22200 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Sarah, Thanks for your wish.I am very well and doing well.I have kept eight precepts today.Kusala things make me calm and peaceful.As we are engaged in our daily routine it is a privilege to take a break in the middle of the weekdays.How peaceful it is to do meditation on Atthingha Sila.I practice even in between day to day work.I will post some topic soon.Thanks for your applause. May you be peacefully stay the day. Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, It's good to see you back again - you were missed! I'll look forward to your 'new topics for lively discussion'. Nina's on holiday and without internet access until about the 24th May, but I'll draw her attention to any posts addressed to her that have come in since she left or which come in for her before she returns. I hope you're well. With metta and Vesak Greetings to you and all. Sarah ====== --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I > was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read > your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part > in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. 22201 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Mike, I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. May you be happy with this explanation. With Much Metta, Htoo Naing "m. nease" wrote: Dear Htoo Naing, Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a peaceful abiding here and now'. I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form of pa.n.natti'?) Saadhu, Mike p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Member, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > With Great Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & 22202 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Sarah, May I discuss something related to Aayatana. Aayatana is the thing that serves as Dvara(door) or Arammana(sense). Aayatana is dhamma that expands arising of Citta and Cetasikas. Aayatana is dhamma that is the cause of Citta and Cetasikas. If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more understandable. ==================================================== A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) =================================== Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are 1.Citta 2.Cetasikas 3. 5 Pasada Rupas 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa 5. Nibbana 6.Pannatta I hope these will work for more understanding. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Friends, There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known by knowledge or wisdom. Most of us rely on English translations and in any case have limited knowledge of the terms and ideas being referred to. Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Many have referred to different suttas, but Swee Boon wrote a particularly clear post on this topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/21647 From previous detailed discussions on ayatana, I believe the equating of ayatanas with arammana (as elaborated in Swee Boon’s post) is incorrect, though very widely held by Pali scholars. I hope I can present the differences simply and clearly here. ============================================================ Arammana (object) ******** 1. visible object 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. body-impression 6. mind-object (dhammaaramma.na) ..... Note: Dhammarammana (mind-object) 1. nama, inc. nibbana 2. rupa 3. concept (pannatti) ..... Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e experienced by) of consciousness (citta/mano/vi~n~nana) ==================== Ayatana (bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (rupayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) ....... Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) 3. nibbana ....... Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and NOT to concepts. ================================================= Confusions arise from translated terms of dhamma, dhammarammana, mano, manayatana, dhammayatana etc . Furthemore, sometimes, dhammarammana refers to dhammayatana and we have to look at the context and commentary notes. ..... Note: dhamma can refer to paramattha dhammas only or to dhammarammana inc pannatti and has to be understood in context. ..... A rough guide: B.Bodhi:- ayatana -base mano (manayatana)- mind, mental dhamma (dhammayatana), dhammarammana- mental phenomenon, mental object, mind object B.Thanissaro:- mano (manayatana) - intellect dhamma (dhammayatana) - ideas ..... Examples from Salyatanasamyutta(Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya. As is apparent in the heading, ‘Salayatana’, it is the ayatanas being referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. I can’t find a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but still under Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the Sabba Sutta before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana. ..... Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta (see link) are therefore incorrect. These are not easy aspects to comprehend, but I hope these notes may help clarify a little other discussions about sutta passages being discussed where there is some controversy about whether paramattha dhammas or pannatti are being referred to by translation terms, such as mind, mind objects, intellect or ideas. Of course any comments are welcome. For more details on ayatanas, see posts under ‘ayatana’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 Sabba Sutta The All Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22203 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/15/03 12:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Howard > > How are you? And joyous Vesak! > > You quoted the following. > > "Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation of awareness." > > Those verse lines are translation of the following Pali. > > "pajjotasseva nibbaanam, vimokkho cetaso ahuu"ti." > > Most people who read Pali do not translate the term "nibbaanam" as > unbinding. > > The Pali phrase "pajjotasseva nibbaanam" should be translated > as "Like a flame's extinguishment". > ------------------------------------------ Howard: You are correct. The "unbinding" translation is idiosyncratic to Ven. Thanissaro. My point, however, was directed more towards 'vimokkho'. And would you describe that as extinction as well? I understand it to mean "liberation". ------------------------------------------- > > To consult the meaning of nibbaanam in the Pali-English dictionary, > please go to the following link, and type nibbana in the Search slot. > > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html > > Sorry to undermine the attachment to the non-existent consciousness / > awareness after parinibbaana. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: My, what kindness. That is the intent, yes? ------------------------------------------- > > With sympathy, > -------------------------------------------- Howard: And sarcasm? ------------------------------------------- > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > ========================= With metta, Howard > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. > It can be found at > HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html > Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the > Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The > second is the > final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the > following: > > >Like a flame's unbinding > > was the liberation > > of awareness. > > Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, > annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It > speaks of > "the liberation of awareness." > I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what > we will. > > 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) 22204 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi again, Suan - I merely raised a matter for thinking about. I didn't assert an unwavering belief of mine. You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant. This matter was discussed a couple years ago, at which time I wrote a post which points out that the matter is not entirely clear. I copy the post below for your perusal. 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) ====================================== Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana Date: 11/7/01 10:09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time From: upasaka@a... Reply-to: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/7/01 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard and Jon, > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > thus have I heard: > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > with the groups of existence still remainin > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > groups of existence still remaining. > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > remaining. endquote > robert > > ============================= Well, that certainly is somewhat clear. But it is said: "In that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence remaining." By itself, it is a minor point that it talks here only of the extinction of the no-longer-relished feelings instead of the extinction of every aspect of the khandhas. However, there is another point that may not be so minor, especially when taken together with the first. There is said, first, the following in talking about the living arahant: "What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still remaining? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the groups of existence still remaining." What I find interesting here is that there is discussed only the remaining of the *five* sense organs (until death) and the experience of what is pleasant and unpleasant and of bodily ease and pain coming through them. This pleasantness, unpleasantness, and bodily ease and pain experienced via the five senses constitutes the no-longer-relished feelings extinguished at the death of the arahant. Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death of the arahant. 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) 22205 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Yasa, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.We all well appreciate your post which contained extensive explanation regarding dhamma matter in detail.I would add something to your post. > 1.Rupakkhandha > Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) > > 2.Vedanakkhandha > Vedana + Khandha (Somanassa,Sukha,Domanassa,Dukkha and Upekkha) > > 3.Sannakkhandha > Sanna + Khandha (Sanna Cetasika or memory_which is brought along with each Citta through out Samsara) > > 4. Sankharakkhandha > Sankhara + Khandha (all Cetasikas except Vedana and Sanna) > > 5. Vinnana + Khandha (89 Cittas) > > With much respect, > > Htoo Naing >_______________________________Yasa replies______________________ Dear Htoo Naing, Thankyou very much for showing me the expansion of Khandhas. I am new to Abhidhamma, which I read to understand the citta,which is helpful, when it comes to dhamma-vicara in meditation. Looking forward for more words of dhamma from you. May you be happy, with metta Yasa 22206 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Howard ~ I believe Thannisaro (who else) talks about 'consciousness with no landing place' or an 'unbounded consciousness' in one of his dhamma lectures at http://66.220.26.3/adharma - sorry I don't remember which now. Also reading "The Patthanuddesa Dipani - The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations By Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw" and in the section on jhana paccaya he says: ....The seven constituents of jhana are the paccaya-Dhammas in the relation of jhana. They are: vitakka (initial application), vicara (sustained application), piti (pleasurable interest, somanassa (joy), domanassa (grief), upekkha (hedonic indifference) and ekaggata (concentration in the sense of capacity to individualize). All classes of consciousness (with the exception of the five senses), their concomitants and material qualities in coexistence with the seven constituents, are the paccayuppanna-Dhammas here. ....no deed, such as giving charity or taking life can be executed by a feeble mind lacking the necessary constituents of jhana. It is the same with all moral and immoral deeds ....Jhana is to be understood in the sense of closely viewing or actively looking at which (the no deed part) suggests that at least a feeble jhana predisposition is accumulating a great deal of the time. Just thought it was interesting and hadn't thought of it like that before. peace, connie 22207 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, One more point that is causing confusion, or debate, is what is a concept. Reading part way through A. Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" I discovered that form is considered to be a concept. Is that correct? Is it correct to say ultimately rupa is formless and any form or shape "apparently" experienced through the 5 senses is, in reality, a mind door conception of self. This would apply to all 5 rupa senses, not just "visual" form. Any form is an intimation of wholeness, and wholeness is considered to be a synonym for self. If I have this correctly, the main problem I see is that if rupa is in reality formless, how can it be kamma result? How can the formless be desirable or undesirable? This approach seems to lead to the view that kamma is not a paramatta dhamma, is not ultimately real. Is that how you see it? Larry here's the link: http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm 22208 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:14pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, RobM ~ I guess if you don't want the hard-drives set up-right, you wouldn't want the software de-bugged? (*-sorry, connie 22209 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Way 89, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 3. Sloth and Torpor Through wrong reflection on a state of boredom and the like, sloth and torpor come to be. Boredom is just dissatisfaction. Lassitude is bodily laziness. Languidity of body is the bending of the body torpidly in getting up and in similar actions. Lethargy after a meal is a dizziness or slight faint which is due to eating a principal meal. It is also called the discomfort which follows such a meal. The mind's sluggishness is the dullness of the mind. An abundance of wrong reflection on boredom and similar states of mind produces sloth and torpor. Therefore the Blessed One said that much wrong reflection on boredom, lassitude, languidity of body, lethargy after a meal, and the mind's sluggishness, is a condition for the production of fresh sloth and torpor and the increase and expansion of sloth and torpor already come into being. Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor. There are six things which lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor: The seeing of the reason of sloth and torpor in the fact of eating too much or gluttony; the changing of the postures completely; reflection on the perception of light; staying in the open; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists in dispelling sloth and torpor. There is the following explanation of these six things: The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously is assailed by sloth and torpor while doing his recluse duty of meditation in his day or night quarters as by a mighty elephant pressing down on him, but that one who practices moderation in food is not troubled thus with these hindrances. In one who thus sees the characteristic of sloth and torpor in gluttony there is the casting out of sloth and torpor. Sloth and torpor disappear in him who changes over from the posture which induces sloth and torpor to another; in him who reflects on the brightness or the light of the moon, a lamp or a torch by night, and on the light or brightness of the sun by day; in him who lives in the open; in him who associates with sympathetic and helpful companions, like the Elder Maha Kassapa, who have dispelled sloth and torpor; and by stimulating talk connected with a strict recluse-regimen. Therefore it is said: Six things lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor. The yogi understands thus: sloth and torpor cast out by these six things are stopped from arising forever in the future by the attainment of the path of arahantship. [Tika] The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously after the manner of the well-known types of Brahmanical gormandizers mentioned in ancient Indian books. There are five kinds of these greedy eaters: (1) He who eats until he has to be raised up by the hand from his seat. (2) He who lies rolling just where he has eaten and eats as long as he likes. (3) He who eats until he slips off his waist cloth. (4) He who fills himself with food in such a way that it seems as if a crow could peck at the food in him. (5) He who having filled his belly full and vomitted eats more food again, or he who eats until he vomits. [T] On the light or brightness of the sun by day: The meaning should be understood thus: Sloth and torpor vanish in him, too, who at night is reflecting on the image of the perception of the brightness of the sun he got by day. [T] Here it may be helpful to state the eight ways of dealing with torpor taught by the Master to the Elder Maha Moggallana: (1) One should neglect to mind the thought which says that drowsiness is descending on one, or (2) one should reflect on the Dhamma, or (3) repeat or recite the Dhamma, or (4) pull both earlobes and rub or massage the limbs with the hands, or (5) getting up from the sitting position, apply water on and rub the eyes, and look into the distance, at the constellations in the starry sky, or (6) reflect on the thought of light, or (7) fix the thought on the ambulatory, aware of the ends of it with the controlling faculties of sense turned inwards and the mind kept in, or (8) sleep conscious of the time of waking and on awaking get up quickly thinking that one will not give oneself to the comforts of lying down, reclining and languor, when all other seven ways fail. 22210 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 0:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Connie - In a message dated 5/15/03 6:27:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > > I believe Thannisaro (who else) talks about 'consciousness with no > landing place' or an 'unbounded consciousness' in one of his dhamma > lectures at http://66.220.26.3/adharma - sorry I don't remember which > now. > ====================== Thank you for this (and the rest of your post). For some reason, I can't seem to access this web site. 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) 22211 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:20pm Subject: Regards from Robert Epstein Hi, all - I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm greetings! Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some point. He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. 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) 22212 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Thank you, Htoo Naing ~ The vinatti rupas still seem pretty real, but I'll think about it. peace, connie 22213 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Mike, > > I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. > > Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. Indeed! > For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. The most important, of course. > Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. > > So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. > > Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. I think so too. Do you think vipassanaa may arise outside of jhaana? I've never been entirely happy with 'suppress'--and would welcome something better. Your mastery of English with regard to these topics is truly amazing. Do you disagree that the nivaara.nas don't remain latent during and after jhaana? > May you be happy with this explanation. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing With a little kusala chanda, I hope, Mike > "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, > > Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct > experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I > believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a > peaceful abiding here and now'. > > I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as > well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' > (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you > mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? > > Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', > is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form > of pa.n.natti'?) > > Saadhu, > > Mike > > p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Htoo Naing > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > > > > Dear Member, > > > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly > over all possible being. > > > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who > meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be > aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual > thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and > attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good > things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on > the practice. > > > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working > vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > > > With Great Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & 22214 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cessation, factoid To Connie: In a message dated 5/8/03 9:32:20 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Connie, for the thoughtful post. I guess "N is a negative particle. Vana means motion" is what Siddharta Guatoma meant by cessation. Best to you, layman Jeff 22215 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Gnosis, Long time, no see. To Peter and Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/9/03 8:19:07 AM, peterdac4298@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a > student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might > want to look at message 21250 for more details. Peter: Thanks Rob Most interesting. I was really thinking about how some of the meaning of the word 'sati' was to be found in theistic religions under the term 'gnosis'. It is only in very long term retrospect that I now realize I had my first encounter with the idea of a Koan when just five years old or so. The idea had gotten around "...if God created the Universe, then who created God?..." This variant on "...who was I before I was born...", back in the late 'forties, did not open our very young minds to the infinitude of the present moment, but merely closed it up for fear of shattering our embryonic 'faith'. I just thought that, in these more enlightened times, when engaged in interfaith dialogue with Theists, it might be of some value if this was brought up in any such discussion, together with 'not knowing' being responsible for the separation from the Unborn, Uncreated. If ever there was a bridge between Buddhism and the rest, this could form some part of it. However, let this line of enquiry continue off line, so as to not undermine the group focus. Cheers Peter >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Rob M :-) for the kind plug. Sorry all, I have had finals all this week, and last Friday my hard drive died as well, so I have not been able to keep up with the dialog, until now. I just finished the last final of my undergraduate career!!!!!!! As for concepts of Gnosis, I think it could be a very interesting discussion here if you don't mind. I do try to steer away from belief that state that only a single religion or prophet (enlightened one) figured it all out. The way we use the word 'Insight' does sound a lot like the way Christians have been known to use the word 'revelation.' There maybe more parallels than some of us are willing to accept between Christianity and Buddhism. best to all, layman Jeff 22216 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Hi Christine, Azita, ken H, Andrew & Steve, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Htoo Naing, and all, > > Thank you for this suggestion, 'calm and peace' is a great way of > considering Vesak. This weekend some of us from dsg will be meeting, > as we do a few times a year, at Andrew's property at Cooran in South > East Queensland. Azita is coming down from Cairns, KenH, and Steve > (Bodhi 2500), will also be there, plus some others who aren't (yet?) > dsg members. ..... A quick note to wish you all a great and dhamma-packed weekend..... ..... I know that we all will have our usual lovely weekend > of calm and peace, laughter and camaraderie, as we study the Dhamma > and discuss our understandings. (Perhaps we will have some questions > for the List when we return). ..... That would be great (the questions and also any answers too;-)). Just remember not to leave the only copy of the minutes with KenH and remember to pack your Dhamma library for reference when the boys reach an impasse;-) Hope Smokey Joe and the silver-crested cockatoos behave and it’ll be great to have Azita’s cheer and good humour, as well as wisdom, to encourage the “aren’t yet” members to join the ranks;-) Best wishes and greatly look forward to the usual humourous and chatty summaries from you all;-) ;-) Metta Sarah p.s I was interested in the astrology thread you raised some time ago and also Rob M’s link. I understand the rules for monks in this regard (as in many others) to be quite different. As with many other kinds of livelihood/ways of life which tend to be conducted with wrong views about their inherent value and answer to suffering (eg psychology, yoga teaching, law, politics, science, business ethics(!), surfing (!!), hospital work....), I tend to think it is the wrong views rather than the livelihood in itself that are the root of the problems. What I’m trying clumsily to say to our friend(s)is, go ahead with the astrology readings (or yoga teaching......surfing, hospital work) and continue to develop understanding. Perhaps we can say that just as climate, good health and other factors were suitable conditions for the Kurus to hear the teachings from the Buddha, so being born in a Buddhist country, planetary influences and other factors can act as natural dependent support conditions for mental and physical good health. If, however, one were to then say that by being born in a Buddhist country, having a good climate, good medical care or being born under the right influences would necessarily bring these results, that would be wrong and a misunderstanding of the complexity of conditions. Perhaps I see the study of astrology or feng shui in a similar way to studying climate conditions or other subjects - of value and interest and better in the hands of a good Buddhist like our friend who will be more able to put its role in perspective and more likely to see the dangers of over-reaching in terms of potential benefits. Look forward to any further comments from you all and apologies for these belated ones in these after-thoughts. ================================================= 22217 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards from Robert Epstein Looking forward to hearing from RobEp again! Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: [dsg] Regards from Robert Epstein > Hi, all - > > I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm greetings! > Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some point. > He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. > > With metta, > Howard 22218 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri May 16, 2003 8:47am Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard and all How are you? I have read both your messages on this thread. You wrote: "You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant." The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." At the risk of repeating the well-known teachings, the five aggregates are the matter aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the memory aggregate, the activation aggregate (i.e the remaining mental associates), and the consciousness aggregate. Please note the Buddha's use of the term "the consciousness aggregate" or "the awareness aggregate". He used the term "aggregate" to include all, and every, types of consciousness that we are capable of having or attaining. As the Buddha taught that everything in the five aggregates is misery, we can conclude that any type of consciousness or any type of awareness is misery. Luckily, the Buddha also taught that we can end our misery. The end of our misery is called nirodha, which is commonly known as nibbaana. Thus, we can infer that nibbaana is something that is free from the five aggregates (equatable with misery). Therefore, we can conclude that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery). To my knowledge, there is no other form of consciousness or awareness outside the consciounsess aggregate which is one among the five aggregates. By the way, at the risk of showing off my scholarship, Abhidhamma Pi.taka is the only place where we can study all types of consciousness in details. Yet, all of them are subsumeable under the consciousness aggregate. Consciousness or awareness is something that can emerge only if there are conditions for that emergence on that particular occasion. Put it another way, consciousness is not an existent thing in isolation. Consciousness is an emergent time-bound phenomenon under conditions. But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times. Thus, equating consciousness or awareness with nibbaana is to unfairly reduce nibbaana to the level of a conditioned time-bound phenomenon, and is against the teachings of Gotama the Buddha and the Arahant commentators. Therefore, at the risk of disappointing you or other like-minded dhamma friends, my reading of Pali texts (canonical and commentarial) convinced me of the fact that all awareness ceases with the death of an Arahant as though all forms of fire have been extinguished. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi again, Suan - I merely raised a matter for thinking about. I didn't assert an unwavering belief of mine. You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant. This matter was discussed a couple years ago, at which time I wrote a post which points out that the matter is not entirely clear. I copy the post below for your perusal. With metta, Howard 22219 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/16/03 11:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard and all > > How are you? > > I have read both your messages on this thread. > > You wrote: > > "You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all > awareness ceases with the death of an arahant." > > The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana > Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". > > "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. --------------------------------------------------- > > At the risk of repeating the well-known teachings, the five > aggregates are the matter aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the > memory aggregate, the activation aggregate (i.e the remaining mental > associates), and the consciousness aggregate. > > Please note the Buddha's use of the term "the consciousness > aggregate" or "the awareness aggregate". He used the term "aggregate" > to include all, and every, types of consciousness that we are capable > of having or attaining. > > As the Buddha taught that everything in the five aggregates is > misery, we can conclude that any type of consciousness or any type of > awareness is misery. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Everything afflicted by the three poisons is dukkha. With their removal, dukkha is removed. And nibbana is the end of dukkha. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Luckily, the Buddha also taught that we can end our misery. The end > of our misery is called nirodha, which is commonly known as nibbaana. > > Thus, we can infer that nibbaana is something that is free from the > five aggregates (equatable with misery). > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way of aversion. ----------------------------------------------------- Therefore, we can conclude > > that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of > consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Or it is awareness freed of defilement. When there is no desire, aversion clinging, or confusion, nothing more is required. ------------------------------------------------------ > > To my knowledge, there is no other form of consciousness or awareness > outside the consciounsess aggregate which is one among the five > aggregates. > > By the way, at the risk of showing off my scholarship, Abhidhamma > Pi.taka is the only place where we can study all types of > consciousness in details. Yet, all of them are subsumeable under the > consciousness aggregate. > > Consciousness or awareness is something that can emerge only if there > are conditions for that emergence on that particular occasion. Put it > another way, consciousness is not an existent thing in isolation. > Consciousness is an emergent time-bound phenomenon under conditions. > > But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions > at all times. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Parinibbana, as you understand it, seems to me to be equivalent to the state of cessation of perception and sensation, the so-called "ninth jhana" - basically the state of a log. ------------------------------------------------ > > Thus, equating consciousness or awareness with nibbaana is to > unfairly reduce nibbaana to the level of a conditioned time-bound > phenomenon, and is against the teachings of Gotama the Buddha and the > Arahant commentators. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Instead of seeing this as reducing nibbana, one could see it as liberating awareness, freeing it of defilements. ------------------------------------------------ > > Therefore, at the risk of disappointing you or other like-minded > dhamma friends, my reading of Pali texts (canonical and commentarial) > convinced me of the fact that all awareness ceases with the death of > an Arahant as though all forms of fire have been extinguished. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > =========================== 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) 22220 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects "m. nease" wrote: Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Mike, > > I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. > > Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. Indeed! > For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. The most important, of course. > Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. > > So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. > > Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. I think so too. Do you think vipassanaa may arise outside of jhaana? ================================ No.I stated ''may found basis''.These two ''Vipassana and Samatha'' are quite different.But it will be easy to understand if I childishly say ''Elephant-minded Citta is more in favour of arising Vipassana Cittas than monkey-minded Citta.''(Htoo Naing) ================================== I've never been entirely happy with 'suppress'--and would welcome something better. Your mastery of English with regard to these topics is truly amazing. Do you disagree that the nivaara.nas don't remain latent during and after jhaana? ================================= My English has arisen from reading other people's post in this group and other Buddhism discussion groups.I understand most dhamma in Myanmar along with a few Pali words.Thanks for your comments on my English. Your question is a bit twisted.I am afraid to say that sorry for my poor understanding. No Nivarana arise during Jhana-Javana series.(Htoo Naing) ============================= > May you be happy with this explanation. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing With a little kusala chanda, I hope, Mike ================================== You have a great deal of Kusala Chanda.(Htoo Naing) With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22221 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi Howard (and Suan), Pardon me for jumping in. This is how I see it: The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - [snip] > > The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and > clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a > craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. [snip] > The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way > of aversion. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22222 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] cessation, factoid Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu ! This is the most precise one I have ever read among the posts in most discussion groups. Htoo Naing macdocaz1@a... wrote: To Connie: In a message dated 5/8/03 9:32:20 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Connie, for the thoughtful post. I guess "N is a negative particle. Vana means motion" is what Siddharta Guatoma meant by cessation. Best to you, layman Jeff 22223 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment In a message dated 5/13/03 4:40:39 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Well, if you were to use a Mahayana allusion, the internet, an interconnection of nodes each reflecting what is at other nodes is reminiscent of Indra's net, which is usually used as a metaphor for the general sense of interdependent arising (and which I like to use as metaphor for my own personal intersubjective phenomenalism), but I don't think this will be very suitable for your purposes! ;-) With metta, Howard >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Oh I think that's a great idea. Jeff 22224 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment To Connie: In a message dated 5/13/03 12:42:21 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Bodhidharma's 'Platform Sutra', >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I beleive that's Huineng or probably more acurately Shenhui publishing the 'Platform Sutra', under the name of his teacher Huineng. Which is certainluy excellent literary sources to refelct upon for the reasons why an apocryphal publication can be called 'sutra' layman Jeff 22225 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites To Yasa: In a message dated 5/15/03 12:19:36 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: << Dear Sarah, Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " (conventional reality): http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Yasa, for your many excellent contributions to this list as well as your excellent websites. I quite enjoyed you photo album as well as your excellent art. I quite like your pallet, and only wish I could see the originals someday. Best to you, layman Jeff 22226 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment layman Jeffto Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/12/03 12:37:57 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Connie and Victor, I am not going to use the word Sutta. I will replace it with "sutra"; hopefully, using the Sanskrit instead of Pali, putting quotation marks around the word and not capitalizing the word will make the text seem less "blasphemous". Metta, Rob M :-) >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Hi Rob M :-) I thought you did a very excellent job and I appreciated you putting it into the context of a Buddha living today in our context. I enjoyed your humor and I was not offended at all. I think if one feels offended by your excellent writing, that is simply an opportunity to reflect on one's grasping. I believe we should all make efforts not to be too orthodox whenever possible. A little irreverent humor seems to go a long way to relieving the tension of excessive orthodoxy. Best to you, layman Jeff 22227 From: connie Date: Fri May 16, 2003 6:17pm Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Howard ~ Sorry, try http://www.audiodharma.org/ instead of http://66.220.26.3/adharma for Thannisaro's talks. About 90 minutes into the four hour one on the five aggregates is where he talks briefly about consciousness without feature or a surface (namely, the other aggregates) to land on... (not, as I said 'unbound', but) the consciousness of nibbana (the Pali's too fast for me... vinnana anidasanan??). By way of picturing it, he says suppose there is a roofed house or roofed hall with windows on the N, S and E sides. When the sun rises and the rays enter by way of the eastern window, it will land on the west wall unless there is no wall and then it will land on the ground; if there is no ground, it will land on the water (they had a view the earth was floating on water and if you don't believe it, go down and dig a well and the water comes up); if there is no water, it doesn't land. This doesn't say there's no consciousness, just that there's no place for it to land... you can't point to it. Sensory consciousness doesn't exist outside of the 6 senses, but the other does. He says it's only mentioned a couple times in the canon, but doesn't say where. Just before that he talks about the earth properties as the aggregates and consciousness as the seed... thought proliferations grow, etc. Kearney (a Kalupahana fan?) also mentions it in 'Freedom and Bondage' (from buddhanet.net): ....If a Bhikkhu abandons passion for the feeling-element ... perception-element ... creation-element ... consciousness-element, then because of the abandoning of passion its object is cut off; there is no support for consciousness. That unsupported consciousness does not grow, does not create creations and is liberated. Because of its liberation, it is stable; because of its stability, it is happy; because of its happiness, it is untroubled. One who is untroubled is completely freed in his own heart. He knows: birth is destroyed, the holy life is fulfilled, duty is done, there is no more of this. (Footnote here refers to Streng, Frederick. "Reflections on the attention given to mental construction in the Indian Buddhist analysis of causality", in Philosophy East and West 25 no. 1 (January 1975): 71-80.) He says more, but this is long enough. peace, connie 22228 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 5:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Thank