your kind concern and please just ignore any later frivolous cultish comments by members..... ..... >I would hope that if I started showing signs of > the indoctrination of a cult, someone would come right out and tell > me also. It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong and just > the "Followers of A. Sujin" to be right. Think about that. ..... In my case, I think I had pretty much changed my tune and completley given up a formal meditation practice well before meeting A.Sujin. It’s true, however, that she has been extremely influential in my life and I am very, very grateful for all her kindness and sharing of the dhamma over these many years. Like everyone here, I read, I listen, I consider and reflect and check against present truths or realities. Also like most everyone here, I’ve always been a ‘rebel’ rather than a ‘follower’ so it’s interesting that this is how you see it. With regard to numbers or votes and ‘It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong’, this doesn’t and never has influenced my reflections or understanding. A day will come when there is no understanding at any level of the Buddha’s teaching regardless of proclaimed views to the contrary. (see an earlier post of RobertK's below with the sutta, 'The Peg'.) James, I know you wrote your comments as a good friend and please know I appreciate your friendship and concern very much, even if I think the comments are misguided. Metta, Sarah ===== From RobertK http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m2678.html Dear group, Sometimes one hears of people saying that study of the Abhidhamma is a waste of time: one is just caught up in intellectual conceptualising and papanca. That may be true for some people but I would beware of making a generalisation. Here is a sutta worth considering. (the only problem being that those who do not see any value in study probably will not read it because it must be just intellectual waffle) So for the converted (most of this list I guess): Samyutta Nikaya IX (20)7 p708 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation The Peg --------------------------------------------- Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1] "In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works -- the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples -- are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering. "In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- will come about. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." The commentary notes that this means deep teachings such as those dealing with emptiness(sunnatapatisamyutta), explaining mere phenomena devoid of a being (sattasunnata-dhammamattam eva pakasaka) [like the whole of the Abhidhamma? -robert] ********** 21098 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Jeff, This is really very interesting: "Buddhism is basically a Protestant rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment." Thanks for connecting up the various Buddhist traditions with other forms of belief. I've never thought about things in quite that way before. I wonder though about the statement - "the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited." Is Theravada Buddhism non-dualistic? I don't think the Theravada tradition sees itself as non-dualistic - I think this is represented by Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. My understanding is that the doctrine of Anatta would rule out any belief in a permanent individual self or an absolute universal self, and any such belief would be regarded as a delusion - an instance of personality view. Bhikkhu Bodhi ('Dhamma and non-duality') states: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit withing the Buddha's discourses." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 4/9/03 12:23:57 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > Dear Group, > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same > time. I wonder what others think? > > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever > that is?>> > > I believe Christine, the answer is within your very excellent question. I > believe we should first not forget that Buddhism is basically a Protestant > rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment, and as such > we Buddhists inherited many concepts from the definitely theistic Hindu > progenitor of Buddhism. In that theistic model, the concept of dharma > existed long before Siddharta Guatama. To them 'dharma' meant 'truth' and > the 'way', or 'path' to enlightenment, in a not too different model of the > Taoist concept of 'the way.' > > Also, while I would agree with the atheistic, non-dualistic, post > enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan > tradition inherited, one should not forget that when Buddhism went through > its many transformations to suit the Chinese and Tibetan people's, Buddhism > most definitely took a theistic appearance. Almost the whole of Vajrayana is > arguable a theistic model with the Buddha as the worshipful deity. Clear > Land is another example of an overtly theistic religion in a Buddhism context. > > Even many of the concepts of Buddhism could be incorporated in to a purely > Abrahamic tradition as well. Certainly some of the early manifestations of > Sufism were an excellent example of Buddhism in an Islamic context. There > are aspects of Kabbalah that could also be arguably Buddhistic in a Jewish > context, and the Quaker movement could easily be viewed as Buddhism in an > 18th century Protestant context. > > Therefore dharma can most definitely be acknowledged in a theistic tradition, > thus there is no reason to argue that dharma can't be placed into a theistic > context. One would just have to not be too attached to the name and form > (nama rupa) of Buddhism, to make the necessary transition. > > Thus, I fully agree with your following excellent quote. > > "Reality (just) wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and > inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs > doesn't matter so much." > > Best regards to all, > > Jeff 21099 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi Howard (& James), As I mentioned, I particularly appreciated a couple of your lute posts to Larry and I’m disappointed to see he’s taking a break from them;-( Back to this thread any your discussion with James in brief: --- upasaka@a... wrote: ============================= > With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from > ATI, > is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha > Nikaya, > dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: > > (Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On > > seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by > > which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the > eye -- > evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. > On > hearing a sound with the ear... >Endowed with this noble restraint over the > sense > faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. > This > is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. ..... You wrote: .... > > This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. > But it > does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of > the > mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details > that > might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so > that > reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. .... We all agree (!) no “replacement” is involved and that the sutta is referring to everday experiencing through the sense doors. When you suggest that “it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion”, and the following part leading to the “nipping in the bud”, it sounds rather like a more subtle version of the “replacement” to me. In other words, it still suggests a kind of ‘doing’ or ‘avoiding’ rather than an understanding of what is conditioned already with detachment. I believe it is the awareness and detachment towards the visible objects, sounds and other phenomena appearing that is the guarding of the sense doors and the condition for restraint and a lack of proliferation on account of them. In other words “he only apprehends what is really there” (Vis 1,54, which discusses a similar passage in detail..... ”he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of mindfulness”.The Vis clarifies that by ‘eye’ in the above passage is meant seeing consciousness and that the ‘virtuous states’ including mindfulness arise in the javana (impulsion) process that follows the seeing consciousness. It gives a lot of detail here about the processes. A little later we read (Vis 1,58): “Just as, when the city gates are secured, although inside the city the houses etc, are not secured, yet all property inside the city is well guarded, well protected, since when the city gates are shut there is no ingress for robbers, so too, when virtue, etc, have arisen in impulsion, the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Thus although it actually arises at the moment of impulsion, it is nevertheless called ‘restraint in the eye faculty”. The passage you quoted is a very useful one to discuss further - there is a lot of hidden depth to it and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments. Many thanks. Metta, Sarah ======= 21100 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:22am Subject: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) HI Rob M & Mike, --- robmoult wrote:> > My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure > awareness": > - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) > - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) > - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental > factors are aware of an object) > > Do you agree with this definition? ..... I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of awareness, don’t you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests something ‘wholesome’ regardless of the nature of the citta? I’d be particularly concerned about the “pure awareness” use which tends to carry a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, Mike? Mike, I dragged you into this post because Rob M gave a lot of helpful and detailed info in a post (no 19723) in which he detailed the conditions by which ignorance can condition kusala and akusala kamma. (When I came across it again it reminded me of our discussion about lobha as a condition for kusala and the wishful thinking.) By two conditions, as Rob lists, ignorance conditions kusala kamma (cetana cetasika), i.e by object and natural decisive support conditions. He then adds the many, many conditions by which it conditions akusala kamma (cetana). Understanding more about conditions and khandhas helps break down the illusion of self: Way 65, Tika: “To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; seeing is consciousness aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front?” OR as you put so very well, Mike in your post to Rahula: “With all these moments arising and completely subsiding in VERY rapid succession, where is ‘Rahula’? Dying and being reborn every instant, with each new mental moment and factor? At least these moments can be seen as being impermanent and not-self (or where did “Rahula’ go when they went away?)” Metta, Sarah ==== 21101 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:05am Subject: Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > HI Rob M & Mike, > > --- robmoult wrote:> > > My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure > > awareness": > > - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) > > - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) > > - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental > > factors are aware of an object) > > > > Do you agree with this definition? > ..... > I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of > awareness, don't you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests > something `wholesome' regardless of the nature of the citta? I'd be > particularly concerned about the "pure awareness" use which tends to carry > a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are > interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, > Mike? ===== I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." I see sati as "mirror-thought", "non-judgmental observation", "impartial watchfulness", "non-conceptual awareness", "present-time awareness", "non-egoistic alertness", "goalless awareness", "awareness of change" and "participatory observation". (extracted from "Mindfulness in Plain English" by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana) http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm Though some these definitions of sati use the word "awareness", there is the implicit (kusala) feeling of "seeing things as they truly are". This type of "seeing things as they truly are" is not part of my understanding of citta. Citta is simply aware. Metta, Rob M :-) 21102 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/03 11:16:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > The difference between so-called > paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti, is that the latter are mind-constructed > (by sankharic function), and the latter are not. ======================= This sentence should read as follows: "The difference between so-called paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti is that the latter are mind-constructed (by sankharic function) and the former are not." Sorry. 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) 21103 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Thanks Howard, > > Let's leave it at that for now. > > Larry > > ============================ LOL! I guess I have a way yet to go with my communication skills! ;-)) I'm really sorry I couldn't make my position clearer. 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) 21104 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> yours? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> what you are? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> your self? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > [snip] > > KKT: If I look at the table > and I say to myself: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? > > How could it be possible? > > This << mine, I, my self >> > is the << vivid >> feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> > KKT feels inside himself. > > How could this vivid feeling inside KKT = table ? > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21105 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi, Sarah (and James) - I think you are largely correct about this. Guarding the senses amounts to watching extremely carefully to see that reaction (of grasping) does not occur, to see that one doesn't mentally embellish what was merely seen or heard or smelled or tasted. I stand corrected. What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that was a last-ditch effort! ;-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/10/03 5:02:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard (& James), > > As I mentioned, I particularly appreciated a couple of your lute posts to > Larry and I’m disappointed to see he’s taking a break from them;-( > > Back to this thread any your discussion with James in brief: > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: ============================= > > With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from > >ATI, > >is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha > >Nikaya, > >dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: > > > >(Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On > > > >seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by > > > >which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the > >eye -- > >evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. > >On > >hearing a sound with the ear... > > >Endowed with this noble restraint over the > >sense > >faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. > >This > >is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. > ..... > You wrote: > .... > > > > This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. > >But it > >does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of > >the > >mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details > >that > >might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so > >that > >reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. > .... > We all agree (!) no “replacementâ€? is involved and that the sutta is > referring to everday experiencing through the sense doors. When you > suggest that “it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to > avoid the arising of craving or aversionâ€?, and the following part leading > to the “nipping in the budâ€?, it sounds rather like a more subtle version > of the “replacementâ€? to me. In other words, it still suggests a kind of > ‘doing’ or ‘avoiding’ rather than an understanding of what is conditioned > already with detachment. I believe it is the awareness and detachment > towards the visible objects, sounds and other phenomena appearing that is > the guarding of the sense doors and the condition for restraint and a lack > of proliferation on account of them. In other words “he only apprehends > what is really thereâ€? (Vis 1,54, which discusses a similar passage in > detail..... > > â€?he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of > mindfulnessâ€?.The Vis clarifies that by ‘eye’ in the above passage is meant > seeing consciousness and that the ‘virtuous states’ including mindfulness > arise in the javana (impulsion) process that follows the seeing > consciousness. It gives a lot of detail here about the processes. A little > later we read (Vis 1,58): > > “Just as, when the city gates are secured, although inside the city the > houses etc, are not secured, yet all property inside the city is well > guarded, well protected, since when the city gates are shut there is no > ingress for robbers, so too, when virtue, etc, have arisen in impulsion, > the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the > consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Thus > although it actually arises at the moment of impulsion, it is nevertheless > called ‘restraint in the eye facultyâ€?. > > The passage you quoted is a very useful one to discuss further - there is > a lot of hidden depth to it and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments. > Many thanks. > > Metta, > > Sarah > /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) 21106 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:07am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 14 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 14 Sick people generally depend on medicine. Evenso, paññå is like a medicin, it is intent on what is beneficial and it can cure us from lust that has arisen. We read: Then the recluse Hårita pointed out the power of defilements to the king and spoke the fourth stanza: ³Four defilements in the world, great King, are coarse and have great strength, They are: lust, hate, ignorance and intoxication. When they overmaster beings, paññå cannot develop, It is as if they fall into a great river.² The king on hearing this spoke the fifth stanza: ³You deserve praise Hårita, you are a saint, Perfect in síla, of pure conduct, You are wise, with true paññå.² Then Hårita spoke the sixth stanza: ³Evil thoughts, great king, cause clinging to an image, Taking it for beautiful, and they are accompanied by excitement. They are bound to harm even a person with paññå, who is inclined to the excellence of recluseship.² These words can remind us of the danger of defilements. Someone may believe that he is out of danger because he has developed a certain degree of paññå, but he should not be neglectful. Akusala can even harm a person with paññå, who has a keen interest in the Dhamma and enjoys its benefit. 21107 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Sarah, You're right, of course, about the value of BB's translation--I'm glad of his efforts, too. I was just a bit shocked on realizing I'd been taking his opinions as literal translations (rather than 'interpretations') of ancient texts. Enough to take these portions with a grain of salt. I must be careful not to slander the CMA (or BB by association) on this account! My apologies for my careless speech. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. > Hi Mike, > > Greatly appreciating all your posts and fine comments to others. > I meant to say a little more on some discussion we were having: > > S:> > You quoted an interesting passage from CMA from the commentary or > > Guide > > > section that B.Bodhi helpfully adds to clarify the main text: > > > M:> "Helpfully"? I wonder. > > > ..... > ;-) I read your comments on this thread and Nina's response with interest. > I'd like to find a 'middle path' and agree with both;-) > > I think I was trying to be tactful in the above sentence and was talking > generally about the helpful comments given in CMA. Like you, I have > reservations about some turns of phrase used in partsof the Guide sections > and I also read many of these to be largely interpretations based on the > commentary notes. (Next time you plan to ordain, we'll get you the new > commentary to Abhidhamattha Sangaha too, or maybe we won't wait and will > order it to bring to Seattle;-)) > > K.Sujin always reminds me that when understanding is developed or when > there is a good foundation (even at a mostly intellectual level, but for > this I think it has to be based on direct sati), then whenever one reads > or comes across something which seems somewhat suspect, as in the example > you gave and Swee Boon's sutta quote about and , one > knows the text must be referring to paramattha dhammas, conditioned > realities and anatta, no control over them, even if one doesn't have acces > to an alternative or the Pali. > > I can't say the various translations and interpretations don't bother me > at all, but not as they used to. For example, before I found it difficult > to open the Dhammasangani translation or the Path of Discrimination, but I > appreciate Nina's reminders not to feel daunted or put-off. When it comes > to CMA, for the most part I find it a really wonderful work and more > comprehensive and user-friendly than the earlier translations of AS that > we used to rely on for so long. Like others, I also feel immense gratitude > for B.Bodhi's work on the sutta and commentary translations, even though > quite often there are notes of his which I might not agree with. You may > not have been around on DSG last fall when we spent some time with him in > Hong Kong. We've known him for a long time and always had very agreeable > disagreements on certain aspects of the Teachings. I think it's bound to > be like that. Even amongst Pali scholars and translators, the > understanding and interpretation will depend on the views held. Hence the > value of discussion. > > Metta, > > Sarah 21108 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Thanks, Sarah, This is a great little collection. When I have time I'll try to arrange it a little into a 'two methods' file for future reference. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. > Hi Mike, > > You asked in another post if there is "an explicit reference in the > Abhidhamma to the difference between (or especially the equal validity of) > 'conventional' and 'precise' language." > > I quoted this one before, but this time have added in parts I skipped. I > hope it satisfies your request;-) > > In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the > Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is > a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from > the Commentary (On the Person, p 41)is relevant to your comments, I think: > ***** > QUOTE > " "Without self" means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense > is: even in one and the same quality, there is no 'person'. Thus the > meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. > In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. > > "Did the Exalted One speak of a butter-jar?" and the following are adduced > to show that meaning is not always according to the form of what is said. > A jar made of gold is called a golden jar, but one made of butter is not > in the same way called a butter jar. What is meant her is this : a > butter-jar is only that wherein butter is put. In regard to an oil-jar, > and so on, this is the sense. A ('permanent') meal or a congey is not > eternal and permanent as is nirvana. 'A meal provided in perpetuity, a > constant supply of congey' implies the sense that we ar to give in charity > every day without any limit of time. > > Even in such expressions as 'there is the person who works for his own > good'(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, thre is no > such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and > general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to > say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, > convention, expression, is meant: "there is the person." This is the sense > here. Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: "These, Citta, are > merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in > the world." (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without > reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term 'person' is used to > denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. > The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the > philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and > so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to > impermanence,ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the > application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are > discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when > there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able > to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or > attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very > outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on > hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or > ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get > out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted > One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does > not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one > who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular > discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse > afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can > understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having > enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular > discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to > begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, > and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach > consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method > selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. 'they teach consistently > and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.' > > Thus it is said: > The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, > the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e > known). > > Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world > convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as > such, characteristic of things (as they are). > > There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of > two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and > so forth, and the popular taching consisting of 'butter-jar,' and so > forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on > the mere expression "there is the person who," must not command adherence. > The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without > transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in > explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. > > The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. > > The controversy on 'person' is ended." > ***** > Sarah: More relevant quotes on the two kinds of truth can be found in > these posts: > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m6685.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5838.html > > The following is a quote from the second one with a helpful translation of > Nina's included: > ***** > Sarah: > Nina recently sent this post to Jon, in which we can note the reference to > khandhas included: > > Nina: > I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about > paramatthadesana, I shall translate: > Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa > caa ti. > > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching > in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > > Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti > evaruupa sammutidesanaa. > > There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a > brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. > > Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, > satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. > > Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, > satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > > Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa > moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m > deseti. > > Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means > of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and > abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > > Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m > pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. > > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. > ******************** > Sarah: > I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional > speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are > useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: > > '....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in > common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending > them,' (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe > trans.) > > The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: > > '...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: > "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. > Terms agreed by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he > Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." > " > End earlier post > ****** > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 21109 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, > > This is a great little collection. When I have time I'll try to arrange > it > a little into a 'two methods' file for future reference. .... That would be helpful because the question recurs regularly. I think there are also other relevant quotes and references, some of which will be in posts under 'concepts and realities' in U.P. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Look f/w to it. Metta, Sarah ======== 21110 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> yours? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> what you are? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> your self? Regards, Victor KKT: As long as this vivid feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> persists, it is not incorrect to say that: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self. This is the feeling of exclusive self-interest, self-centeredness. All the activities are centered around this << center >> To feel otherwise should this center (or << vivid >> feeling) be absent. Regards, KKT 21111 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: As long as this vivid feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> persists, > it is not incorrect to say that: > > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self. > > This is the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > All the activities are centered > around this << center >> > > To feel otherwise should this center > (or << vivid >> feeling) be absent. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21112 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Dear Sarah and Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah > I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of > awareness, don't you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests > something 'wholesome' regardless of the nature of the citta? I'd be > particularly concerned about the "pure awareness" use which tends to carry > a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are > interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, > Mike? For 'pure awareness', I think it might be useful to consider both words 'citta' and 'vi~n~naana'. Personally, I think it's important to make the distinction carefully between the suttanta and abhidhamma uses of the term 'citta' because it's such an important concept in each sense. I would agree that the 'activity, agent, instrument' part is interesting and, since subjective verification is so open to interpretation, should be compared carefully with the texts. > Mike, I dragged you into this post because Rob M gave a lot of helpful and > detailed info in a post (no 19723) in which he detailed the conditions by > which ignorance can condition kusala and akusala kamma. (When I came > across it again it reminded me of our discussion about lobha as a > condition for kusala and the wishful thinking.) By two conditions, as Rob > lists, ignorance conditions kusala kamma (cetana cetasika), i.e by object > and natural decisive support conditions. He then adds the many, many > conditions by which it conditions akusala kamma (cetana). Yes, thanks for dragging me in. RobM's posts are always interesting and appreciated. I admire his thoughtful and careful efforts to create an accessible approach to abhidhamma. > Understanding more about conditions and khandhas helps break down the > illusion of self: > > Way 65, Tika: > "To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; > seeing is consciousness aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing > is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those > beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus > looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the > combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight > on? Who looks away from the front?" Great quote! Thanks as always, Sarah. mike 21113 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > << Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. > > Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of > > insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of > > insight, as I understand it.>> > > Well, then we are in agreement here with respect to, concepts cannot be the > basis of insight. But, I would disagree with you that concepts are endless. You're right, of course, this was an exaggeration on my part and was not meant literally. > But, then I think you would agree with me that at least on this small point > also, that concepts come to an end when there is no grasping or aversion. Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, according to conditions. > As for your strictly Pali interpretation of Nama Rupa, I wish to point out > that the concept is an ancient one that the historic Buddha borrowed from the > vedic tradtion, and I believe my interpretation would hold up within that > context, so we may be back to semantics again. Who gets to decide what the > interpratation is of a particular word or concept? A careful study of the texts compared with personal experience is a good place to start, in my opinion. > Personaly, I think we are > a whole lot better off if we stick to English, than switching to another > language You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I find a little knowledge and use of Pali to be an invaluable aid in understanding and discussing Buddhadhamma. > or tradtion to understand the path of enlightenment. "Switching to another...tradition"? To what other tradition did you think I was switching? I'm interested in the teaching of the Buddha as preserved in the Pali tipitaka. Rest assured that I, too, compare it carefully to my own subjective experiences. > < > necessary for the arising of insight (or of any other factor). I don't > > think that insight is ever 'revealed'--it arises and subsides > > instantaneously according to conditions, as I understand it.>> > > Well, we are at one of those naughty little semantic problems again. Not at all. It is quite a different thing to say that 'insight is revealed' rather that 'insight arises and subsides'. > If > equanimity is the condition of no grasping and no averting, then you may find > if you get there, that this is the necessary and essential preexisting > condition for insight, because I have experienced it and I don't care what > book you read that says otherwise. Significant, I think, that you regard your subjective interpretations of your experiences as superior to the best preserved teachings of the Buddha. > And I can certainly quote you some really > nice authoritative sources for that point of view, but I believe in speaking > from personal experience, not endlessly quoting from books, no matter how old > and cool they seem to be. Well, yes, I guess the books of the tipitaka do seem pretty 'cool' to me. I'll try to restrain myself from 'quoting endlessly' from them--no promises!. I also 'believe in speaking from personal experience'. > My point is, reading is good for gaining direction, then put the book down > and apply the method. Thank you for your thoughtful advice. > One way of finding out whether you maybe doing too > much reading and not enough practice is comparing how much time you put in on > the pillow, verses how much time you put in with the lamp oil. If you find > you are reading twice as much as you are meditating, then it is time to > reverse those numbers. Thank you again for your thoughtful advice. > Secondly, the issue of whether insight arises, or is revealed, is one of > those things like, "Does the sun rise, or is it the Earth that rotates?" You > and I probably both believe what our junior high school science teachers > taught us about the Earth's relative motion with respect to the sun, even > though I'm guessing you haven't been an astronaut, nor have I. > > Even though we believe the science of the day with respect the relative > motion of the Earth, we still say the sun rises. I am sure if you were > sharing a sunrise with a lovely young woman (unless you are a monk) you > certainly wouldn't make a fool of yourself arguing with her about the > uselessness of the term in our space age. I don't see any of these points a relevant to our discussion. > And, I certainly wouldn't argue such a tiny little point. The point of 'is revealed' vs. 'arises and subsides' is far from a tiny one. > I am cool whether > you say arising or revealing. But, since you have chosen to challenge me > here on so many points My intention was not to challenge you at all, but to try to clarify the underlying assumptions implicit in your questions. > based on your reading alone, Just to set your mind at ease, I've been studying 'practicing' and trying to understand various schools of Buddhism and Buddhadhamma for over thirty years and have done many thousands of hours of 'meditation' in various traditions. > and not apparently on any > realization, Unlike yourself, I make no claim to any 'realization'. > and I don't find the wherewithal to tackle every one of your > points. I've noticed that. > But, I will simply point out, that if you recall the Buddha nature > is our true nature You will not find this assertion in the Pali tipitaka. > and it really doesn't arise, it is said to be 'revealed.' Not by the Buddha. > And, I think you will find that equanimity is part of our true nature (Buddha > nature) and not a 'mental factor.' The Buddha referred to it as a mental factor, among other things. He did not refer to it as 'part of our true nature'. > That is, if we are talking about no > grasping and no aversion means equanimity. > > Try warming the pillow my young friend Spare me the condescension--it is misplaced. > instead of wearing your eyes out on a > book. Then you can argue from your personal experience not from a 2200 year > old book that was originally redacted in Pali, then translated into Sanskrit, > then the Pali was lost, then the Sanskrit was translated in Ceylonese, then > the Sanskrit was lost then the Pali was regained from the Ceylonese, then > translated back into Sanskrit, and after a millennia and a half translated > into English by a bunch of scholars who spent all of their time reading and > not realizing. If, by this, you mean that you place your own opinions above the best preserved remainders of the Buddhadhamma, then we must disagree. > As I have said, I am not an orthodox devotee of Theravadan Buddhism. I am a > practitioner in a Theravadan context. Indeed? > may you be free from suffering, Jeff Thanks again. mike p.s. Mods, my apologies if I've overstepped the boundaries of the 'well-spoken' here. 21114 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." Regards, Victor KKT: Again we're back to square one (hope that this is not a 'broken record' :-)) I have given clearly what I feel, what I mean with those words << mine, I, my self >> in the phrase "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." which you repeat endlessly. But you never give your own meaning of those words. I think you have some interesting and perhaps subtle ideas to share with everybody. But I find you << unintelligible >> Try to make yourself more clearly, Victor. Regards, KKT 21115 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:56am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor (& Sarah), > What matter are you referring to? Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which is subject to dissolution to be the self? It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21116 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." It goes against your self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their meanings. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > [snip] > > KKT: Again we're back to square one > (hope that this is not a 'broken record' :-)) > > I have given clearly what I feel, > what I mean with those words > << mine, I, my self >> in the phrase > "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." > which you repeat endlessly. > > But you never give your own > meaning of those words. > > I think you have some interesting > and perhaps subtle ideas to share > with everybody. > > But I find you << unintelligible >> > > Try to make yourself more clearly, Victor. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21117 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 4/10/03 10:57:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Victor (& Sarah), > > >What matter are you referring to? > > Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is > fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution > is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which > is subject to dissolution to be the self? > > It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > =============================== I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect of how you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were to change the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is a fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any misunderstanding. The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, thing referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is contradictory to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or impersonal. (The traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed above for a "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana fails candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it neither arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence is a condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is impersonal. 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) 21118 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor (& Sarah), > > > What matter are you referring to? > > Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is > fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution > is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which > is subject to dissolution to be the self? > > It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21119 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead > to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end > you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." Which is why I say that this matter has not been comprehended by you and I didn't care to explain it to you in the previous post. There's just no point, because you are stuck in an intellectual merry-go-round. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21120 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, Doing yoga or tai chi would not help in strenghtening right concentration. It is wrong concentration. I do not know your history and what's gone wrong with you. I still stress concentration. I know you dislike the word, but I can replace it by other terms, as in: "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, , & verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html I think I have said enough. In short, right concentration is not a dirty term. Mindfulness immersed in the body leads to right concentration. Regarding , unless you are for sure that it refers to only ultimate realities after checking the pali, I would include concepts into it. Yes, I see concepts as not-self. If nibbana is not-self, why can't concepts be not-self? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21121 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon - [snip] > I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect of how > you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were to change > the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is a > fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any > misunderstanding. > The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, thing > referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is contradictory > to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or impersonal. (The > traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] > Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed above for a > "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana fails > candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it neither > arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence is a > condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is > impersonal. > > 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) > > > > > 21122 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How do you know that the Buddha understood the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by > the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something > that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Swee Boon - > [snip] > > I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect > of how > > you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were > to change > > the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is > a > > fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any > > misunderstanding. > > The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, > thing > > referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is > contradictory > > to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or > impersonal. (The > > traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the > Indian > > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > > unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] > > Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed > above for a > > "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana > fails > > candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it > neither > > arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence > is a > > condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is > > impersonal. > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > 21123 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2 Dear Selamat and friends, I am very happy that you write more on your group discussions, anumodana. See below. op 07-04-2003 13:15 schreef cbn op nana_palo@c...: > I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. > > Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in > our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could > differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this > phenomena. Nina: As Rob K said, we cannot and should not try to catch different cittas. They are so fast and arise and fall away because of their own conditions. The Abhidhamma gives us a good foundation knowledge of dhammas and their conditions. We learn that there is a certain order in the processes: as you mention, some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). After seeing there are a few more vipakacittas, conditioned by kamma, we cannot control them, then determining-consciousness, votthapana-citta, just one moment, and this is followed by kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When we study the processes of cittas we can be reminded that we cannot choose whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises after the votthapanacitta, determining-consciousness, and in the mind-door process after the mind-door adverting-consciousness. These are extremely short moments, there is no person who decides what will follow: kusala or akusala. Cittas are so fast. It depends on the accumulated kusala and akusala what types of citta will follow afterwards. We all have accumulated different types of kusala and akusala, from one citta to the next citta, from life to life. Nobody can tell which type of citta will arise next, it arises because of its own conditions. In the Suttas we read about kusala and akusala following upon seeing, etc. and in the Abhidhamma we learn in detail about the processes: such as the kiriyacitta which is determining-consciousness or mind-door adverting-consciousness arising in between the vipakacittas and the javana-cittas which are kusala citta or akusala citta. Nobody can change the order of the different cittas arising in processes and this teaches us about the conditionality of cittas. Thus the Abhidhamma helps us to have more understanding of the different types of conditions, it helps us to see that there is no one behind seeing, thinking, kusala or akusala. If we believe that we have to be "in time" to catch particular cittas, we are misled as to the truth. As Rob said, When akusala citta with forgetfulness, unawareness, or with clinging arises, that can be object of awareness. We do not have to do anything special, cittas arise already. Nina. 21124 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21am Subject: Daybreak Dhamma with Lodewijk. Dear friends, Lodewijk and I were hiking early morning, having a Dhamma chat, very relaxed, interrupted with many Ah's and Oh's. (so cliche: sunrise, walking on grass with morning frost) Lodewijk: When I smell the smoke from chimneys, and walk in the cold morning air, the sun shining, I have strong associations with our hikes in Nepal. Nina: This is like Proust (author of Remembrance of Things Past) who had strong associations with the past when he thought of tasting a cooky (madeleine cooky) his aunt had given him when he was small. This is sa~n~naa cetasika or remembrance (perception). L: You cannot erase it, even if you want to. It shows that it is beyond control, it helps you to see that it is not self. N: As Mike said, there is no one behind the remembering. We all have memories we like to erase, but it is not possible. L: Just as I have dreams and nightmares about my former work. I cannot erase them. N: The arahat does not dream anymore. He has remembrance (sa~n~naa cetasika accompanying every citta), but he does not hold on to it. We should remember that A. Sujin said that nightmares are akusala cittas. Do you find that Abhidhamma makes people conceited? L: Those who think that it makes people conceited have a point. When you learn all the details of the Abhidhamma and believe that you know a lot, it could make you conceited. N: That's it. A. Sujin always says: "The Abhidhamma is not in the book". If you do not apply it in satipatthana you believe that you know a lot. We can begin to know our akusala. We read in the suttas about the six doors, and in the Abhidhamma we learn about processes of cittas experiencing objects through the six doors. We learn that there are countless akusala cittas in different processes. When we do not perform generous deeds, observe sila or apply ourselves to mental development we think, act and speak with akusala cittas. I just read in my "Perfections" (Ch 6, Perfection of Energy): Next day, at home, Breakfast Dhamma: Lodewijk said that he dreamt of his former work, but in his dream he had remembrance of a former similar situation in Jakarta, and he realized in his dream that this was sa~n~naa. Thus we see that talking about Dhamma can condition more understanding, we do not have to do anything special. That is what we learn from the suttas: listening and considering the Dhamma are important conditions for more understanding. Understanding can grow. Nina. 21125 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:03pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead > > to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end > > you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." > > Which is why I say that this matter has not been comprehended by you > and I didn't care to explain it to you in the previous post. > > There's just no point, because you are stuck in an intellectual > merry-go-round. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21126 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, Thanks for posting this message. It makes me appreciate dsg as a tiny island of sanity. You and I are so lucky to have found it. Like that blind turtle with the hundred-year lung capacity, we have surfaced just at the right time and place. The difference between this island of sanity and the world as a whole, is that here, there is respect for the original Dhamma as preserved in the ancient Theravadan texts. Of course, we mustn't see ourselves as different; on those frequent occasions when we desire to become an enlightened being, we are effectively diving back into the "fuzzy, touchy-feely rainbow casserole." On the other hand, when we remember that there is no being, just nama and rupa, we return to our island of sanity. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Sarah,(Victor) and All, > > Yes, I have been thinking over whether it is necessary to follow a > particular set of teachings, and to have a particular belief, in > order to understand truth and reality. I have been wondering whether 21127 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 1:21:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by > the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something > that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== That's what I've read, Victor. 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) 21128 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 1:53:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the Buddha understood the word 'self' as > something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and > personal in the Indian philosophical context? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 B.C.E.? 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) 21129 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > That's what I've read, Victor. > > With metta, > Howard 21130 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How does the Buddha being raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 B.C.E. lead you to the idea that he understood the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 > B.C.E.? > > With metta, > Howard 21131 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Dear Victor, Much as I enjoy your posts and they give me lots to consider and reflect upon - do you think you could possibly change your style to actually explaining your understanding of the Buddha's teaching on anatta. Just a few paragraphs without 'boomerang' questions and unexplained quotes. Specifically, as I recall asking you on numerour occasions, do you believe there is *something* separate from the aggregates like a self or soul? I think you would be doing those of us who, on occasion, find difficulty with the teaching of anatta, a great favour in clearly explaining this. I am, as always, presuming you are seriously communicating on a difficult subject. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional > meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor - > > > [snip] > > That's what I've read, Victor. > > > > With metta, > > Howard 21132 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:26pm Subject: Way 74, Clear Comprehension 7 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 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth...cont. In all statements the meaning of the term "clear comprehension" should be understood by way of only clear comprehension that is endowed with mindfulness. Indeed in the Book of Classifications (Vibhangappakarana) these are put just in this way: "One goes forward, mindful and clearly comprehending; one goes backwards, mindful and clearly comprehending."[26] [Tika] By the words only clear comprehension that is endowed with mindfulness, both the importance of clear comprehension by way of function and that of mindfulness are taken. Indeed it is not the pointing out of merely the condition of mindfulness with clear comprehension for it is said, "nowhere does knowledge exist without mindfulness." [T] Now in order to reinforce that thing by the Classificatory Method too [vibhanga nayenapi tadattham samatthetum], the words "Indeed, in the Book of Classifications" and so forth were spoken by the commentator. [T] By this indeed, one makes clear the importance even of mindfulness here as of clear comprehension [imina pi hi sampajaññassa viya satiya pettha patthanam (padhanam) yeva vibhaveti]. [T] There, "these" refers to the synoptical statement beginning with "In going forwards and in going backwards, he is a doer of clear comprehension." [tattha etani padaniti abhikkante patikkante sampajana kari hoti adini uddesa padani]. [T] The reciters of the Middle Collection [Majjhimabhanaka] however and the scholars of the Abhidhamma [Abhidhammika] say thus: "A certain bhikkhu goes thinking the while of something else, considering something else (that is, not thinking of or considering his action of going, or his subject of meditation.) [T] Another goes without causing the abandoning of the subject of meditation. In the same manner, a certain bhikkhu thinking the while of something else, considering something else, is standing, sitting, or sleeping (lying down); another sleeps (lies down) without causing the abandoning of the subject of meditation." [eko bhikkhu gacchanto aññam cintento aññam vitakkento gacchati. Eko kammatthanam avissajjetva va gacchati. Tatha eko titthanto nisidanto sayanto aññam cintento aññnam vitakkento sayati. Eko kammatthanam avissajjetva va sayati]. [T] Indeed the earnest bhikkhu comprehends thus: The material and mental qualities which existed at the east end of the ambulatory passed away just there without reaching the west end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed at the west end of the ambulatory, too, passed away just there without reaching the east end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed at the very center of the ambulatory passed away just there without reaching either end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed in walking, passed away without reaching the position of standing. The material and mental qualities which existed in the position of standing passed away just there without reaching the position of sitting; of sitting, without reaching the position of sleeping. Comprehending in this way again and again, the mind enters the life-continum, the unconscious. When arising, he at once takes up the subject of meditation. This bhikkhu is a doer of clear comprehension in walking (going about) and so forth. In this way, however, the subject becomes unclear in sleep; the subject of meditation should not be made unclear. Therefore the bhikkhu, having exercised to the full extent of his ability on the ambulatory, stood, and sat, lies down comprehending thus: "The body is unconscious; the bed is unconscious. The body does not know, 'I am lying down on the bed.' The bed also does not know, 'On me the body is lying down.' He, whilst just comprehending again and again thus, "The unconscious body is lying down on the unconscious bed," the mind enters the life-continum, the unconscious. On awakening, he at once takes up the subject of meditation. This bhikkhu is called a doer of clear comprehension in sleeping.[27] Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." Thus the bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body by way of the laying hold of the fourfold comprehension either in his own body or in another's body, or at one time in his own body, and in another's at another time. And, here too, "in contemplating origination" and so forth, the origin and the dissolution of only the materiality aggregate should, in the exposition, be taken out. The remainder is to be understood just by the method already stated by the commentator. Here, the Truth of Suffering is the mindfulness which lays hold of the fourfold clear comprehension; the Truth of Origination is the pre-craving which originates that mindfulness; the non-occurrence of either is the Truth of Cessation; the Real Path already stated is the Way-truth. Thus, the bhikkhu having striven by way of the Four Noble Truths reaches peace. This is indeed the means of deliverance up to arahantship of one who lays hold of the fourfold clear comprehension. 27. Cf. Jhana Vibhanga, Sammoha Vinodani, pp. 363-4 P.T.S. Ed. 21133 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 4:48:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional > meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== It's been a long, long time, Victor, so I can't give you precise references. I've read collections of works from the Upanishads, books on Advaita Vedanta, and at least on work by Shankara (though he came later historically, so that may not be relevant). 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) 21134 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 4:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > How does the Buddha being raised an upper class member of Indian > society circa 2500 B.C.E. lead you to the idea that he understood > the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, > permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > [snip] > > He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa > 2500 > >B.C.E.? > > > >With metta, > >Howard > ================================= My point was that this was the philosophical notion of 'self' at that place and time, and the Buddha would have been familiar with the Hindu philosophy and religion of his time, being from a privileged class. 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) 21135 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." It goes against your self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their meanings. Regards, Victor KKT: I don't think when the Buddha taught the Anattalakkhana Sutta to the 5 bhikkhus, He told them looking for the meaning of the words << I, mine, self >> in a dictionary. Besides, there was not a Webster dictionary at that time (just joking :-)) The problem is very simple, Victor. The Buddha taught the Dhamma to the common worldlings. He should use words in the common sense in order to whoever heard Him even for the first time could understand Him immediately. He did not complicate things. Therefore the fact that in His second sermon (ie. Anattalakkhana Sutta) He did not give the definition of << I, me, mine, self >> means that those words convey the meaning of which everybody had already the << same >> understanding. Otherwise there would be someone like Christine who raised her hand asking for the definition :-)) (Hello Christine, just kidding :-)) So what is the meaning of those words? Very simple, people at the time of the Buddha believed in a << speculative & unfounded >> existence of an entity/soul/self called Atman or Jiva. (I call it the << metaphysical self >>) This belief << crystalizes >> into a << factual >> feeling/sensation/thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> inside oneself. (I call it the << empirical self >> or ego) Whoever does not experience this self, please raise his/her hand :-)) Therefore the << mine, I, my self >> in this famous phrase of this sermon: << This is mine. This I am. This is my self >> (etam mama esohamasmi eso me attati) (please don't ask me about the Pali words :-)) should be this << empirical self >> This self is experienced either as a << whole >> or as each one of the 5 khandhas (aggregates) Therefore the Buddha made an analysis to point out its << illusory, unreal >> existence and for each khandha He said: << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> (netam mama nesohamasmi na meso attati) So there is no mystery about this word :-)) What is worth to discuss is that how could one eradicate this feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> ? For examples: __Victor thinks that everything << is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." >> My commentary is that I don't know whether Victor could go further than a merely intellectual understanding of this phrase? If this is the case then I don't think this is of great help. (In my opinion, realization should be done with panna (wisdom) and not intellect) __Many people on this list (the Abhidhammikas) think that studying the teachings, contemplating, constantly observing the rising and falling of the dhammas at the six sense doors are kusala conditions for << panna >> to arise. And this is panna that eradicates the feeling of self (correct me if I'm wrong) __Others think that the eradication should be done by << insight >> meditation (ie. Vipassana/Satipatthana) __Others think that by jhanas (but I think jhanas give only a << temporary >> eradication) Peace, KKT 21136 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali 'dukkha'? If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. Thanks for your patience. mike >> Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion and doubt? Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping and aversion? Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a separate self? Isn't a separate self duality? best regards, Jeff 21137 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group In a message dated 4/9/03 11:55:44 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: <> ===== Yes, my good friend Rob, I agree with you and your excellent analogy of the Inuit vocabulary for snow, which came to mind after I sent my last reply to you. Perhaps you are right with respect to the Pali language having a richer vocabulary for descriptions of gnosis, but I believe the Pali language borrowed much of that vocabulary from Sanskrit, and often my translations of Pali words often comes from translations of the Sanskrit. The Pali facility with the language of gnosis verses an apparent deficiency in the English language might explain my problems with the many errors I seem to have found in the Pali canon with respect to my personal experience. Those apparent errors may be purely due to my dependence on English, and its deficiencies. But, since I am so utterly useless in learning new languages, I am stuck with it. I am sure one of you Pali scholars can find the necessary quote from the tripitaka that the Dhamma should be articulated in the common language of the people. And, since I am common, and thus hindered with English as my only language of articulation, I am therefore left only with expressing my experience in that language, as well as my study being limited to imperfect English translations. And, in articulating my experience I am often confronted, as we have been here, with debates about the use of certain words, but maybe if we native speakers of English work on it, we might be able to construct a language of gnosis out of the shabby language we have inherited in this lifetime. Also, we should not forget that the English language has been engaged in its own articulation of the concepts of gnosis as long as it has been distinguishable from other languages, because gnosis is inherent to all humans (at least), and Buddhism most definitely did not invent the idea, but it certainly has a very rich descriptive history of gnosis. ===== > According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness > (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the > analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can > detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the > saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. Does this make sense? > > ===== Well, there we go with our flawed language again. When I use the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness,' I never use them with the implication that a sense or a mental state is implied, or that physicality is required, although the culture for whom English is their native toungue may never acknowledge domains of existence that do not involve our sensory apparatus. But, then I would have to dissagree with that assumption, because there is plenty of English literature to prove otherwise. So, when Pali scholars use 'consciousness' and 'awareness' with that implication of sensory apparatus, physicality and mental states I want to crack open my dictionary and reflect on why the University of Arizona is about to give me an English degree. To me 'consciousness' and 'awareness' are that bare attention thing that we often see in the popular literature. And, when I use these words they maybe in the context that I may become aware of sensory imput or a mental state, but I would say so. Where as for me the word 'perception' has that distinct implication that I am engaged in sensory phenomena. > ===== Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. > ===== Well, we are at another fine point in language. As I understand it, the Pali word 'citta' is often translated as 'mind,' and when it is used in the Theravadan world, I believe it is used in the context of something with continuity that which, like a river flowing from the mountain to the ocean is continuous from the mountain to the ocean, and only has different appearances along the way. (I'm not trying to tell you something here I don't think you know, I am just describing how I believe you would describe it to me.) Therefore, in this context of this idea of continuity, and my above definition of the "bareness" of 'consciousness' and 'awareness,' then I would most certainly agree with you. But, I believe we should also agree that there are domains of the 'self' (for want of a better word) that we remain unconscious of, then I would disagree with you. There is most definitely a deepening or expanding of one's domain of awareness into what here to for was an unconscious domain. I think the difference here is like saying the sun sets. Am I going to make a fool of myself while enjoying a sunset with a young lady and correct her when she says, "What a beautiful sunset?" No, I'll enjoy the 'sunset' and find peace within. ===== > I believe the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. > > Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth > > "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" ===== It looks as though we have a very different perspective on dependent origination. My understanding on the purpose of dependent origination is to answer the questions: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) I would venture that the role of the yogi is to "see things as they truly are"; see paramattha dhammas as paramattha dhammas, see concepts as concepts. It starts with study (pariyatti), followed by practice (patipatti), leading to wisdom (pativedha). ===== Yes, actually I would agree with. As I am sure you know Dependent Origination is a very big, all inclusive concept, which I think Siddharta Guatama was trying to hinge his whole thesis on. As you recall the 4 noble truths are really the foundation, but it seems clear to me Dependent Origination is in a sense his dissertation level exegesis of the concept. As you said: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) So, if I may expand my earlier simplified interpretation of Dependent Origination to include your excellent point here. As I said the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on observing our psychophysiological states which overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Remember I am using the word 'awareness' in the same sense of a continuity as the Asians use (citta/mind). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. This covers the 4 Nobel Truths Now, to cover what Nanamoli translates as past lifetime linking, we have only to extend this metaphor beyond a single lifetime. This then states the reason why we move from one lifetime to the next is simply because of our grasping and aversion of mental states and sensory experience, or as you so excellently put it "ignorance and craving." ===== In short, the Buddha did not see the rationale behind putting the quest for scientific knowledge ahead of the quest for spiritual knowledge (the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta also lists the same subjects as the Simsapa Sutta as being worthy of study)... Hopefully this explains why I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== Well, I would certainly agree that there are areas of discussion that don't further one's practice, but I think we also have to avoid burying our heads in the sand as well. Don't forget the historic Buddha lived 2,500 years ago and there have both been a lot of Buddhas who have come and gone since, and culture has changed dramatically as well. But, I am also sure you have read the portions of the canon that deal with cremation ground meditations. It is clear to me that the Buddha had an excellent knowledge of anatomy, but he hadn't have a clue about neurology. Does that mean we should ignore everything that the historic Buddha didn't talk about? I think if we did, we would be like those born-again Christians who cannot accept Evolutionary Biology. Personally, I think Buddhism is an excellent replacement for the outmoded religions that tend to drag down our culture, but if Buddhism isn't going to accept anything that the Buddha didn't talk about, then we are just replacing one closed minded system with another. Thanks, I'll pass. By the same token I'm not a born-again science geek either. I don't need science to prove to me enlightenment exists. I know because I practice, which gives me a domain of personal experience that supports my belief in enlightenment. ===== If we define "gnosis" as meaning "insight that brings escape from Samsara", then I believe that the Buddha did say that His was the "only way". The DSG recently had a long discussion on this issue over the term "only way" in the Satipatthana Sutta. If we limit the definition of "gnosis" to mean the "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, then Buddhism certainly has no monopoly. ===== Gnosis is defined as: "Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics." American Heritage Electronic dictionary. Certainly the orthodox will always come up with narrow ways to define their belief to limit the domain of their influence to only those who will blindly accept what they preach. I personally do not subscribe to a belief that any Buddha has ever believed that he was the "only" way. It may also be worth reflecting on that Buddhism arrived in the geographic domain of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan around the 3rd century BC, when Ashoka expanded his domain into those regions. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the earliest archeological evidence and historic references to the Gnostic cults in the domains of the Greek, Egyptian and Northern Sinai were at the same time period. I also believe there is considerable evidence to indicate that Jesus and the birth of Christianity was deeply influenced by the presence of Buddhism on the fringe of the Mediterranean basin. ===== I don't meditate enough. Thank you for your compassionate reminder. I hope that one day, my practical "knowledge" can be increased to the level that I can compare my experience with the Tipitaka. ===== It just takes practice, daily practice. Study is great, but without the context of personal experience study is just more samsara. Just Buddhist samsara. ===== I agree that "mind" is not a good translation for citta; "consciousness" is better, but still sub-optimal. For this reason, I prefer to leave "citta" as "citta". There is an excellent cartoon on this subject at: http://www.dharmathecat.com/episod49.htm Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. Metta, Rob M :-) ===== I enjoyed the cartoon, it really does sum it all up for us doesn't it? Practice and know. But as you said so well, "But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." The only way I believe we can get beyond the bridges is to empty ourselves and forget everything we ever read, at least at the moment of practice. Sit until you know. Excellent conversation my good friend, you are a worthy opponent. Best, Jeff 21138 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup In a message dated 4/9/03 9:46:53 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, Actually, I find discussion with cult members anything but healthy, but, hey, that's me. Thank you for the invitation. I don't get to Tucson too often and probably won't be there at all before I leave for Egypt. Good luck in your practice. Stay cool! ;-). Metta, James >> Thanks James, yes, I find discussions with cult members somewhat tedious as well. Thank-you for your warm welcome, perhaps if you don't come to Tucson, I'll see you at Wat Promkunaram or some other venue for enlightenment. Safe journey to Egypt, Jeff 21139 From: nana cbn Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2 Dear Nina, anumodana for the explanation. please see below. These are extremely short > moments, there is no person who decides what will follow: kusala or akusala. > Cittas are so fast. It depends on the accumulated kusala and akusala what > types of citta will follow afterwards. We all have accumulated different > types of kusala and akusala, from one citta to the next citta, from life to > life. Nobody can tell which type of citta will arise next, it arises because > of its own conditions. Akusala and kusala citta arise because of the accumulation of our kusala and akusala before, which accummulated too in their cetasikas respectively, isn't it? kind regards, selamat 21140 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:37pm Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali > 'dukkha'? > > If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. > > Thanks for your patience. > > mike >> > > Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion > and doubt? No. The origin of dukkha is tanhaa, as I understand it. > Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping > and aversion? Ignorance, delusion, doubt, grasping and aversion are all different mental factors, each with its own unique characteristics and all arising and subsiding instantaneously according to conditions. > Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a > separate self? No. Grasping and aversion can each arise independent of micchaadi.t.thi--the belief in a (separate?!) self. Isn't a separate self duality? No. It is a concept. > best regards, Jeff And to You, mike 21141 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Christine, I would suggest that not to assume the word "self" as "soul" or "Self" or "Atman" or "God" or "Brahma" or "Essence" or "Jiva" or anything metaphysical. This kind of assumption won't help in understanding the Buddha's teaching. And perhaps the hardest part for some people in understanding the teaching on anatta is abandoning assumptions. I would suggest reading the discourse again without any assumption on what self is, on whether it exists or not. It might be uncomfortable or unpleasant to give up those assumptions. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > Much as I enjoy your posts and they give me lots to consider and > reflect upon - do you think you could possibly change your style to > actually explaining your understanding of the Buddha's teaching on > anatta. Just a few paragraphs without 'boomerang' questions and > unexplained quotes. Specifically, as I recall asking you on > numerour occasions, do you believe there is *something* separate from > the aggregates like a self or soul? I think you would be doing those > of us who, on occasion, find difficulty with the teaching of anatta, > a great favour in clearly explaining this. I am, as always, > presuming you are seriously communicating on a difficult subject. > > metta, > Christine 21142 From: connie Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Friends ~ I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to any suggestions as to what to say. Thank-you, Connie 21143 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Dear Howard, op 10-04-2003 14:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague > recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that was > a last-ditch effort! ;-) N: No, it is very appropriate, the monk can look ahead one length of a plough. He should not stare at people, not be curious. The monk.s life is different from the lay life, he conducts himself as an arahat. Nina. 21144 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 We read: The king, when he encouraged the recluse Hårita to make an effort to abandon his defilements, spoke the seventh stanza: ³Lust arises in your body, and destroys your beauty [11] Abandon lustful excitement, And you will prosper, You will be praised by many for your wisdom.² When the Bodhisatta heard this, he could regain his awareness and consider the danger in sense pleasures. Thereupon he spoke the eighth stanza: ³Sense pleasures are blinding, they cause much suffering. They injure gravely. I shall look for the root of sensuousness, I shall cut down lust with its bonds.² The root of sensuous desire is unwise attention, ayoniso manasikåra. We read: The recluse developed samatha and could again attain jhåna. He saw the danger of dwelling in an unsuitable place, that was the royal park. Therefore, he returned to the forest to be free from all taint of womankind. When he had come to the end of his life, he entered the Brahma plane. The Buddha told this story in the Jeta Grove because of a discontented monk. When this monk saw a beautifully attired woman, defilements arose in him and he wanted to leave the monkhood. When he was brought against his will to the Buddha by his teacher and preceptor, and the Buddha asked him whether it was true that he was a backslider, this monk said that it was true. Thereupon the Buddha said: ²Monk, defilements do not lead to happiness, they destroy good qualities, they cause rebirth in hell. Why could your defilements not cause your destruction? Why could a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf? I myself, during the life I was the recluse Hårita, had acquired the five supernatural powers and the eight attainments, and I strived after awakening wisdom. However, inspite of this, I was, because of this kind of defilement, unable to have awareness and I fell away from jhåna.² The Buddha taught this story so that we could see the disadvantage of akusala and the power of accumulated defilements. We should reflect on what we read: ³Why should a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf?² We all have defilements that are not yet eradicated and we are therefore not as steady as Mount Sineru, we are only like withered leaves, which are light and can be blown away by the wind, the wind of lobha, dosa and moha. Footnote: 11. Vanna, appearance or quality. 21145 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads To my good friend Christine: In a message dated 4/10/03 1:02:04 AM, cforsyth@v... writes: << I wonder though about the statement - "the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited." Is Theravada Buddhism non-dualistic? I don't think the Theravada tradition sees itself as non-dualistic - I think this is represented by Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. My understanding is that the doctrine of Anatta would rule out any belief in a permanent individual self or an absolute universal self, and any such belief would be regarded as a delusion - an instance of personality view. Bhikkhu Bodhi ('Dhamma and non-duality') states: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit withing the Buddha's discourses." >> Yes, my good friend Christine, I believe it is quite clear that Theravadan Buddhism is most definitely and fundamentally non-dualist, because they deny an individual self and a god. If their is neither a self nor a god, what are we left with? Unity/emptiness. What were the deepest meditations that Siddharta Guatama articulated? Unification of Consciousness, merger with Infinite, time, space and consciousness, etc., even though the highly skilled Bhikkhu Bodhi disagrees. In fact non-dualism, I believe is at the heart of many of the conversation going on in this group. As for your comment about Mahayana, there are 5 basic manifestations of Mahayana. Tantra and Pure Land, are most definitely dualist, because they have deified the Buddha, whereas Zen, Tientai and Three Ways, are fundamentally non-dualist because they focus on emptiness. I don't see how one can have a concept of emptiness in a dualistic context. It is also worth pointing out that scholars tend to say that Advaita Vedanta was constructed as a Hindu response to Buddhism. Or in other words, Buddhism in a Hindu context. Good questions, Jeff 21146 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Well, I would certainly agree that there are areas of discussion that don't > further one's practice, but I think we also have to avoid burying our heads > in the sand as well. Don't forget the historic Buddha lived 2,500 years ago > and there have both been a lot of Buddhas who have come and gone since, and > culture has changed dramatically as well. > > But, I am also sure you have read the portions of the canon that deal with > cremation ground meditations. It is clear to me that the Buddha had an > excellent knowledge of anatomy, but he hadn't have a clue about neurology. > Does that mean we should ignore everything that the historic Buddha didn't > talk about? I think if we did, we would be like those born-again Christians > who cannot accept Evolutionary Biology. > > Personally, I think Buddhism is an excellent replacement for the outmoded > religions that tend to drag down our culture, but if Buddhism isn't going to > accept anything that the Buddha didn't talk about, then we are just replacing > one closed minded system with another. Thanks, I'll pass. > > By the same token I'm not a born-again science geek either. I don't need > science to prove to me enlightenment exists. I know because I practice, > which gives me a domain of personal experience that supports my belief in > enlightenment. ===== I'm sorry if I implied "rejecting" anything. I am saying that "science" and "Buddhism" should be seen as separate subjects and we should not try to merge the two. ===== > > It may also be worth reflecting on that Buddhism arrived in the geographic > domain of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan around the 3rd century BC, when Ashoka > expanded his domain into those regions. I don't believe it is a coincidence > that the earliest archeological evidence and historic references to the > Gnostic cults in the domains of the Greek, Egyptian and Northern Sinai were > at the same time period. I also believe there is considerable evidence to > indicate that Jesus and the birth of Christianity was deeply influenced by > the presence of Buddhism on the fringe of the Mediterranean basin. ===== Last week, I attended a dhamma talk. The speaker referred to a Sutta where the Buddha said that He had recently appeared in other countries (through his supernormal powers), shared the Dhamma with other people and then disappeared. The speaker then referenced the writings of Lao Tze (his writings formed the basis of Taoism), who was a contemporary of the Buddha. Lao Tze talked of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy before disappearing". The speaker then went on to list amazing parallels between the writings of Lao Tze and the Suttas (Tao = Nibbana, Five Precepts, etc.). I am trying to find the Sutta reference. Metta, Rob M :-) 21147 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Dear Nina, I’ve been waiting for your return to reply to some of your posts. I was very moved by the account from the Harita Jataka which I’ve just read in full in Jataka Stories and the comments about it. From ‘Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 13’ Quote:“When she stood up quickly, her robe of fine cloth fell off. As soon as the recluse saw this, his defilements which had been dormant for thousands of aeons, rose up like a poisonous snake lying in a box, and hence his skill in jhåna disappeared. The recluse who was unable to apply mindfulness, went inside, seized the queen by her hand and then they gave themselves over to misconduct.” ***** It’s such a good reminder that we can only ever know our accumulations when they arise and like in this case, the kilesa of various kinds can lie dormant for aeons, but if not eradicated can arise anytime when there are conditions. I also found it very interesting to read in the same extract: Quote:“The recluse thought: ‘If I say that I did not indulge in sin, the king would believe me, but in this world there is no surer foundation than truthful speech. Someone who forsakes the truth cannot attain Buddhahood, even if he sits in the sacred enclosure of the Bodhi Tree. Hence I should only speak the truth. In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given to him, commit adultery, drink strong liquor, but he may not tell a lie, speech that violates the truth.’” There has been discussion before about whether it is possible for a Bodhisatta to break the precepts. This seems to answer the question, (though I thought in another post I quoted something contrary to this ??). The example of the King (Ananda in this previous life) is also so compassionate and exemplary. He seems to give the Bodhisatta wise counsel in return as well: Quote:“Keen panna is intent on what is beneficial. It can abandon lust that has arisen within you. For what benefit do you have panna, if you cannot dispel sinful thoughts.” ***** I find it so helpful because panna has to know the accumulations as they are at the present moment --no change of character -- and yet if there is no knowing and ‘turning away’ from the kilesa there is no benefit in ‘having panna’. It can seem like a paradox but I don’t believe it is. This account also reminds me of comments which I referred to before in the Way corner under sappaya sampajanna (clear comprehension of suitability) with regard to the contact amongst bhikkhus and bhikkhunis and also your Dhamma Issues series on ‘Disappearance of the Ariyans’. Throughout the Vinaya we read about rules being laid down when bhikkhus succumbed to various temptations. In the Way66 passage we read that: Quote: “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."(Tika: ‘By reason of coming into bodily contact with a female, that bhikkhu having become filled with longing for sense-delights turned to the lower life of the world'). ***** The question of why the length of the sasana is halved because of the establishment of the bhikkhuni order is a sensitive topic. I believe it relates to the nature of kilesa which as we have seen may lie dormant for aeons. Only the Buddha would know in the case of those with highly developed panna and endowed with skills in jhana and so on what these might be. Perhaps it is inevitable that the bhikkhunis, in spite of strict rules, would have close contact with bhikkhus that might not apply so much to lay people. Of course, questions about other kinds of attraction arise as well.... ***** In Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15, we read: Quote:"The recluse developed samatha and could again attain jhåna. He saw the danger of dwelling in an unsuitable place, that was the royal park. Therefore, he returned to the forest to be free from all taint of womankind. When he had come to the end of his life, he entered the Brahma plane. "The Buddha told this story in the Jeta Grove because of a discontented monk. When this monk saw a beautifully attired woman, defilements arose in him and he wanted to leave the monkhood. When he was brought against his will to the Buddha by his teacher and preceptor, and the Buddha asked him whether it was true that he was a backslider, this monk said that it was true. Thereupon the Buddha said: ‘Monk, defilements do not lead to happiness, they destroy good qualities, they cause rebirth in hell. Why could your defilements not cause your destruction? Why could a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf? I myself, during the life I was the recluse Hårita, had acquired the five supernatural powers and the eight attainments, and I strived after awakening wisdom. However, inspite of this, I was, because of this kind of defilement, unable to have awareness and I fell away from jhåna.’ "The Buddha taught this story so that we could see the disadvantage of akusala and the power of accumulated defilements. We should reflect on what we read: ‘Why should a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf?’ We all have defilements that are not yet eradicated and we are therefore not as steady as Mount Sineru, we are only like withered leaves, which are light and can be blown away by the wind, the wind of lobha, dosa and moha.” ***** I love the metaphor of the ‘withered leaf’. Aren’t we just like withered leaves most the time being blown about by lobha, dosa and moha? If the great Harita could still be blown by his defilements, who are we to think we are beyond such temptations regardless of apparent accumulations to date in this life? I also appreciated the reminders about caga (relinquishment). In Perfections, ch8, Truthfulness, no 5, we read about how “if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble truths cannot be realized............Relinquishment, caga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of defilements.....” ‘Giving up clinging to sense objects’ reminds me of the discussion about guarding the sense doors. By being aware of what arises through the sense doors, gradually there is the development of relinquishment or the abandoning of clinging just at that moment of being aware. A moment of sanity for ‘mad’ worldling. Perhaps the reason that an arahant would not be able to continue as a layperson would be because it would be like living amongst the mad. From Perfections, ch8, Truthfulness, no 14: Quote:“Someone may believe that he is out of danger because he has developed a certain degree of panna, but he should not be neglectful. Akusala can even harm a person with panna, who has a keen interest in the Dhamma and enjoys its benefit.” ***** So many excellent and inspiring reminders. Many thanks for all your hard work with the translation of the series.Anumodana. Metta, Sarah ====== 21148 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, Many thanks for sharing your (colourful) comments which I'm sure we all enjoyed, regardless of agreement or not: --- christine_forsyth wrote: > The Buddha did teach tolerance of others beliefs - but I don't > believe that he taught that *any* belief would do - or that we > should 'relax, don't worry, be happy - we'll all 'get there' in the > end'. I don't believe he taught us to combine bits of all belief- > systems into a fuzzy touchy-feely rainbow casserole of what 'feels > true' to us; a melange of what fits in and feels good to our 21st > century cultural/value systems - that appeals to our ideal > of 'fairness' and 'wouldn't it be nice ...'. ..... ;-) ..... > I don't understand all religious roads to lead to the same > destination - anymore than they do in a modern city. There are long > delays, dead ends and dangerous places. Spending a long, long time > wandering about in a city doesn't mean you are incrementally coming > closer to your destination - it means you are spending a long long > time wandering about. The Buddha taught that human birth is rare, > and to be born during a Buddhasasana (Dispensation of a Buddha) is > even rarer. If we have a precious chance to hear the Dhamma, > shouldn't we listen and reflect on his words, 'as if our hair were on > fire'. I understand the meaning of the word Samsara to be "The > Wandering On - the perpetual wandering through the > rounds of rebirth." So - is there 'Truth', or is there 'a truth'? > And is 'Truth' only what the individual thinks is 'Truth', and if it > is different to what the Buddha taught is that O.K.? i.e. no > consequences, go with the flow - A+ for sincerity. ..... Definitely A+ for style ;-) Look forward to more of your reflections. Metta, Sarah ======= 21149 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Everyman's Ethics, adversities. Dear Nina (& Christine), I also appreciated the reminders about being ‘unshaken in adversties’: --- nina van gorkom wrote: > I read in the last verse: > Who is energetic and not indolent > In misfortune unshaken > Flawless in manner and intelligent > Such a one to honour may attain. > > My PTS translates instead of misfortune: unshaken in adversities. Here I > think of the eight worldly conditions: and the four which are > adversities: > loss, blame, dishonour and bodily misery. ..... > I am not unshaken by adversities, panna is still poor. But even > intellectual > understanding can help us. ..... Yes, a little understanding at any level helps a lot and of course, then there is all the wishing not to be shaken instead of any detachment when affected by adversities;-) Also, when affected by the opposites - gain, praise, honour and happiness, there is usually little concern. ..... > Sarah brought up the issue of cancer, and Lodewijk and I had a heated > discussion about it. It is a delicate, sensitive issue. He said, but one > has > to be treated, you cannot say there is no cancer. I explained that this > is > quite true, but that it can be helpful to also contemplate different > cittas > experiencing objects through the six doors. In between going to the > hospital > or in the waiting room, there can be brief moments of wise attention: > thinking of cancer is one moment, seeing is another moment, and all such > moments do not last. Also rupas we call cancer are arising and falling > away. > We do not stay away from doctor and medicines, chemo's, of course not. ..... Back to daily life. So often when people hear about paramattha dhammas, there is an idea that somehow we will lose all common sense , giving up jobs or homes or concern about medical treatment. Even a monk takes care when sick, but the understanding of realities and the real cause of mental anguish helps a lot. I think it was KKT in a post who gave a quote (which I forget ...about a mountain?) referring to the ordinariness of life and outer appearances when panna develops. ..... > But, > considering in between different realities can help us to less identify > ourselves with this or that calamity, to have a somewhat more detached, > objective attitude. It can to a degree take away the pain and the worry. > Even our aversion: it is conditioned and arises for a moment, but it > does > not stay. Again, even if we have only intellectual understanding, > stemming > from listening, helps us already. ..... Yes. Sometimes there may not even be any physical discomfort or other akusala vipaka for all we know. But we hear or read a story from a doctor or the newspaper and immediately there are conditions for the ‘identifying with the calamity’. I’m very conscious of this at the moment in Hong Kong. There hasn’t been anything unpleasant experienced for me during this SARS pneumonia outbreak. On the contrary, there is no waiting for lifts, queueing anywhere or any crowds out and about or screaming children around. No obviously unpleasant sights, sounds or bodily experiences and yet so much concern and thinking about the future and unknown. ..... In another post you wrote a helpful reminder and quote from A.Sujin: “We experience pleasant objects and unpleasant objects and we are inclined to think about them for a long time with akusala citta. We think of people and we worry about them. Acharn Sujin gave us valuable advice about the way to cope with our problems in daily life. She said: ‘Whatever happens now, one should remember that it is because of conditions. Nobody can do anything, you cannot change a particular thought to another one. You cannot change seeing right now to the experience of another object. When you understand this, you do not go away from the present object. When you understand that it is conditioned in this way you do not think, why does this unpleasant event happen to me. it is useless to cry over it or continue thinking about it.’” **** As you also just wrote to Selamat: “Nobody can change the order of the different cittas arising in the processes and this teaches us about the conditionality of cittas. Thus the Abhidhamma helps us to have more understanding of the different types of conditions, it helps us to see that there is no one behind seeing, thinking, kusala or akusala. If we believe that we have to be “in time” to catch particular cittas, we are misled as to the truth..........Whena kusala citta with forgetfulness, unawareness, or with clinging arises, that can be object of awarenes. We do not have to do anything special, cittas arise already.” Instead of being fatalistic or scary as some people suggest, it’s truly liberating to just begin to appreciate that we don’t have to do anything special and that these phenomena are conditioned at each moment. Many thanks as always for the helpful reminders. Metta, Sarah ===== 21150 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Doing yoga or tai chi would not help in strenghtening right > concentration. It is wrong concentration. ..... If one were following one of these (or swimming, tennis, hiking, Qi Gong, body scanning, focussing on a part of the anatomy....) with the view that it would particularly lead to right concentration or other eightfold path factors, I agree it would be quite wrong. However, at any moment during any activity in daily life, there can be right concentration. There has to be a level of right concentration with each moment of kusala - at each moment of giving or metta as well as with right understanding. ..... > I do not know your history and what's gone wrong with you. ..... Well, Swee Boon, any history or ‘gone wrong’ is all in the past, as are any special experiences or insights others may have had. In other words, none of it is of any significance despite various concerns to the contrary;-). All that is of significance is the present moment and present realities appearing which may or may not be known or ‘insighted’;-) Remember the reminder which Chris gave us recently from Bhadekaratta Sutta, MN: “Let not a person not to revive the past Or on the future build his hopes for the past has been left behind and the future has not been reached Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state.” ..... > I still stress concentration. I know you dislike the word, ..... I’m not aware of any dislike. I’m aware of many different understandings of how it is used in the texts. ..... > but I can replace it by other terms, as in: > > "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, > transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, > resolve, , & > verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is > noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of > the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without > fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html ..... I’m not meaning to quibble for the sake of it at all, Swee Boon, but as a ‘btw’, I believe this passage you quote is referring to samma-sankappa (right thought) or vitakka cetasika. Vitakka cetasika is responsible for ‘mental absorption’ etc by fixing and directing the citta onto the object. At the beginning of the passage about samma-sankappa (right thought), we read: “Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? One understands wrong intention as wrong intention and right intention as right intention: this is one’s right view”. In other words if there is no understanding or right view at this moment of what is ‘right’ thought, concentration or any other quality, how will there be any knowing or developing of what is ‘right’? ..... > > I think I have said enough. In short, right concentration is not a > dirty term. Mindfulness immersed in the body leads to right > concentration. ..... I certainly apologise if I said anything to suggest it is a ‘dirty term’. It was not my intention. If I could rephrase your other sentence to say ‘mindfulness of namas and rupas leads to the development of right concentration’, then I’d be more inclined to agree. ..... > Regarding , unless you are for sure that it refers to only > ultimate realities after checking the pali, I would include concepts > into it. Yes, I see concepts as not-self. If nibbana is not-self, why > can't concepts be not-self? ..... I don’t have the Pali, but the tems used are the same as those used in other suttas such as ‘The All’ Kom discussed here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14311.html Someone else may be able to help with the Pali further in MN 148, Chacakka Sutta. Nibbana is a paramattha dhamma that can be directly realised or known. Concepts cannot be directly known. Hence, computer, butter-jar, and self can only ever be conceptualised or imagined but never be the objects of awareness. I believe that this can be tested out at this moment. How does this sound? Metta, Sarah p.s concepts are not-self just in the sense that nothing has a self characteristic. They do not have the characteristics of anicca or dukkha. ================================================= 21151 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:31am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Have a look at the first eight articles on this site: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie 21152 From: azita gill Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Azita, > > Thx Azita. Just before you wrote I had commented to > Jon that you’d gone > quiet, so we were very glad to hear from you. > > .................... > Don’t be too > tough (in terms of expectations) on yourself. We are > all beginners on the > path;-) > > Metta and best wishes, > > Sarah > dear Sarah, Thank you for the wise words. to continue on, and allow the others to be as they want without trying to change them, the situation, anything for that matter; easy to talk about, difficult to do. However, I feel better, not so 'bogged down'; as I said before, so many good reminders from the dsg-ers. from a more cheerful Azita. > 21153 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Why not share your thoughts and ideas about what you have in mind with us first??? In addition to the articles Chris suggests, there is a Beginners section on this website that may also be helpful: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ You might even find some of the letters to the StarKids under 'children - letters to' in U.P. of help. I suggest you encourage and allow time for plenty of questions. Look forward to hearing what you discuss and how it goes. Metta, Sarah ===== --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Connie, > > Have a look at the first eight articles on this site: > > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm 21154 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Mike, In a message dated 4/10/03 6:45:46 AM, mlnease@z... writes: << Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, according to conditions. >> It sounds like you are quoting from something that you read, that I am sure is a most excellent book, but I can barely remember my own phone number, so I am always forced to speak from personal experience with the odd quote that seems to leek out between the 'seams' of my forgetfulness. In my experience 'thinking' arises directly relative to grasping and aversion events. If there is no grasping there is no thinking. The conditions are all dependent on grasping and aversion, therefore grasping and aversion are the basic cause of all suffering. In my experience equanimity is the cessation of grasping and aversion. I'm sure it's somewhere in the Vissudhimagga on Dependent Origination, you may have to read between the lines. <> While I fully agree with you with respect to study, one must never forget to reflect on that study, then engage in the practice, so that personal experience will inform was practice. I believe experience is far more useful than what you read and what someone tells you. <> I consider my personal experience superior to any book, even a 2,250 your old book that was written several hundred years after the fact, and was translated and lost and regained numerous time. But, then I'm not a born-again Buddhist. <> Great then we are peers in that respect, but my experience apparently differs from yours. <> No, I place my personal experience above all books, and all teachers. I believe everyone should. Besides there have been thousands of Buddhas in the last 2,500 years why get hung up on just one. Don't you think there is a reason why the historic Buddha made no attempt to build temples and write books in his time? Best to you my friend, Jeff 21155 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism Hi, Connie - In a message dated 4/11/03 12:00:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie ========================== Perhaps a two-part talk: 1) What Buddhism has in common with other religions: a) morality practice and focussed meditative tecniques, b) Non-annihilation and death - heaven and hell realms etc, c) Existence of angelic beings (devas) and their opposite, and d) focussed contemplative, meditative techniques, and 2) what distinguishes Buddhism: a) Impersonality belief, b) No belief in creator god, but "salvation" through causes and conditions, not divine intercession, c) Worldly direction and creation through kamma, d) Kamma as intention and not fate, e) The three-fold nature of things (tilakkhana), and f) The Four noble Truths - the centrality of dukkha, its precise cause, the possibility and nature of its termination, and the unique 8-point training program leading to its complete and final removal. 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) 21156 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/11/03 12:10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > > op 10-04-2003 14:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague > >recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that > was > >a last-ditch effort! ;-) > N: No, it is very appropriate, the monk can look ahead one length of a > plough. He should not stare at people, not be curious. The monk.s life is > different from the lay life, he conducts himself as an arahat. > Nina. > ============================ Thanks, Nina. Well, okay then. So I wasn't completely off base. There is a bit of avoidance recommended, at least at certain stages of development. It does make sense to me that when one is at a stage at which one still compulsively grasps onto attractive sights, sounds etc and mentally "runs with them", it is good practice at that stage, for purposes of calming the mind, to quickly turn away to other inputs and to other thoughts. At more advanced stages, I could see this as increasingly less needed. For example: There is a Zen story of two monks coming to a stream at which a pretty, young woman is hesitating to cross. One monk unhesitatingly lifts the woman into his arms, carries her across the stream, and gently places her down on the far side - all as the other monk stares opn-mouthed. The two monks then continue walking on their way, in silence. After a long while, the second month can bear the silence no longer and blurts out "How could you take lift up that woman in your arms?!" The first monk replies: "I put her down a long time ago, but you are still carrying her!" The first monk was at a stage at which grasping after sensual experience was not an issue, the second monk was not. Had the first monk been at the level of the second, his action would have done harm to his equanimity and would have been inadvisable (plus prohibited by rule, of course). 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) 21157 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/10/03 6:45:46 AM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, > according to conditions. >> > > It sounds like you are quoting from something that you read No. Paraphrasing my own understanding, based on my own experience compared with my (obviously limited) understanding of the teachings of the historical Buddha. > that I am sure > is a most excellent book The Paali Tipitaka is certainly a most excellent collection of books. You might have a look at them sometime. > but I can barely remember my own phone number, so I > am always forced to speak from personal experience with the odd quote that > seems to leek out between the 'seams' of my forgetfulness. > > In my experience 'thinking' arises directly relative to grasping and aversion > events. Thinking, grasping, aversion and so on have all have their own unique characteristics and are the same when they arise and subside today as they were 2500 years ago. The Buddha and some of the arahants discussed these in great detail and took great pains that these teachings be preserved. To despise these teachings because they are preserved in books seems to me to be remarkably ill-considered. > If there is no grasping there is no thinking. Not true--these are not mutally dependent. > The conditions are > all dependent on grasping and aversion, Not sure what you mean by this, but conditions are not dependent on grasping or on aversion or on both. > therefore grasping and aversion are > the basic cause of all suffering. This is not what the Buddha taught and is also untrue in my opinion. The basic cause of all suffering (the second noble truth) is tanhaa--variously translated as craving; thirst; lust; attachment. > In my experience equanimity is the > cessation of grasping and aversion. If you really mean 'cessation', this does not occur before the stages of enlightenment (I forget which ones--I don't pay much attention to these advanced states because I can't verify them personally. Others on the list can detail this, though). Grasping and aversion can both be absent when the conditions for them are absent. At those moments they continue to 'exist' in latent form. They are eradicated only gradually and only by pa~n~naa, understanding or wisdom--not by equanimity. > I'm sure it's somewhere in the > Vissudhimagga on Dependent Origination, you may have to read between the > lines. I don't think so. > < > use of Pali to be an invaluable aid in understanding and discussing > > Buddhadhamma.>> > > While I fully agree with you with respect to study, one must never forget to > reflect on that study, then engage in the practice, so that personal > experience will inform was practice. I believe experience is far more useful > than what you read and what someone tells you. Experience without having 'heard' and reflecting on the Buddhadhamma--whether by actual hearing, reading or whatever--is absolutely useless. > < > your experiences as superior to the best preserved teachings of the Buddha.>> > > I consider my personal experience superior to any book, Thank you--this is clear. > even a 2,250 your old > book that was written several hundred years after the fact, and was > translated and lost and regained numerous time. But, then I'm not a > born-again Buddhist. I have no idea what you mean by this comment. > < > preserved remainders of the Buddhadhamma, then we must disagree.