you very much, Connie. this will be very good listening for me! With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/16/03 9:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > Hi, Howard ~ > > Sorry, try http://www.audiodharma.org/ instead of > http://66.220.26.3/adharma for Thannisaro's talks. About 90 minutes > into the four hour one on the five aggregates is where he talks briefly > about consciousness without feature or a surface (namely, the other > aggregates) to land on... (not, as I said 'unbound', but) the > consciousness of nibbana (the Pali's too fast for me... vinnana > anidasanan??). By way of picturing it, he says suppose there is a > roofed house or roofed hall with windows on the N, S and E sides. When > the sun rises and the rays enter by way of the eastern window, it will > land on the west wall unless there is no wall and then it will land on > the ground; if there is no ground, it will land on the water (they had a > view the earth was floating on water and if you don't believe it, go > down and dig a well and the water comes up); if there is no water, it > doesn't land. This doesn't say there's no consciousness, just that > there's no place for it to land... you can't point to it. Sensory > consciousness doesn't exist outside of the 6 senses, but the other does. > He says it's only mentioned a couple times in the canon, but doesn't say > where. > > Just before that he talks about the earth properties as the aggregates > and consciousness as the seed... thought proliferations grow, etc. > > Kearney (a Kalupahana fan?) also mentions it in 'Freedom and Bondage' > (from buddhanet.net): > ....If a Bhikkhu abandons passion for the feeling-element ... > perception-element ... creation-element ... consciousness-element, then > because of the abandoning of passion its object is cut off; there is no > support for consciousness. > > That unsupported consciousness does not grow, does not create creations > and is liberated. Because of its liberation, it is stable; because of > its stability, it is happy; because of its happiness, it is untroubled. > One who is untroubled is completely freed in his own heart. He knows: > birth is destroyed, the holy life is fulfilled, duty is done, there is > no more of this. (Footnote here refers to Streng, Frederick. > "Reflections on the attention given to mental construction in the Indian > Buddhist analysis of causality", in > Philosophy East and West 25 no. 1 (January 1975): 71-80.) > > He says more, but this is long enough. > peace, > connie > > /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) 22229 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Yu, You are quite right Victor.If it is not an accurate translation of ''Dukkha'' what is then the accurate one?I look forward to your reply. With best wishes, Htoo Naing yu_zhonghao wrote: Hi Howard (and Suan), Pardon me for jumping in. This is how I see it: The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - [snip] > > The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and > clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a > craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. [snip] > The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way > of aversion. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22230 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:53am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To Yasa: > > In a message dated 5/15/03 12:19:36 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: > > << Dear Sarah, > > Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site > including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself > occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so > I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " > (conventional reality): > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Thank-you Yasa, for your many excellent contributions to this list as well as > your excellent websites. I quite enjoyed you photo album as well as your > excellent art. I quite like your pallet, and only wish I could see the > originals someday. > > Best to you, > > layman Jeff Dear Jeff, Thank you for your kind words. All my pastels have been sold and what is left are the paintings in color pencils. If you happen to come to Paris I will show them to you ! with metta, Yasa 22231 From: connie Date: Sat May 17, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana p.s., Howard ~ Just now got around to looking, but for the study guide to go with Thannisaro's five aggregates talk, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html peace, connie 22232 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Thanks! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 9:44:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > p.s., Howard ~ > > Just now got around to looking, but for the study guide to go with > Thannisaro's five aggregates talk, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html > > peace, > connie > /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) 22233 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the importance of the Satipatthana Sutta. Congratulations on your website. It's very nicely put together. Jon --- yasalalaka wrote: > > ___________________________Yasa > Replies_____________________________ > > > Jon, ... > Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most > important > discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – > Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta > Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of > the > Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five > hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the > paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and > be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings > suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from > the cycle of death and birth. ... > That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the > conventional reality. The reality we understand is the > conventional > reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. ... 22234 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:31am Subject: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggregates/Suan Hi, Suan - From Connie's kindly referenced article I found the following which makes a distinction between the 5 aggregates, and the 5 clinginging aggregates, the distinction being a psychological/phenomenological one, namely the presence of fementations: ***************************** § 6. At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. "Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. "Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. "These are called the five aggregates. "And what are the five clinging-aggregates? "Whatever form -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. "Whatever feeling -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever perception -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called perception as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrication as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever consciousness -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48] ********************************* 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) 22235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for your succinct and pithy reply concerning the difference > between anatta and asabhava. Do you know where this highly > philosophical > practice of distinguishing between concept and reality originated? Here is what Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' has to say on the distinctin between ultimate and conventional truths (under the entry for 'paramattha'): "The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). "Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. "The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. "The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. "In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths." > What > is your experience of anatta and how does it differ from your > experience > of asabhava? Is the one experience as effective as the other in > inducing relinquishment? My guess would be that there would be no such thing as an 'experience of asabhava', in the sense of a level of insight, mentioned in the texts. It seems to me that would contradict the distinction we have been discussing. As for 'experience of anatta', I understand that to be something that becomes apparent to direct experience only very gradually, through the development of insight into the true nature of fundamental phenomena. Jon 22236 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > Could we not equally > > say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we > > fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. > There's > > surely no need postulate the existence of something called > > concepts in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and > sounds do. > --------------------------------------------------- Yes, that's the way it seems to all of us. But unlike the Buddha, we have only a superficial view of things and we don't see the conditioning factors that lie behind the world as it appears to us. The teachings reveal the ways in which reality is other than it seems, or to put it another way, the ways in which ignorance and wrong view cover up the reality of things. So it may not be safe to place too high a reliance on the way things appear to us, where this conflicts with an established tenet of the teachings. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same > reason as I > assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly > experience them. > --------------------------------------------- Well, it is of course the same for everyone -- both concepts and dhammas are experienced by (i.e., are the object of) consciousness. But that is not the issue here. The question is, whether there is a distinction to be drawn between the 2. One difference is that while the other objects have an existence outside that moment of being the object of consciousness, concepts do not. Concepts are wholly and completely the creation of that moment of consciousness itself. Jon 22237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > With regard to our discussion of concepts, I have found the > following within the PTS dictionary's article on 'dhamma': > > ****************************************** > Applications and Meaning.--1. Psychologically; "mentality" as the > constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of > phenomena. It is that which is presented as "object" to the > imagination & as > such has an effect of its own:--a presentation (Vorstellung), or > idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a > psycho--physical > phenomenon, or sensation (re--action of sense--organ to > sensestimulus). ... Thanks for this reference. I have in fact mentioned in previous posts that the term 'dhamma' is sometimes used in the texts to include concepts, so this point is not in dispute. See also Sarah's recent post on ayatanas, where she points out that the expression 'dhammarammana' is sometimes used to include concepts. But that is a particular use of the term, and does not have any bearing on the question of ultimate vs. conventional. Jon 22238 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee To be honest, this is the first I've heard of this question of 'how concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality ascribed to the paramattha dhammas'. I'm not sure I really understand what this means. Would you mind elaborating a little, with an example or 2? Thanks. Sorry not to be able to make a useful comment at this stage. Jon --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Howard and Ron: ... > Most relevant to your discussion is the question how concepts can > be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality > ascribed to > the paramatha dhammas. While I have read the debates on this point > - with each tradition thinking they have solved the problem - I > think Dreyfus sums up centuries of debate when he notes as follows: > > "Having understood Dharmakirti's system, which is based on the > difference between a reality definable in terms of essence and a > projected essenceless conceptual realm, the student is shown how > this > distinction leads to unsolvable difficulties. Those difficulties > do not > come from incidental limitations of the system but from its > assumption > that real things are defined by their essences. ... 22239 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the > distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it > makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, > no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we > deny > that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For > how > can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in > any normative sense? I'm not sure who would be arguing that concepts 'have any knowledge value'. Would you mind putting this in the context of some particular aspect of the teachings. Thanks. ... > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any > > bearing on the development of understanding? > > Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the > dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all > sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the > knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. Again, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by 'the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity'. I suspect it's related to the question raised in your previous post, but I'm not really sure. Could you restate it in more concrete terms? > And this is without even > raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, > perhaps, > just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical > cutting > up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can > we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to > describe > reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to > concepts? I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful support for finding out the answer. > But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic > approach are > wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and > Howard > are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers > east > and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the > debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the > issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not > to debate but to simply note my own confusion. As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not really a significant factor. While it's good to consider these issues, with assistence from those who have a better grasp of the teachings than ourselves, we shouldn't feel we have to get everything 'sorted out' before we begin to apply what we know to be correct dhamma. Jon 22240 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the > distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it > makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, > no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we > deny > that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For > how > can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in > any normative sense? I'm not sure who would be arguing that concepts 'have any knowledge value'. Would you mind putting this in the context of some particular aspect of the teachings. Thanks. ... > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any > > bearing on the development of understanding? > > Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the > dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all > sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the > knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. Again, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by 'the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity'. I suspect it's related to the question raised in your previous post, but I'm not really sure. Could you restate it in more concrete terms? > And this is without even > raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, > perhaps, > just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical > cutting > up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can > we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to > describe > reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to > concepts? I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful support for finding out the answer. > But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic > approach are > wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and > Howard > are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers > east > and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the > debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the > issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not > to debate but to simply note my own confusion. As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not really a significant factor. While it's good to consider these issues, with assistence from those who have a better grasp of the teachings than ourselves, we shouldn't feel we have to get everything 'sorted out' before we begin to apply what we know to be correct dhamma. Jon 22241 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon and Howard I hope you don't mind me coming in here. --- nidive wrote: > Howard, > > > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > > directly experience them. > > You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) > There's no need for such an assertion. > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This > is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, > leads to mindfulness & alertness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight. The passage following the one you quote reads as follows: "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. According to a footnote in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of this sutta: "This is concentration associated with insight meditation directed to the rise and fall of the five aggregates. Perception of rise and fall brings to light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is impermanent is suffering and non-self." ['Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' p.291 n.28] Jon 22242 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > To be honest, this is the first I've heard of this question of 'how > concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied > the reality ascribed to the paramattha dhammas'. I'm not sure I > really understand what this means. Would you mind elaborating a > little, with an example or 2? Thanks. Hi Jon: I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the question comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our system of belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we define those terms), then (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of debate among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) details these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, has to confront these same type of issues in my view. Here is a passage you may find interesting: ------------ From Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” at 319-321 We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever? Although Dharmakirti's introduction of a causal link with reality is meant to account for the objectivity of our conceptual activities, it does not explain how conceptions operate non-randomly. We need something more that allows us to distinguish (a) from (b). We could look at the kind of relation involved in both cases. We could say that in case (a) the relation is adequate, whereas in (b) it is not. But what do we mean by adequate? This is where the normative must be introduced, for there is no way to specify the type of relation needed independent of intentionally determined norms. Those norms, however, do not exist in reality but derive from our conceptual framework. How can they help us to cope with reality? Dharmakirti's solution is to coordinate perception and conception. The former provides the contact with reality. The latter provides the norm. Together, they allow us to distinguish truth from falsity. In (a), the relation is adequate because there is a fit between the way things exist and our conceptual determination. In (b) such a fit is missing. This solution is, however, far from obvious, since they do not apprehend the same object. Dharmakirti explains: "All the cognitions generated from the sense bases have as their object individuations. It is impossible for words to relate to these individuations."l8 Language, and hence thought, can directly bear only on unreal conceptual contents. It does not apply directly to the reality given to sense perception. On the other hand, perception does not apprehend unreal universals. Hence, the epistemological gap between perception and conception is radical. How can they be coordinated? A possible answer could be to posit that an appropriate connection between the two takes place when they relate to an object of application common to both. Perception apprehends this real object and conception applies to it, although it does not apprehend it. In this way, perception and conception can be matched, since they relate to the same real object. This solution, however, just postpones the problem, for the supposedly common object is apprehended differently by perception and conception. Whereas the former apprehends the real object, the latter is limited to an unreal universal. What then guarantees that conceptions apply to real objects that they never grasp? We are caught in a vicious circle. A similar conclusion is reached upon investigating the nonmativity required for knowledge and truth. A normative dimension is not found in perception, which is without cognitive content, but in the concepts constructed by thought! Thought, however, is mistaken, since it apprehends unreal constructs. How can its norms be true? Dharmakirti answers through the example of the jewel. Though mistaken, thought is valid inasmuch as it leads to perception, which is mistaken. But perception does not provide much in terms of knowledge and truth. It is the foundation of knowledge but it is not cognitive in and of itself. It induces only conceptual categorization, which provides the cognitive dimension. Hence, we are back to the conceptual domain. This is what I perceive to be the greatest difficulty in Dharmakirti’s system. To answer the charge that the denial of real universals makes conceptuality arbitrary he needs to link concepts to reality. To do this he needs to stitch back to ether the two halves of his system, the real, perceptual, and the conceptual. He needs to coordinate perception and conception, providing a synthesis between the two types of knowledge. His system, however, seems to exclude such a possibility, since these two types of cognition are limited to radically different types of object. This is the problem described by Sapan through a pithy expression: how to coordinate blind conception and dumb perception. There is here an obvious parallel with Kant's statement that intuitions without concepts are blind and concepts without content (i.e., intuition) are empty. 19 For Kant, sensible intuition (Dharmakirti’s perception) does not provide any cognitive content. Hence, it is blind. Similarly, concepts divorced from the contact with reality provided by sensation are without cognitive content. Knowledge comes only through the synthesis of sensation and understanding (Dharmakirti’s inference). The parallel between Sa-pan’s formulation of Dharmakirti and Kant's formula must, however, be properly understood. The similarity between the two thinkers concerns the problem they face, not their solutions. They both understand that bare sensation does not provide any cognitive content, which comes from concepts. Their common problem is how to coordinate sensation and thought, which are powerless in isolation from each other. Kant solves the difficulty by providing a model of knowledge in which the two types of knowledge, sensation and understanding, are coordinated to synthesize increasingly abstract objects of knowledge. Senses provide the material that is integrated in ever more abstract cognitive schemes by the understanding. In the process, we come to grasp an already categorically articulated phenomenal reality. In contrast, Dharmakirti does not find it possible to synthesize perception and conception. By virtue of his typology of valid cognition, Dharmakirti refuses to conflate the two types of valid cognition and their objects. He is committed to limiting conception to unreal universals and perception to real individuals. Hence, conceptions cannot organize the sensory material delivered by the senses. They are limited to conceptual constructs that are induced by perception but remain separate from it. This is well captured by Sa-pan's description of dumb perception and blind conception. But here I am running ahead of myself, for to tackle this problem we will need to examine Dharmakirti's theory of perception. For the time being, let me sketch out another response to this problem, that of the Buddhist realist. To account for the necessity to link thought and reality and justify a normative dimension, Buddhist realists offer their often tortuous reinterpretations of Dharmakirti. This realism finds its epistemological expression in two important moves that transform the basic terms of the system: 1. One way to justify conceptuality and its relation to perception is to break the isolation of thought and assert that conceptions relate to reality, albeit differently from perception. 2. The second way is to transform the meaning of perception, so that it can provide an articulation of reality grasped and elaborated by conceptions. These two moves constitute what I describe as a new epistemology, which I see beginning in India with thinkers such as Dharmottara and Moksakaragupta and continuing in Tibet with the tradition of Ngok and Cha-ba. Although these two moves go in the same direction, they do not entail each other logically. Thus, Dharmottara seems to adopt the second without the first. Moreover, despite these two views being consequences of a realism regarding universals, they do not necessarily entail such an ontology. MokSakaragupta argues for the latter move when he asserts that universals are indirectly perceived by perception, without drawing the realist consequences of his assertion. Nevertheless, both historically and philosophically, these two epistemological moves often have been associated with a realist ontology. In Tibet, Cha-ba and his followers assert the reality of universals as a basis for their new epistemology. Within the Ge-Iuk tradition, both points have been defended in relation to a realist ontology. When Dzong-ka-ba discusses this crucial point in Dharmakirti's thought, he raises two sets of questions, which he polemically designates the qualms raised by "those with searching minds" (rtog ldan) and those raised by "unsubtle minds" (blo mi zhi ba).21 The first group notices the major problem created by Dharmakirti's description of conceptuality, without interpreting Dharmakirti as an antirealist. The second group raises similar questions, but rushes to adopt the antirealist interpretation that Dzong-ka-ba finds objectionable. The problems raised by Dzong-ka-ba have occupied us throughout this work: Dharmakirti's thought seems to deny the reality of universals, making it impossible to establish a viable epistemology. In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how reality can be understood by thought. If, on the other hand, one holds that the objects of thought are real, then how can one avoid falling into the reification of abstract entities? ----------------- -- Lee 22243 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas > can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is > a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful > support for finding out the answer. Hi Jon: Yes, I agree, but rightly or wrongly it is an intellectualising that has occupied Buddhists for centuries. >> But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic >> approach are wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, >> you and Howard are simply touching upon a debate that has >> confounded philosophers east and west for centuries, and each time >> I try to orient myself in the debate, I come away with even less >> confidence that I understand the issues. So I throw out these >> somewhat ill-formed observations not to debate but to simply note >> my own confusion. > > As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts > of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from > time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our > development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present > moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various > fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are > all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those > fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on > the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not > really a significant factor. But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such questions? Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed"? -- Lee 22244 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard How are you? You wrote: "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way of aversion." But, I quoted Gotama the Buddha as follows. The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." So, it now seems that you cannot accept even the Buddha's statement, and began to accuse him of having "the way of aversion". In response to my conclusion that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery), you also wrote: "Or it is awareness freed of defilement. When there is no desire, aversion clinging, or confusion, nothing more is required." My conclusion was made in the context of nibbana that exists without conditions independently of Ariyas (Awakeners) at all times. Your reply was in the context of the awareness of an Arahant before total extinguishment (paranibbana) (it should not be translated as "Total Unbinding"). We have Fire Extinguisher in natural English. We do not call a Fire Extinguisher a Fire Unbinder, do we?. :) Please note that timeless nibbana taught by the Buddha is not a person or a being. It is devoid of any thing to do with sentient beings such as consciousness or awareness. It is also called "Asa`nkhatadhaatu" (the unconditioned element). You also wrote: "Parinibbana, as you understand it, seems to me to be equivalent to the state of cessation of perception and sensation, the so- called "ninth jhana" - basically the state of a log." And you also wrote: "Instead of seeing this as reducing nibbana, one could see it as liberating awareness, freeing it of defilements." No, we could not see nibbana as liberating awareness. My explanations follw. The cessation of memory and feeling (Saññaavedayitanirodha) is a controlled exercise of foretaste of extinguishment of the five aggregates which can be performed only by the Non-returners and Arahants who have expertise in all the eight worldly jhaanas. You may liken it to the state of log. But, what I wrote was about nibbana as follows. "But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times." As you can see, what I worte about was not about parinibbana. Parinibbana is a temporal phenomenon because it signifies the final extinguishment of the five aggregates (including THE CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS AGGREGATE) of an Arahant at a pariticular moment. In a sense, parinibbana does not exist outside the context of the death of an Arahant. It merely happens to an Arahant in the sense of his five psychosomatic aggregates gone extinguished. Nibbana, on the other hand, exists timelessly. It is something to be experienced by Awakeners from the level of a Stream-insider (Sotaapanna) through to that of an Arahant. REMEMBER: NIBBANA IS SOMETHING TO BE EXPERIENCED. As the Buddha put it, Nibbanassa sacchikiriyaaya, "In order to realize and experience nibbana." Section 373, Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam, Mahaavagga Pali, Diighanikaaya. Therefore, according to the Buddha, nibbana is NOT something that is aware. Temporally speaking, nibbana exists before the moment of parinibbana (total extinguishment of the five aggregates) of an Arahant. And, of course, nibbana exists after the moment of the total extinguishment of the five aggregates (including the CONSCIOUSNESS AGGREGATE) of an Arahant because "nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times." With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - > > In a message dated 5/16/03 11:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > suanluzaw@b... writes: > > > > > Dear Howard and all > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > 22245 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon (and Swee Boon) - I don't understand how you reach the conclusion "I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight." The sutta talks about a process leading to the ending of the effluents. (Also, B. Bodhi's footnote refers to insight meditation, but that is a secondary matter.) In any case, the sutta includes "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? (I agree that the imagined referents of most concepts are nonexistent, but that isn't the issue here.) Your post follows below. BTW, you are NOT, as you put it, "coming in here". This thread involves you essentially - and even if it didn't, your input is always very much welcomed. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 11:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Swee Boon and Howard > > I hope you don't mind me coming in here. > > --- nidive wrote: >Howard, > > > >>I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > >>as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > >>directly experience them. > > > >You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) > >There's no need for such an assertion. > > > >"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > >& > >pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness? There is the case where > >feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > >persist, > >known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > >known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > >him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > >This > >is the development of concentration that, when developed &pursued, > >leads to mindfulness &alertness. > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the > development of understanding of a level other than the level of > insight. The passage following the one you quote reads as follows: > > "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. > > According to a footnote in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of this sutta: > "This is concentration associated with insight meditation directed to > the rise and fall of the five aggregates. Perception of rise and > fall brings to light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the > basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is impermanent is > suffering and non-self." ['Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' p.291 > n.28] > > 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) 22246 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 5/17/03 12:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the > way of aversion." > > But, I quoted Gotama the Buddha as follows. > > The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana > Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". > "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." > > So, it now seems that you cannot accept even the Buddha's statement, > and began to accuse him of having "the way of aversion". > > ============================= I have stopped reading at this point. You know that I distinguish the 5 aggregates from the 5 aggregates afflicted by clinging. You twist my words here, apparently because you dearly wish to be "right" and do not care what you say in the process. You slander me by claiming that I would ever *consider* implying such a thing of the Buddha. If you detect annoyance in this post from me, you are in error, because 'annoyance' is too weak of a word. The discussion is now concluded. 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) 22247 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee Boon. It was a reply to Suan. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:18:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > > Hi, Swee Boon - > > In a message dated 5/17/03 12:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > suanluzaw@b... writes: > > >> >> Dear Howard >> >> How are you? >> >> You wrote: >> >> "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the >> way of aversion." 22248 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:32am Subject: Salvaging Something Worthwhile Hi, Suan and all - Observe the negative effect of anger. First I addressed a post to the wrong person. Then, as seen below, I misspelled. Anger agitates the mind, stirs it up, makes it muddy, and leads to mistakes. Calm has the opposite effect. The anger was there. I cannot take that back. But I apologize for it, and I shall attempt to more closely guard the senses in the future. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - > > Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee > Boon. It was a reply to Suan. > > 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) 22249 From: nidive Date: Sat May 17, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Howard, > Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death > of the arahant. My opinion is that an arahant cannot have passion, aversion & delusion with regard to mind/mental objects. The mind sense of an arahant cannot be disturbed by the five physical senses nor by itself (mental proliferation). Therefore, the Buddha excluded the mind sense in this discourse. I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana. "Fuel" can mean past kamma. As we know, the five sense faculties are the result of past kamma. But the mind sense is the creator of new kamma. The mind sense of an arahant, being free of the 3 poisons, can no longer create new fuel. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. Swee Boon 22250 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Swee Boon - This is quite good, as I see it. I especially like "I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana." Typically, 'dukkha' relates to mental dissatisfaction and discomfort. But it is certainly true that without the five physical sense gateways available, there will be no resultant vedana of any sort, including dukkha vedana. So physical dukkha would cease at parinibbana as well. Good point, I think. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 1:31:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Howard, > > >Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death > >of the arahant. > > My opinion is that an arahant cannot have passion, aversion &delusion > with regard to mind/mental objects. The mind sense of an arahant > cannot be disturbed by the five physical senses nor by itself (mental > proliferation). Therefore, the Buddha excluded the mind sense in this > discourse. > > I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship > and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana. > > "Fuel" can mean past kamma. As we know, the five sense faculties are > the result of past kamma. But the mind sense is the creator of new > kamma. The mind sense of an arahant, being free of the 3 poisons, can > no longer create new fuel. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html > > Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? > The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property > with no fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the > case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has > attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained > the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released > through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and > owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant &the > unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure &pain. That which is the > passing away of passion, aversion, &delusion in him is termed the > nibbana property with fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the > case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. > For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right > here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. > > Swee Boon > /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) 22251 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I don't remember what my point was so I will just answer my own questions. So far, my experience of anatta is limited to the experience of a whole and its parts. I experience this only when regarding other people and it amounts to an experience of space and disappointment that there is no "wholeness" there. I don't experience other objects, such as myself or mechanical objects, in this way, unfortunately. Of course the conceptual understanding "there is no self" isn't nothing. At some point one is bound to get it. My experience of asabhava amounts to a disconnect between an object and its name. Both these experiences are liberating; maybe that was my point. In any case, I need further research in order to discriminate between the two in detail. As to the source of this philosophical understanding of concept and reality, I am starting to suspect either the Abhidhammatta Sangaha or its commentary. In the Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas "pannatti" is translated as "name" or "description" and nothing is made of it in terms of philosophy. Unfortunately Nyanatiloka doesn't define either "pannatti" or "sabhava" and he has little to say about "lakkhana". Buddhagosa doesn't make anything of this distinction in the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary but he does draw a clear line between concept and what arguably could be called reality in the discussion of jhana in "The Path of Purification". For example: Vism IV, 29 [regarding development of concentration on the Earth Kasina] The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be given attention. But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention should be given by settling the mind on the [name] concept as the most outstanding mental datum, relegating the colour to the position of a property of its physical support. That [conceptual state] can be called by any one he likes among names for earth, such as 'earth', 'the Great One', 'the Friendly One', 'ground', 'The Provider of Wealth', 'the Bearer of Wealth', etc., whichever suits his manner of perception... Larry 22252 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 1:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, I have this book "Recognizing Reality" and I'm glad to finally meet someone who understands it. Maybe you can provide some 'translations'. I think the abhidhamma answer to the question how to coordinate concept with reality is panna. Did any of these guys offer that as a solution? Larry 22253 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as > they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and > subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that > concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? _______________- Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught this letter and thought I could add something. You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara Nikaya 4) Specifically this paragraph: Idha bhikkhave bhikkhuno viditaa VEDANAuppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa SANNA uppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa VITAKKA uppajjanti viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Aya.m bhikkhave samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. " This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing understanding of these factors. Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect of the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. let us consider a couple of thinking. 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas, paramattha dhammas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real. 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real,the thinking process including vitakka and sanna is real, but mother and father is concept. Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. Whatever thinking is thinking of there can be awareness of the thinking process - paramattha dhammas - during this time. There can also be awareness of the feelings arsing at the same time. Or any of the objects that appear through the 6 doors. Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. RobertK 22254 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > I have this book "Recognizing Reality" and I'm glad to finally meet > someone who understands it. Maybe you can provide some 'translations'. > > I think the abhidhamma answer to the question how to coordinate concept > with reality is panna. Did any of these guys offer that as a solution? Hi Larry: I don't really understand all that this dense (but very well written) book has to offer. I can follow some of the arguments and debates better than others - and I have yet to make sense of many others. As far as panna as a solution - no, I didn't see it referenced, but that doesn't really surprise me as I see panna as more of a description of the result of a path of practice and not a philosophical term designed to answer the ontological and epistemological issues detailed in the book. My own rather mundane practice renders many of these types of questions irrelevant, but I do enjoy the challenge of understanding the questions others ask and how they answer them. -- Lee Dillion 22255 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 44-48 for comment Unwholesome Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all bad cittas * Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness - Shamelessness / No Conscience - Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread - Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering In some bad cittas * Greed / Attachment / Sensuous Desire - Wrong View / Evil Opinion - Conceit / Pride * Aversion / Hatred / Anger - Envy / Jealousy - Selfishness / Avarice / Stinginess - Remorse / Worry / Regret / Brooding - Sloth - Torpor - Doubt * 3 Evil Roots Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors. The first four arise in all unwholesome states and the remaining ten only arise in some unwholesome states. Unwholesome Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== What happens to us (Result of Past Kamma) -> Like --> Lobha (Bad Kamma) -> Indifference --> Moha (Bad Kamma) -> Dislike --> Dosa (Bad Kamma) -> Seeing things as they truly are (wise attention) Kusala (Good Kamma) In reality, "choice" is conditioned by accumulations (habits). "Free Will" is 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. Speaker Notes ============= There is a natural reaction to what happens to us. If we like it, mind states rooted in attachment (lobha-mula) arise. If we dislike it, mind states rooted in aversion (dosa-mula) arise. If we ignore it, mind states rooted in delusion (moha-mula) arise. Liking, disliking and ignoring all give rise to bad kamma. To get good kamma, we must see things as they truly are. This is called wise attention – Yoniso Maniskara in Pali. For example, when we practice dana, there is no lobha, no dosa, no moha – this creates good kamma. It is clear that there are four options instantly arising from what happens to us: (Like / Dislike / Indifference / Wise Attention). There is no "self" pushing for any of these options. The arising of one of these options will arise naturally from our habits. This is a very important point. If every morning we get up and practice a short sitting doing metta meditation, then after a while, metta will develop into a habit. With this as a foundation, our mind will naturally react with metta. This brings up the issue of "free will" in Buddhism. Since the reaction to what happens to us is conditioned by our habits, there is no "free will" in play. This is a difficult concept for some people to accept. However we must consider the following: - If there is no "self", what is it that exercises this "free will"? - Is there "free will" involved in the arising of confusion or restlessness? - Knowing how damaging anger can be, why would anybody freely choose for anger to arise? "Free Will" is a concept that can be useful as we begin on the path. However, at some point along the path, we must give it up. In the Simile of the Snake Sutta (Mn 22), the Buddha said, "… my Teaching is comparable to a raft for the purpose of crossing over and not for getting hold of." 22256 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 0:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/17/03 5:34:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >"Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, > known as > >they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, > persist, and > >subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you > make, that > >concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? > _______________- > > Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. > I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught this > letter and thought I could add something. > You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara > Nikaya 4) > Specifically this paragraph: > Idha bhikkhave bhikkhuno viditaa VEDANAuppajjanti. Viditaa > upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa SANNA > uppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. > Viditaa VITAKKA uppajjanti viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa > abbhattha.m gacchanti. > Aya.m bhikkhave samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa > satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati. > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness. " > > This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing > understanding of these factors. > > Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect of > the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. > I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the > thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing away > rapidly. These > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > let us consider a couple of thinking. > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas, > paramattha dhammas. > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > real. > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > are real, the sounds are real,the thinking process including vitakka > and sanna is real, but mother and father is concept. > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > Whatever thinking is thinking of there can be awareness of the > thinking process - paramattha dhammas - during this time. There can > also be awareness of the feelings arsing at the same time. Or any > of the objects that appear through the 6 doors. > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > concepts for objects. > > > > > >"Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > >fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > >and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > >thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > RobertK > > > ========================== Thank you for this.With regard to the "flying, purple elephant" we think of, what is the categorical status of the image which is brought to mind and recognized (by sa~n~na) as an image of such a critter? It is not an eye-door object. Is it a mind-door object? If yes, is it not a thought? Do we not have thoughts? Actually, with regard to thoughts, they are among the things I seem to most easily be mindful of. I see thoughts of certain types recurring again and again. I become aware of habituated thought patterns. Am I imagining that, according to Abhidhamma? 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) 22257 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I would say that your paraphrase > "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being'" > or > "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called > 'a being'" > distorts the original passage > > So, when the aggregates are present, > There's the convention 'a being.' > > > I would say that your paraphrase is an inaccurate restatement of > the original passage above. > > Why? Your paraphrase begs the question: What is conventionally > called 'a being'? Or, what is it that we call a 'living being'? > whereas in the original passage Sister Vajira simply stated that > there's the convention 'a being'. She did not claim that the five > aggregates are conventionally called 'a being'. Thanks for these comments on the passage and my paraphrase of it. Would you care to share with us your understanding of intended meaning of this passage, particularly the connection between the five aggregates and the convention 'a being' that is being described here (or in whatever terms you see it)? Thanks again. Looking forward to your further comments. Jon 22258 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat May 17, 2003 9:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > ========================== > Thank you for this.With regard to the "flying, purple elephant" we > think of, what is the categorical status of the image which is brought to > mind and recognized (by sa~n~na) as an image of such a critter? It is not an > eye-door object. Is it a mind-door object? If yes, is it not a thought? Do we > not have thoughts? > Actually, with regard to thoughts, they are among the things I seem to > most easily be mindful of. I see thoughts of certain types recurring again > and again. I become aware of habituated thought patterns. Am I imagining > that, according to Abhidhamma? > __________ Dear Howard, All very good questions, and which, I believe, the Abhidhamma does explain. The conceptual world is the shadow world of what is really here - evanescent elements. Thus the concepts we think about can be accurate representations of the elements; the supreme example of this is the Buddha's teaching. Or anything close or far from this - including flying purple elephants. In the Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination), there is the link called avijja paccaya sankhara (ignorance conditions formations) and ayuhana (accumulations) is a major aspect of cetana - the main aspect of sanhara. I was discussing this with Larry and RobM but never got around to replying fully. During the javana process - which is essentially that aspect of the three rounds called kamma vattha and kilesa vatthu - there is continual accumulation. There is the accumulation of ignorance or wisdom or desire or aversion; and too of habituated thought patterns rooted in wisdom or desire or aversion.... So we are continually evolving and yet still conditioned by the past accumulations. Anything can happen, anything can be developed, gross or sublime. All of us should never be surprised that we feel desire or have ignorance of realities; because the process of accumulation of these factors has been going on since time began. I think it is more amazing that there can be wisdom glinting through at times - and this is primarily because of the power of the Buddha's teaching. That teaching conditions, little by little, the antidote to ignorance. In the case of thinking that you mention above; if there is awareness at the level of satipatthana then the object while thinking may be feeling, or it could be lobha (desire) or aversion (dosa) or even ignorance. Or it could be some awareness just of thinking as thinking - it doesn't have to be named: this is vitakka, that is sanna, that is phassa, that is ...