>> > > No, I place my personal experience above all books, and all teachers. Again, this is quite clear--though I would call it your personal interpretation of your personal experience. > I > believe everyone should. I can see that you do. This is quite contrary to what the Buddha taught. > Besides there have been thousands of Buddhas in the > last 2,500 years why get hung up on just one. What an odd assertion--whatever has given you this idea? > Don't you think there is a > reason why the historic Buddha made no attempt to build temples and write > books in his time? Yes--it wasn't his job. He certainly did encourage others to remember and reflect on his words, however. mike 21158 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism Hi again, Connie - In a message dated 4/11/03 8:48:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > b) > Non-annihilation and death ======================= This should be "Non-annihilation AT death". Sorry. 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) 21159 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:05am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, I would suggest the main part of the program include: I. The Buddha II. The Dhamma III. The Sangha The page The Path to Freedom A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html provides a well organized introduction with a wealth of references to the Pali Canon. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie 21160 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:40am Subject: Noble Conversation Hi all, I found this page Noble Conversation A Study Guide Prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversation.html and thought it might be of value to the group. Regards, Victor 21161 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, > However, at any moment during any activity in daily life, there can be > right concentration. There has to be a level of right concentration with > each moment of kusala - at each moment of giving or metta as well as with > right understanding. What kind of weird doctrine is this? That concentration do not need to be practised? Is this really a cult group as James said before? > Well, Swee Boon, any history or `gone wrong' is all in the past, as are > any special experiences or insights others may have had. Totally disagree. If history is not important, the Buddha would not be able to give appropriate meditation subjects to his disciples. It is not proper for one to admit accumulations and yet deny accumulations. The quote you have given is totally out of context of this discussion. Did not the Buddha encourage his able disciples to practise the knowledge of one's and others' past lives as he did? If I knew your history, I would understand better your opposition to concentration. > I'm not meaning to quibble for the sake of it at all, Swee Boon, but as a > `btw', I believe this passage you quote is referring to samma-sankappa > (right thought) or vitakka cetasika. Stopping at right view would not lead to right concentration. If stopping at right view would lead to right concentration, then right concentration is a redundant factor of the path. Indeed, all the other seven factors of the path except right view would be made redundant. Right view as the forerunner does not mean that right view is the end. And no, the sutta I quoted is referring to right concentration. Right view is ***merely*** the forerunner. It is not the end. It is the beginning. What then is the end? Read further. It speaks volumes about who has right view and who doesn't in this discussion. "[2] Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong resolve as wrong resolve, and right resolve as right resolve. And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will, on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve. "And what is right resolve? Right resolve, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right resolve with fermentations, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right resolve, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right resolve that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness. This is the right resolve that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, mental absorption, mental fixity, focused awareness, & verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -- right view, right effort, & right mindfulness -- run & circle around right resolve. ... "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the Arahant with ten. > If I could rephrase your other sentence to say `mindfulness of namas > and rupas leads to the development of right concentration', then I'd > be more inclined to agree. What's the difference? Have you experienced a nama or a rupa individually ever? You could do so, provided you have the same kind of intense concentration as the Buddha had. > Concepts cannot be directly known. Hence, computer, butter-jar, and self > can only ever be conceptualised or imagined but never be the objects of awareness. This is certainly some strange doctrine. Do you mean that the object of awareness in the jhana realm of nothingness is not a concept? Do you mean that nothingness is not a concept? I think I have really stumbled onto some Abhidhammic cult that I only realized until now. My understanding of the Abhidhamma is totally different from yours. I am also amazed by your ability to do apologetic linguistic twisting on the suttas that I have quoted. Totally amazed. I shall not bother anymore. Precious time is wasted in writing to you. Let this be the last one. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21162 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2, accumulations. Dear Selamat, op 11-04-2003 04:01 schreef nana cbn op nana_palo@c...: > > Akusala and kusala citta arise because of the accumulation of our kusala and > akusala before, which accummulated too in their cetasikas respectively, > isn't it? N: I think it is more complex. Suppose someone in your group listened to Dhamma. Before he was very impatient with his parents but he learnt the difference between kusala and akusala. He found out by experience that the citta with dosa is so hard, so rigid, and the citta with metta is gentle and tender. He listened to the Dhamma and what is learnt is never lost. He started to have more moments of metta so that it became a habit. But sometimes the test of his patience was too severe and the object at such moments were just right for his accumulated dosa. We cannot pinpoint exactly how accumulations work, but we know that inclinations and habits we had in the past can appear at the present time. Each citta is succeeded by a following citta and thus in this stream of cittas going on from life to life, all good and bad inclinations are carried on from the past to the present and to the future. When metta arises now this is accumulated, it is adosa cetasika, non-hate. I am not inclined to say, dosa is accumulated in dosa cetasika. I rather think of this stream of cittas, no matter by which cetasikas they are accompanied. Each moment citta is accompanied by different kinds of cetasikas and a different number of cetasikas. Also seeing is part of the stream, and this is not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas or akusala cetasikas. But still, it is also part of the stream of cittas which contain all accumulations. When we consider accumulations more, we can also understand that panna which is intellectual understanding can grow by listening more to the Dhamma. We can understand that it can develop and reach the level of direct understanding of realities. One short moment of direct awareness and understanding seems so slight, even insignificant. But it is accumulated and it can develop because of its own conditions. We may wonder how. The process of accumulation is very complex, but it works. We can notice it in our life. Nina. 21163 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Buddha's Omniscience, 1. Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo, Your question was a condition for me to look at several suttas and commentaries. I shall proceed below. op 04-04-2003 21:00 schreef Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo op vinmardeb@e...: > > Was the Buddha really omniscient? > > My understanding is that the Buddha was not an agnostic (one who does > not know). In fact, He was a gnostic or 'one who knows' (in Pali- > "janata") and was also called "Sabbannu", the 'All-knower". This means > that to whatever subject Lord Buddha attended to, He knew all the > contents of that subject. It does not mean that He always knew > everything about every subject all at once, for this very claim was one > He emphatically and specifically denied about himself. N: The citta that knows an object falls away immediately, and so it is with the Buddha's citta with omniscience. He directed his omniscience then to this and then to that object, not to more than one object at a time. Each citta can know only one object at a time. I quote from the Commentary to the Abh. Sangaha (Title: Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, P.T.S., which just came out in one book together with Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma). Ch 3, Miscellaneous Topics, under: impulsion, javana. It states: In the same Commentary we read in the Prologue: Here the Commentary refers to the Middle Length Sayings I, 26, The Ariyan Quest where the Buddha said to Upaka: We find the same text in the Dhammapada, vs. 353. In the Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, Ch 6, Materiality, it is said with regard to the smile-producing citta, which is an ahetuka kiriyacitta : I would like to add more in a following post from the Visuddhimagga and the Path of Discrimination. With respect, Nina. 21164 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Remember that you were asking me about the meaning of the words "I", "mine", "self". I would suggest not only checking a dictionary but also examining how the Buddha used these words as recorded in the discourses. I would also suggest not to assume that the word "self" as "entity", "soul", "Atman", "Jiva" etc. The Buddha's teaching has nothing to do with the belief that you mentioned. It is no always easy to give up assumptions/self-identity views, and it is not always comfortable to do so. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor and all, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: > > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen > as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. > This is not what I am. This is not my self." > > It goes against your self-identity view: > > "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." > > Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard > dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their > meanings. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: I don't think when the Buddha > taught the Anattalakkhana Sutta > to the 5 bhikkhus, He told them > looking for the meaning of the words > << I, mine, self >> in a dictionary. > > Besides, there was not a Webster > dictionary at that time (just joking :-)) > > The problem is very simple, Victor. > > The Buddha taught the Dhamma > to the common worldlings. > He should use words in the common > sense in order to whoever heard > Him even for the first time could > understand Him immediately. > He did not complicate things. > > Therefore the fact that in His second > sermon (ie. Anattalakkhana Sutta) > He did not give the definition of > << I, me, mine, self >> means that > those words convey the meaning > of which everybody had already > the << same >> understanding. > > Otherwise there would be someone > like Christine who raised her hand > asking for the definition :-)) > (Hello Christine, just kidding :-)) > > > So what is the meaning of those words? > > > Very simple, people at the time > of the Buddha believed in a > << speculative & unfounded >> > existence of an entity/soul/self > called Atman or Jiva. > (I call it the << metaphysical self >>) > > This belief << crystalizes >> into > a << factual >> feeling/sensation/thought > of << I, me, mine, myself >> inside oneself. > (I call it the << empirical self >> or ego) > Whoever does not experience this self, > please raise his/her hand :-)) > > Therefore the << mine, I, my self >> > in this famous phrase of this sermon: > > << This is mine. This I am. This is my self >> > (etam mama esohamasmi eso me attati) > (please don't ask me about the Pali words :-)) > > should be this << empirical self >> > > > This self is experienced either > as a << whole >> or as each one > of the 5 khandhas (aggregates) > > Therefore the Buddha made an analysis > to point out its << illusory, unreal >> existence > and for each khandha He said: > > << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> > (netam mama nesohamasmi na meso attati) > > > So there is no mystery about this word :-)) > > > What is worth to discuss is that > how could one eradicate this feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> ? > > For examples: > > __Victor thinks that everything > << is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: > "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." >> > > My commentary is that I don't > know whether Victor could go > further than a merely intellectual > understanding of this phrase? > If this is the case then I don't > think this is of great help. > (In my opinion, realization should be done > with panna (wisdom) and not intellect) > > __Many people on this list > (the Abhidhammikas) think that > studying the teachings, contemplating, > constantly observing the rising and falling > of the dhammas at the six sense doors > are kusala conditions for << panna >> > to arise. And this is panna that eradicates > the feeling of self (correct me if I'm wrong) > > __Others think that the eradication > should be done by << insight >> meditation > (ie. Vipassana/Satipatthana) > > __Others think that by jhanas > (but I think jhanas give only > a << temporary >> eradication) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21165 From: dwlemen Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:06pm Subject: Dreams Everyone, If I may, I would like to interject with yet another of my new person questions. In a recent chat with my wife, we were discussing dreams and dream therapy. I mentioned that I don't put much stock into it. She indicated that she was suprised, that she figured that, with my interests in Buddhism, that I would have been. Anyway, the question is, what is the traditional Buddhist's take on meanings in dreams? Are they just the "random firing of synapsis," "Secret messages from our subconscious" or something else? Peace, Dave 21166 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute To Mike: In a message dated 4/10/03 7:43:28 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali > 'dukkha'? > > If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. > > Thanks for your patience. > > mike >> > > Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion > and doubt? No. The origin of dukkha is tanhaa, as I understand it. > Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping > and aversion? Ignorance, delusion, doubt, grasping and aversion are all different mental factors, each with its own unique characteristics and all arising and subsiding instantaneously according to conditions. > Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a > separate self? No. Grasping and aversion can each arise independent of micchaadi.t.thi--the belief in a (separate?!) self. Isn't a separate self duality? No. It is a concept. > best regards, Jeff And to You, mike >> Then obviously your knowledge of Pali has made you free of suffering, delusion and doubt. Congratulations. Unfortunately your lucid articulations were unable to have an effect on me. But, my subjective experiences have freed me from my suffering. So, blessing to you, Jeff 21167 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism To Connie: In a message dated 4/10/03 9:00:30 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Hi, Friends ~ I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to any suggestions as to what to say. Thank-you, Connie >> Yes, one small one. Speak from your experience. Quoting books can be really boring. Good luck on the lecture, Jeff 21168 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Back to Rob M :-) In a message dated 4/10/03 11:22:52 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << ===== Rob M :-) I'm sorry if I implied "rejecting" anything. I am saying that "science" and "Buddhism" should be seen as separate subjects and we should not try to merge the two. ===== Jeff: Well, that's your Buddhism. I predict the evolution of the Western Vehicle will synthesis many aspects of Western culture which will have to include the Western Scientific model, because that is what the West is based upon. But, we may be in more agreement than you realize, because often the attempts to make Buddhism or religion more 'scientific' often only seem to come off as silly justifications, which anyone who has a dedicated personal practice doesn't seem to need. ===== Rob M :-) Last week, I attended a dhamma talk. The speaker referred to a Sutta where the Buddha said that He had recently appeared in other countries (through his supernormal powers), shared the Dhamma with other people and then disappeared. The speaker then referenced the writings of Lao Tze (his writings formed the basis of Taoism), who was a contemporary of the Buddha. Lao Tze talked of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy before disappearing". The speaker then went on to list amazing parallels between the writings of Lao Tze and the Suttas (Tao = Nibbana, Five Precepts, etc.). I am trying to find the Sutta reference. ===== Jeff: This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. But first, yes, Lao Tze and the historic Buddha seemed to have been contemporaries, plus minus 50 years. There maybe a record of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy" with Lao Tze, but it is most probably apocryphal. Additionally in China there are stories that when Lao Tze left China, he went to India and was recognized as the Buddha. I think you will agree with me that story is most probably apocryphal as well. I believe what is behind the magic stories that every culture invents about their prophet are most likely inventions to embellish upon the story to gain devotees. Until I see someone part the seas, walk on water, fly bodily through the air, BI-locate, or raise the dead, I'll assume these feats are all fiction. All I needed was freedom from suffering, and a method to get there. The magic in my life is, through rigorous practice, I have arrived at being more happy and fulfilled ever moment of everyday. What other magic would anyone ever want? Best to you, Jeff 21169 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:22pm Subject: Just a reminder.... Dear Group, The friendly, respectful communication between members on this list has always made it a safe and happy place for discussion, even when there are wide differences in individual understanding of the Dhamma and ways of following it. Often people vehemently supportive of one interpretation find they can learn and benefit from the fact that others see things from a different perspective. May I draw everyone's attention to the List Rules at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ and particularly to this one: "Please respect and be tolerant of views which may be different from your own. The following are not welcome on this list: flame messages, messages that use harsh language or sarcasm, messages that are discourteous or show contempt, and messages that are likely to cause personal discord. " metta, Christine 21170 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:23pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Everyone. Thank you for the suggestions on the talk, Christine, Sarah, Howard, Victor and Jeff. And thanks in advance to anyone else who might add to them. Normally, I probably don't talk an hour's worth in a whole day, so I'm not sure how much I can say in that much time... plus another hour of Q & A. From the conversation with the teacher last night, it's going to turn into a comparative Buddhism talk... a little historical background, what I see as the common ground and differences among the main branches and my personal history with Buddhist thought. Guess I'll just have to come up with an outline with room for stuttering and talk outloud to myself all week. I'll let you know how it goes. peace, connie 21171 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > The friendly, respectful communication between members on this list > has always made it a safe and happy place for discussion, even when > there are wide differences in individual understanding of the Dhamma > and ways of following it. Often people vehemently supportive of one > interpretation find they can learn and benefit from the fact that > others see things from a different perspective. Christine, Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise of Buddhism. Metta, James ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said differently were going on false information or kidding themselves (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21172 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 4:02pm Subject: Re: Dreams Hi Dave, Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/main.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > If I may, I would like to interject with yet another of my new person > questions. > > In a recent chat with my wife, we were discussing dreams and dream > therapy. I mentioned that I don't put much stock into it. She > indicated that she was suprised, that she figured that, with my > interests in Buddhism, that I would have been. > > Anyway, the question is, what is the traditional Buddhist's take on > meanings in dreams? Are they just the "random firing of > synapsis," "Secret messages from our subconscious" or something else? > > > Peace, > > > > Dave 21173 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha KKT You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"). To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" and "conditioned phenomena" here. These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the same thing? To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana). The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental phenomena. The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or computer). I hope this answers your question. Jon --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: It's my fault for not being > very clear with my question. > > I try another approach. > > Take the famous phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are no-self) > > Atta is usually understood as self/soul. > > Therefore if we say: > a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) > then this phrase is understandable. > > But if we say: a table is anatta. > > Does it make sense? > How do you understand this phrase? > > > Metta, > > > KKT 21174 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya op 11-04-2003 15:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > In a message dated 4/11/03 12:10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > writes: > > ============================ > Thanks, Nina. Well, okay then. So I wasn't completely off base. There > is a bit of avoidance recommended, at least at certain stages of development. The first monk replies: "I put her down a long > time ago, but you are still carrying her!" The first monk was at a stage at > which grasping after sensual experience was not an issue, the second monk was > not. Had the first monk been at the level of the second, his action would > have done harm to his equanimity and would have been inadvisable (plus > prohibited by rule, of course). N: I know what you mean, but there are other aspects to the Vinaya. The Buddha thought of the layfollowers who would see the monk's conduct. The Vinaya was laid down for several reasons and among them is helping layfollowers to have confidence in the Sangha. Nina. 21175 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"). To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" and "conditioned phenomena" here. These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the same thing? To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana). The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental phenomena. The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or computer). I hope this answers your question. Jon KKT: If I understand you correctly then: __For you the word << dhamma >> means exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? __A concept (pannatti) is not considered as << dhamma >> ? Therefore the concept 'table' is not a << dhamma >> ? Although concept is object of the mind-door, it is not considered as << dhamma >> ? __Concept does not rise and fall away like paramattha dhamma ? __Return to the phrase: Sabbe dhamma anatta (All dhammas are not-self) If I say << the eye is not-self >> << the sound is not-self >> << mana (conceit) is not-self >> what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21176 From: ajahn_paul Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Re: Dreams Christine, any thinking in ur own mind about Dreams? I dont beleive that dreams is some kind of fortune-teller (many ppl do). BTW, i belive that ppl that practise meditation wont have much dreams! ^^ what do u think? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". > Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. 21177 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor I think you have put your finger on the nub of the difference between us, Victor, namely, what is meant by the five aggregates. I have discussed this subject in a post sent to KKT just a short time ago, so I won't repeat myself here, but I'm happy to expand on anything I said there. On your opening paragraph below, I have a brief comment. Although as a matter of conventional speech one can say that a computer is impermanent and might therefore also be considered unsatisfactory etc, I would certainly not regard this as *seeing* computer as impermanent or dukkha. I would regard what you describe here as a level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just ordinary thinking. Thinking of computer as impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, does not amount to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, nor is it necessarily even kusala. By that I mean that thinking of computer as dukkha or not-self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think the characteristic of dukkha can be directly seen or experienced only by developing awareness and understanding of conditioned phenomena (aka the five aggregates), and I suspect it needs quite a lot of development before the 3 characteristics can be seen to any marked degree. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You see that a computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not last > forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually. You also see that > what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory in the sense that > something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful > sense of the word. In short, you see that a computer is > impermanent > and dukkha as it actually is. > > When the Buddha stated the Noble Truth of Dukkha, he stated that: > > "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." > > The Buddha started with stating a few specific instances of > conditioned phenomena being dukkha and ended with a general > statement: > "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > Birth belongs to one of the aggregates, and so does aging, death, > sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair, association with the > unbeloved, separation from the loved, or not getting what is > wanted. The five aggregates include all the conditioned; they > includes the whole range of conditioned > things/qualities/phenomena/situations. > > A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the > aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of > > perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of > consciousness. > > Saying that form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) > > is dukkha is in effect saying that whatever form (feeling, > perception, fabrications, consciousness), be it past, future, or > present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or > sublime; > far or near, is dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor 21178 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: Dreams Hello Paul, and All, How lovely to hear from you. :-) I hope you and your lady and your families are all safe and well. I think dreams are a number of things. Firstly, I think there are dreams that seem to predict a future event - I had a clearly remembered dream when I was in high school about an event a year into the future. It was an insignificant event - just a day in an office job, but the office layout and the people were exactly as I dreamed, and I had never seen office or people before. I knew when I dreamed it that it was different to a normal dream, and I was quite disappointed that it wasn't about a world shaking event. It seemed rather pointless really - but it did occur. I wonder what this means from an Abhidhammic point of view - isn't the future supposed not to be set in place? Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases tensions and feeling *memories*. Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So everyone else must? {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Christine, > > any thinking in ur own mind about Dreams? > > I dont beleive that dreams is some kind of fortune-teller (many ppl > do). BTW, i belive that ppl that practise meditation wont have much > dreams! ^^ what do u think? > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". > > Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. 21179 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:16am Subject: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT Thanks for the detailed questions. I believe this is a very important area. I always find it helpful to discuss. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word << dhamma >> means > exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? In the context of the passage from the texts that you asked me to comment on ('sabbe dhamma anatta'), I understand 'dhamma' to mean all conditioned phenomena (sankhara) plus nibbana, that is to say, the paramattha dhammas. (In some other contexts, 'dhamma' can include concepts.) > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? In the context we are discussing, that's correct. A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind. > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a << dhamma >> ? Correct. There is no paramattha dhamma of 'table' to be directly experienced through a single doorway. What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors (and assembled with the assistance of the recollection of previously assembled ideas). > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? Correct, concept is not considered a paramattha dhamma. While the objects experienced through the sense-doors are all paramattha dhammas, the object experienced through the mind-door may be a paramattha dhamma or it may be a concept. > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness. > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say << the eye is not-self >> > << the sound is not-self >> > << mana (conceit) is not-self >> > what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. (A word of explanation first. 'Eye' here refers to the paramattha dhamma that is the eye-base -- the physical eye is not a paramattha dhamma) I think it's important to appreciate that 'not-self', like impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, is a *characteristic* of paramattha dhammas. The significance of saying that something is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas is that as paramattha dhammas gradually become better known to understanding, their characteristics also gradually become more apparent. The more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the more one understands about the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. The Buddha gave at least 2 elaborations of the meaning of 'not-self'. One is to the effect of 'not subject to mastery', the other, 'lacking in an abiding soul or essence'. These are presumably different ways of saying the same thing. (Interestingly, it seems that for most listeners to the Buddha's sermons no such elaboration was necessary; the meaning of 'not-self' was readily apparent from the fact that the dhammas were already seen to be impermanent and unsatisfactory. I think those listeners must have had a highly developed understanding of paramattha dhammas already). I tend to think of 'not-self' as being a negation of certain characteristics that we wrongly attribute to paramattha dhammas, because of deeply ingrained wrong view. KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? Jon 21180 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:59am Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Paul, and All, > > How lovely to hear from you. :-) I hope you and your lady and your > families are all safe and well. Im fine... today, but who knows what will happen tomorrow? :( > I think dreams are a number of things. Firstly, I think there are > dreams that seem to predict a future event - I had a clearly > remembered dream when I was in high school about an event a year into > the future. It was an insignificant event - just a day in an office > job, but the office layout and the people were exactly as I dreamed, > and I had never seen office or people before. I knew when I dreamed > it that it was different to a normal dream, and I was quite > disappointed that it wasn't about a world shaking event. It seemed > rather pointless really - but it did occur. I wonder what this means > from an Abhidhammic point of view - isn't the future supposed not to > be set in place? Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. > Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as > the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases > tensions and feeling *memories*. agree! > Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So > everyone else must? > > {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember > reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who > just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and > mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up > every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very > aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} mmm.... may be, its a way to relax for ordinary ppl! ^^ > And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in > advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to > myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in > detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > metta, > Christine 21181 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and KKT) - I agree with what you write in the following; I especially like your statement "At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table')". There is one thing, though, that you wrote which I think you didn't intend as it came out. With regard to the expressions "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self") and "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"), you wrote the following: "To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana)". You follow this immediately by the following: "The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta". Your main point in this was, of course, to state that the tilakkhana apply only to actually observed phenomena, and not projections of mere concept. But the last two paragraphs of your also, when read literally, and not as I know you intended, include nibbana as as being anicca and dukkha. I point this out just in case it might have been misunderstood by anyone. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/11/03 10:26:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > KKT > > You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe > dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps > include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe > sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are > impermanent/unsatisfactory"). > > To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" > and "conditioned phenomena" here. > > These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates > (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), > appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching > on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own > (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the > same thing? > > To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same > thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental > phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the > Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of > consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, > cetasika, rupa and nibbana). > > The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the > world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just > these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena > all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for > himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there > is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects > through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature > of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which > it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature > impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a > superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be > the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the > truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. > > Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the > Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not > include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the > characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The > characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, > of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental > phenomena. > > The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the > most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he > did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than > the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, > for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is > visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking > about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness > that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). > > The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or > computer). > > I hope this answers your question. > > Jon > > /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) 21182 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, KKT - In a message dated 4/12/03 2:05:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word <>means > exclusively <>? > > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as <>? > > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a <>? > > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as <>? > > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? > > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say <> > <> > <> > what is the meaning of <>here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. > > > Thank you, Jon. > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > =============================== I agree with you that concepts arise and cease as objects of consciousness. These momentarily arising mental constructs are actually observed and are anicca. They don't last. But their intended referents, which often, it seems to me, are what Jon and others here mean by "concepts", are not anicca because they do not actually exist at all, at least not undeniably. I see a sequence of visual rupas, sa~n~na separates out and mentally tags aspects of these as patterns seen before - they are "recognized", and then the concept of 'computer monitor' arises in the mind. The rupas were actually observed, the recognition occurred, and the arising concept was discerned, but the alleged external computer monitor was not observed, but only projected and presumed. The "monitor", per se, doesn't actually exist, or, at least, is, in principle never directly discerned. Conventionally, however, it is proper to speak of the monitor as impermanent, because "the monitor" projected now differs from "the monitor" projected five years from now - we identify the two alleged existents as a single entity which has changed over time. What has actually happened, is that certain types of paramattha dhammas that arose at first, and that we subsumed under 'the monitor' at that time, no longer arise, and, perhaps, also certain paramattha dhammas that did *not* at first arise, now do. For example, we might at first "see" a new looking monitor, but later we see that "it" has "become" faded in color, and that "it" doesn't work as well ("The keys now stick"), and so on. 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) 21183 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:47am Subject: five things to be remembered Dear Sarah and all, We are very upset, because we heard that my father has plans to ask for euthanasy. I am thinking so much of Jon's mother and how he tried to put it out of her head, with success. We are thinking of what to say, having to keep our heads cool. He liked a French philosopher, Teilhard du Chardin, who said, you have to end well (finir bien). It is not so much his oncoming death but this way that upsets us. I received from our Pali teacher a very good text that I used, helping a sick person. He reminded us that ageing is each moment. He said also: you need it yourself, not only the sick person. He said: This text reminds me that whatever happens is conditioned. This is a great consolation. I remembered that you mentioned A. Sujin's words, that we never know what will happen. When you phoned her about the change of Bgk plans because of Sars. This may seem too simple to some people, but when we deeply consider conditions this is full of meaning. As you also said, it is important to know that life is in one moment. I try to remember this when we visit my father. As Mike said to Rahula, "Dying and being reborn every instant, with each new mental moment and factor. Where did Rahula go?" And you also quoted A. Sujin's words that I had used, and how meaningful now for me: We cannot change my father but we have to face the problems with wise attention, to whatever degree we are able to. Anumodana for your very helpful reminders, Nina. 21184 From: dwlemen Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: Dreams Christine and Paul, Thanks for the interesting input. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't know much about Buddhist theory on dreams, but, just from my own perceptions/opinions, I do think I agree with Paul's statements, especially in regards to predicting the future. If the future can be "seen" in any way, that would have to dictate complete predestination which therefore means that any idea of effort or will is meaningless. I suppose it is just me, but I just can't see how a system of predestination is any better / different than nihilism. > PAUL WROTE: > > Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did > not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 > second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my > dreams. > DAVE REPLY: I agree. I've heard the same explaination for "deja-vous" as well. The eyes see it but somehow before it can get processed, it sees it "again" and tries to make sense of the second "original" sight by attributing it to an unknown past. > > CHRISTINE WROTE: > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) > > PAUL WROTE: > may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > DAVE REPLY: Probably right. They probably don't have much to do with the real purpose of enlightenment. But, it's still an interesting point to think about! Peace, Dave 21185 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Please note that 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. 2. It is not asking whether you regard what I described as a level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just ordinary thinking or not. 3. It is not asking whether or not thinking of computer as impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, amounts to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, whether or not it is necessarily even kusala. 4. It is not asking whether thinking of computer as dukkha or not- self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > I think you have put your finger on the nub of the difference between > us, Victor, namely, what is meant by the five aggregates. I have > discussed this subject in a post sent to KKT just a short time ago, > so I won't repeat myself here, but I'm happy to expand on anything I > said there. > > On your opening paragraph below, I have a brief comment. Although as > a matter of conventional speech one can say that a computer is > impermanent and might therefore also be considered unsatisfactory > etc, I would certainly not regard this as *seeing* computer as > impermanent or dukkha. I would regard what you describe here as a > level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just > ordinary thinking. Thinking of computer as impermanent, or > contemplating on the impermanence of computer, does not amount to the > *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, nor is it > necessarily even kusala. By that I mean that thinking of computer as > dukkha or not-self could still be thinking with an idea of self or > other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. > > As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think the characteristic of > dukkha can be directly seen or experienced only by developing > awareness and understanding of conditioned phenomena (aka the five > aggregates), and I suspect it needs quite a lot of development before > the 3 characteristics can be seen to any marked degree. > > Jon 21186 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:01am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hi Jon and KKT, Jon, if a concept is simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts), then is it conditioned or unconditioned? Is a concept permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: [snip] > > > __Concept does not rise and fall away > > like paramattha dhamma ? > > Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere > seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply > assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense- door > impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously > assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall > away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same > in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are > a 'creation' of consciousness. [snip] > > Jon 21187 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and Jon) - In a message dated 4/12/03 10:50:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five > aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Please note that > > 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that > computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. > > 2. It is not asking whether you regard what I described as a level > of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just > ordinary thinking or not. > > 3. It is not asking whether or not thinking of computer as > impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, > amounts to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, > whether or not it is necessarily even kusala. > > 4. It is not asking whether thinking of computer as dukkha or not- > self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of > wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. > > > Regards, > Victor > > ========================== What you ask of Jon is, indeed, none of the things in your list of 4 items. It seems to me that your question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires of Jon that he adopt the same presumption that you are making that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer, not just conventionally and in a manner of speaking, but actually. But this is similar to a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. The question itself carries a presupposition not accepted by Jon, and any direct yes/no answer to it accepts that presupposition. Jon cannot say that a computer is permanent or impermanent (except as a shorthand for a far more complex statement), because to say so would require acceptance of the claim that there exists, in actuality, and not just as a verbal shorthand, a thing called 'computer'. 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) 21188 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... Hi James, Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." Regards, Victor > Christine, > > Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. > Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation > based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes > in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the > truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, > geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this > group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations > of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put > forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their > egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the > development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise > of Buddhism. > > Metta, James > > ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to > Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all > false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything > having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said > differently were going on false information or kidding themselves > (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow > Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21189 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Where did you get the idea that I am making the presumption that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - > [snip] > What you ask of Jon is, indeed, none of the things in your list of 4 > items. It seems to me that your question "Is a computer permanent or > impermanent?" requires of Jon that he adopt the same presumption that you are > making that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer, not just > conventionally and in a manner of speaking, but actually. But this is similar > to a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. The question itself > carries a presupposition not accepted by Jon, and any direct yes/no answer to > it accepts that presupposition. Jon cannot say that a computer is permanent > or impermanent (except as a shorthand for a far more complex statement), > because to say so would require acceptance of the claim that there exists, in > actuality, and not just as a verbal shorthand, a thing called 'computer'. > > With metta, > Howard 21190 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 9:25am Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Then obviously your knowledge of Pali has made you free of suffering, > delusion and doubt. Congratulations. Spare me the sarcasm, too. It also is out of place on this list. > Unfortunately your lucid articulations > were unable to have an effect on me. Sorry I've been unable to help. > But, my subjective experiences have > freed me from my suffering. Are you claiming to have attained enlightenment? mike 21191 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 10:37am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to > characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." > > Regards, > Victor Hi Victor, Thanks! That is completely the word I was looking for! Take care. Metta, James 21192 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:34am Subject: concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, Sorry to cut you off at the end of the lute thread. It got so complicated I couldn't figure out how to sort it out. Now I think I can do that in 2 posts, focusing on concept in this one and citta process in the next. Also, I'm not going to attempt to present your position, but only my own. I would like to use only the abhidhamma sense of "concept", which is that a concept is a word or meaning of a word. In that sense, discriminating between realty and concept is a matter of discriminating between experience and thinking (with words) about experience. To say that a concept lacks an "own-nature" (sabhava) is simply to say that there is no cake in the thought of the cake, for example. "Own-nature" is slightly different from "self" and means basically "experience". The problem is that many people are confusing concept with compound. In Buddhaghosa"s example of the carriage [anyone have an exact reference for this?] the carriage is said to not exist under analysis of its parts. But the carriage does not not-exist because it is a concept, rather it does not exist because it is a compound, like the khandhas. There is no carriage self or essence in the carriage but somebody could take a ride in the carriage, so it has kammic viability. Of course this discussion of the carriage is conceptual and as such there are no carriage characteristics in this discussion; nobody could take a ride in this discussion. So there is no carriage own-nature (experience) in this discussion. What is not an object of satipatthana is the self of the carriage and the experience of carriage in the concept of carriage. However, to conceptually analyze the carriage into its parts and not find any part that is carriage would give one a legitimate insight into the "not-self" characteristic. Presumably, a more powerful insight would be gained by analyzing the _experience_ of the carriage and not finding a carriage anywhere. This is exemplified by the destruction of the lute in the Lute Sutta.The point of the concept/reality discrimination is to emphasize experience over talking or thinking, but above all to emphasize analysis of experience and, at second best, analysis of concepts. To say that compounds are nonexistent is not quite right. It would be better to say there is no self in compounds and self is nonexistent. To say that concepts are nonexistent is also not quite right. It would be better to say there is no experience of the subject of a concept in the concept [except for words that sound like their meaning]. Larry 21193 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:57am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... Hello James, Victor and All, What you see as the correct and full understanding of the Dhamma, is not what others believe, and have believed through the ages, to be the teaching of the Theravada tradition in its entirety. You, and everyone else, are welcome to put forward your understanding and discuss differences in a friendly, courteous and supportive way. Everyone is encouraged to read the Tipitaka and draw to attention when there is support (or not) for a particular understanding. Questions and requests for clarification are welcome from either of you and have been met with kindness and willing explanations. The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment." It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders why else would anyone bother to join? Victor and James, you have been treated respectfully. I would hope that another time you may respond differently, when speaking of the teachings in the Pali Canon, deeply revered by millions of people around the world, and by countless others through the ages. I read the Pasuara Sutta today. I think it is relevant to some recent threads. It counsels against having vehement views and disputes about the Dhamma. "Only here is there purity" -- that's what they say -- "No other doctrines are pure" -- so they say. Insisting that what they depend on is good, they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths. <<<>>>> Those who dispute, taking hold of a view, saying, "This, and this only, is true," those you can talk to. Here there is nothing -- no confrontation at the birth of disputes. Among those who live above confrontation not pitting view against view, whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura, among those here who are grasping no more? So here you come, conjecturing, your mind conjuring viewpoints. You're paired off with a pure one and so cannot proceed." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-08.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to > characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." > > Regards, > Victor > > > Christine, > > > > Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely > disagree. > > Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation > > based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only > comes > > in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not > the > > truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, > > geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this > > group or any group allow for all different and varied > interpretations > > of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who > put > > forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their > > egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the > > development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual > demise > > of Buddhism. > > > > Metta, James > > > > ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to > > Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all > > false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything > > having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said > > differently were going on false information or kidding themselves > > (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly > follow > > Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21194 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Where did you get the idea that I am making the presumption that > there is a thing "out there" that is a computer? > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== I understood you to be saying that a computer, literally, is impermanent. When one attributes a property to a thing, per force, one usually considers the thing to exist. I take it, though, that I am not understanding you correctly on this, and I welcome correction by you. 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) 21195 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:08pm Subject: kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi Howard, This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or vague attitude in the body door process. I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door processes: Way 63 & 64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front": Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door process being more real than mind door process. One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. Larry 21196 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 2:35:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry to cut you off at the end of the lute thread. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Not at all! No problem. In fact, I think that it should be understood that any of us on the list should have the right to drop out of a thread at any time, without any explanation. (Just being tired of it should be enough.) --------------------------------------------- It got so> > complicated I couldn't figure out how to sort it out. Now I think I can > do that in 2 posts, focusing on concept in this one and citta process in > the next. Also, I'm not going to attempt to present your position, but > only my own. > > I would like to use only the abhidhamma sense of "concept", which is > that a concept is a word or meaning of a word. In that sense, > discriminating between realty and concept is a matter of discriminating > between experience and thinking (with words) about experience. To say > that a concept lacks an "own-nature" (sabhava) is simply to say that > there is no cake in the thought of the cake, for example. "Own-nature" > is slightly different from "self" and means basically "experience". > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm wary about the term 'own nature' or 'sabhava'. To me it suggests independent existence or entity-ness. But I certainly agree that there is no cake in the concept of cake. What is deeper than that, I think, though you may not buy this, is that there is actually no cake .. period (except in a manner of speaking). I see our "world" as populated only by so-to-speak things that we project based on conceptual construction. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The problem is that many people are confusing concept with compound. In > Buddhaghosa"s example of the carriage [anyone have an exact reference > for this?] the carriage is said to not exist under analysis of its > parts. > But the carriage does not not-exist because it is a concept,> > rather it does not exist because it is a compound, like the khandhas. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The carriage does not exist except conventionally, not because it is (referent of) a concept, but because it is a *never actually observed* referent of a concept. We *think* we have seen a carriage, but instead we have seen a sequence of images and then applied the 'carriage' concept as a mental tag. There is the idea or concept of carriage, which pops into the mind whenever certain sequences of images appear, but only those images, are directly apprehended, not the alleged carriage. (The same holds of cake.) When we see that an alleged entity is composed of parts, that is a means to know that it is concept-only (by which I mean "merely conceptual, merely conventional"). There are two kinds of concept-only categories of alleged objects, those which are well grounded (based on actual experiences) such as carriages, trees, and cakes, and those which are ungrounded, based on mere imagination, such as unicorns and selves. We also have the concept of hardness. But hardness is not concept-only, because it can be directly apprehended by rupic vi~n~nana. But the hardness, itself, felt in the body, is different from the hardness-concept. ----------------------------------------------------------- > There is no carriage self or essence in the carriage but somebody could > take a ride in the carriage, so it has kammic viability. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is a sequence of experiential events that can occur that we CALL "taking a ride in a carriage." ----------------------------------------------------- Of course this> > discussion of the carriage is conceptual and as such there are no > carriage characteristics in this discussion; nobody could take a ride in > this discussion. So there is no carriage own-nature (experience) in this > discussion. > > What is not an object of satipatthana is the self of the carriage and > the experience of carriage in the concept of carriage. However, to > conceptually analyze the carriage into its parts and not find any part > that is carriage would give one a legitimate insight into the "not-self" > characteristic. Presumably, a more powerful insight would be gained by > analyzing the _experience_ of the carriage and not finding a carriage > anywhere. This is exemplified by the destruction of the lute in the Lute > Sutta.The point of the concept/reality discrimination is to emphasize > experience over talking or thinking, but above all to emphasize analysis > of experience and, at second best, analysis of concepts. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think I concur with the content of your previous paragraph. ------------------------------------------------- > > To say that compounds are nonexistent is not quite right. It would be > better to say there is no self in compounds and self is nonexistent. To > say that concepts are nonexistent is also not quite right. It would be > better to say there is no experience of the subject of a concept in the > concept [except for words that sound like their meaning]. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I think we disagree. I say that compounds are concept-only, they have conventional existence, but can not be found under analysis. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ============================ 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) 21197 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Larry - Thank you for the following. Unfortunately, I find myself at a loss to give you any sort of coherent response. This level of Abhidhamma-speak goes way beyond me. I find my eyes and mind glaze over as I read it. This is not your fault - it is mine! But it is what it is. I'm really sorry I can't engage you on the content of this post. I do hope that someone else will respond to you on this. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/12/03 4:10:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your > idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, > not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below > but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in > the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series > (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague > attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door > with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or > vague attitude in the body door process. > > I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and > to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main > point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door > process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by > accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. > > Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door > processes: > > Way 63 &64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and > in looking away from the front": > > Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even > in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight > on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance > by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision > by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the > fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, > like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up > gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking > straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and > ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," > or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished > after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for > recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. > > [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh > impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a > definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a > woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of > sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, > by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical > reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to > adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed > arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion > that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not > liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an > extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door > cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and > ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But > impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, > hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all > beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the > root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has > been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual > state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the > newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors > of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion > > L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and > therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most > profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door > process being more real than mind door process. > > One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door > process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the > conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be > a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or > recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow > the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that > could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. > > Larry > > /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) 21198 21000 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, I think this is the crux of our disagreement: H: "Here I think we disagree. I say that compounds are concept-only, they have conventional existence, but can not be found under analysis." L: Actually I think this is very logical but I don't think it is what the Buddha taught. It doesn't allow for the middle ground of the truth of kamma unless you say kamma and, by implication, the 4 noble truths, are only conventional. I would agree with you if this is what you want to say but I don't think we will win many Buddhist friends with that idea. The most obvious counter argument is that it is nihilistic. Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear consciousness all arise together. Larry 21199 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Take heart Howard. Eventhough you didn't understand the lingo you got it right. Larry