- and yet there is awareness. If there is awareness of thinking, (and which is habituated through ayuhana to some degree whether we know it or not) then more and more we will come to know that our problems are simply thinking, and so the concepts we think about lose much of their power to unbalance. The thinking process is very real it is not imagination. Good to be aware of thinking, I think!:) Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. Robertk 22259 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites In a message dated 5/17/03 4:10:05 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: << Dear Jeff, Thank you for your kind words. All my pastels have been sold and what is left are the paintings in color pencils. If you happen to come to Paris I will show them to you ! with metta, Yasa >> Perhaps someday then. Best to you, Jeff 22260 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Robert - In a message dated 5/18/03 12:26:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > All very good questions, and which, I believe, the Abhidhamma does > explain. The conceptual world is the shadow world of what is really > here - evanescent elements. Thus the concepts we think about can be > accurate representations of the elements; the supreme example of > this is the Buddha's teaching. Or anything close or far from this - > including flying purple elephants. > In the Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination), there is the link > called avijja paccaya sankhara (ignorance conditions formations) and > ayuhana (accumulations) is a major aspect of cetana - the main > aspect of sanhara. I was discussing this with Larry and RobM but > never got around to replying fully. > During the javana process - which is essentially that aspect of the > three rounds called kamma vattha and kilesa vatthu - there is > continual accumulation. There is the accumulation of ignorance or > wisdom or desire or aversion; and too of habituated thought patterns > rooted in wisdom or desire or aversion.... So we are continually > evolving and yet still conditioned by the past accumulations. > Anything can happen, anything can be developed, gross or sublime. > > All of us should never be surprised that we feel desire or have > ignorance of realities; because the process of accumulation of these > factors has been going on since time began. I think it is more > amazing that there can be wisdom glinting through at times - and > this is primarily because of the power of the Buddha's teaching. > That teaching conditions, little by little, the antidote to > ignorance. > > In the case of thinking that you mention above; if there is > awareness at the level of satipatthana then the object while > thinking may be feeling, or it could be lobha (desire) or aversion > (dosa) or even ignorance. Or it could be some awareness just of > thinking as thinking - it doesn't have to be named: this is vitakka, > that is sanna, that is phassa, that is ...- and yet there is > awareness. If there is awareness of thinking, (and which is > habituated through ayuhana to some degree whether we know it or not) > then more and more we will come to know that our problems are simply > thinking, and so the concepts we think about lose much of their > power to unbalance. > The thinking process is very real it is not imagination. Good to be > aware of thinking, I think!:) > > Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not > paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of > flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > =========================== Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is likely not atually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. But, and here is what I maintain, these are complex, interrelated groups of individual thoughts (and other mental phenomena), with *the mental image* referred to as being "of" a purple, flying elephant being one of these thoughts. The basic thoughts, themselves, however, are actual mental occurrences. Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need to be clearly seen. To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and empty. 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) 22261 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:09am Subject: Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi All, I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": === Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the software applications that you use on your computer?" Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I know how the software functions." Buddha: "Exactly." === Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 22262 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 18, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/18/03 12:26:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: ... > > Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not > > paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of > > flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > > While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > > > =========================== > Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand > that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the > mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. ... You do say "Good > to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too > much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only > possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our > world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our > concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and > empty. > > With metta, > Howard > ______________________________Yasa _________________________ Dear All, Every thing around us, which we call the conventional reality, is a concept. We see the exterior world through our sense doors and recognise them from our past sensory experiences. And that recognition, and naming the experience is a concept. The concepts disappear only when we step into the ultimate realities. The effort to understand ultimate realities, in the conventional existence is the application of the knowledge of paramatta dhamma that we have gained through reading and listening . That does not give us the insight to paramatta dhamma. We will merely "parrot", the words without having a glimpse into the world of paramatta dhamma. To understand the ultimate realities, we have to use our conventional reality. Because conventionally," you" and "I "and "a self" exist. If we were to start by saying," how can I do some thing, when I do not exist ". Or ask the question, "who is seeing the arising and falling away ?" , it would stop further investigations. We have to go beyond mere knowledge, to understand paramatta dhamma, and that understanding comes through the wisdom gained in the right effort."bhavanamaya panna". Until then, it is just a "guessing game". The Buddha when he was asked , what is the world, said so far as it disintegrates it is the world. To understand the sense of it we have to listen to the Buddha: "Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world (loka),'[] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates (lujjati), monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither- pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" with metta, Yasa 22263 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:16am Subject: [dsg] Re:discussions and disagreements. Dear Nina and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Smallchap (& Nina), > > --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear smallchap, > > I like this quote of the padhana sutta, and also I like discussions with > > you. You should not think that you can be a source of akusala, why? > > Those > > are needless fears, this is a discussion forum, and w ecannot all agree. > > Besides, we can learn from other view points, it causes us to think more > > carefully about what we said and how we said it, > ..... > > I'd just like to second all Nina's comments here and encourage you to > share your comments even when they are in disagreement. We all appreciate > your conributions and you do others a favour by raising the points they > have in mind as well but possibly cannot articulate as well as you do;-) > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== smallchap: Thank you both for your kind words. I realise that I talked too much. It's time to observe cyber-silence. Take care! smallchap 22264 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggregates/Suan Dear Howard Thank you for the Suttam quote which showed the Buddha teaching the five aggregates and the five aggregates for obsession. Yes, we can distinguish between pañcakkhandhaa and pañcupaadanakkhandhaa. This type of differentiation is als done and explained with psychological details in Abhidhamma commentaries. In some Suttams, though, the Buddha treated both versions the same way. For example, in Bhaara Suttam, he first defined pañcupaadanakkhandhaa to be the burden. Then, he also declared pañcakkhandhaa to be the burden as well. "katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhaaro? pañcupaadaanakkhandhaa tissa vacaniiyam." "And, Monks, what is the burden? It should be said that the five aggregates for obsession are the burden." Then, in the verse at the end of the Suttam, the Buddha said the following. "Bhaaraa have pañcakkhandhaa," "The Five Aggregates are indeed the burden" Section 22, Bhaara Suttam, Khandhavagga Pali, Samyuttanikaaya. I hope the above serves as food for thought. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan - From Connie's kindly referenced article I found the following which makes a distinction between the 5 aggregates, and the 5 clinginging aggregates, the distinction being a psychological/phenomenological one, namely the presence of fementations: ***************************** § 6. At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. "Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. "Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. "These are called the five aggregates. "And what are the five clinging- aggregates? "Whatever form -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. "Whatever feeling -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever perception - - past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called perception as a clinging- aggregate. "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrication as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever consciousness -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48] ********************************* 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) 22265 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > I replied to the rest of this post, but not your PS. > > --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > smallchap > > > > ps. During "insight meditation", with the arising of insight > > knowledge, one can "see" or "feel" (not thinking! Because it is > > impossible to think when samadhi is strong) the arising and falling > > of the khandhas and directly know them as anicca, dukkha and > > anatta. > > Jon: > >I agree that it is understanding of the level of insight that sees > dhammas as they truly are, including their universal characteristics > of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > To my reading of the texts, however, the seeing of those > characteristics with distinction would be a highly developed level of > insight, and must have been preceded by insight of many lesser > levels, beginning with the insight that knows nama as nama and rupa > as rupa. > > Is there understanding right now of nama as nama and rupa as rupa? > If not, then it means that this is the level we are still at. smallchap: If one knows now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows nama as nama, rupa as rupa. If one does not know now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows not nama as nama, rupa as rupa. This is irregardless of whether attained the higher insight previously (except an arahant). (Sorry! Can't quote any texts here to support my statements.) > > Jon: >You mention 'insight meditation' and then 'the arising of insight' as > something that occurs during insight meditation. I don't think the > texts make this distinction. As far as the texts are concerned, the > *development of insight* and a *moment of insight* are one and the > same thing. As for how insight is developed (i.e., what conditions > its arising), this is the general subject matter of the texts as a > whole, and is what we are trying to elucidate through these > discussions. But there's no specific 'practice' that can bring this > on, as I understand. smallchap: Insight meditation is a way to cultivate continuous chain of mements of insight, until one reaches the final goal (I am not sure if I make myself clear here). Again, don't ask me for the supporting texts as I can find none so for. smallchap another ps. I will reply your next post and thereafter I wish to observe cyber silence. So I will not discuss further on this subject. My sincere apology. 22266 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggre... Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/18/03 11:36:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > > Dear Howard > > Thank you for the Suttam quote which showed the Buddha teaching the > five aggregates and the five aggregates for obsession. > > Yes, we can distinguish between pañcakkhandhaa and > pañcupaadanakkhandhaa. This type of differentiation is als done and > explained with psychological details in Abhidhamma commentaries. > > In some Suttams, though, the Buddha treated both versions the same > way. For example, in Bhaara Suttam, he first defined > pañcupaadanakkhandhaa to be the burden. Then, he also declared > pañcakkhandhaa to be the burden as well. > > "katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhaaro? pañcupaadaanakkhandhaa tissa > vacaniiyam." > > "And, Monks, what is the burden? It should be said that the five > aggregates for obsession are the burden." > > Then, in the verse at the end of the Suttam, the Buddha said the > following. > > "Bhaaraa have pañcakkhandhaa," > > "The Five Aggregates are indeed the burden" > > Section 22, Bhaara Suttam, Khandhavagga Pali, Samyuttanikaaya. > > I hope the above serves as food for thought. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > ============================ Thank you for the friendly Dhamma-centric post. Yes, there are indeed places where the Buddha speaks only of the 5 khandhas, not using the "afflicted by clinging" terminology. I don't think the significance of this is entirely clear. No doubt, we have different inclinations with regard to it. ;-) With metta and pleasure in friendship, 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) 22267 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional right view vs. Noble right view Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > > PS A follow-up question for you, Smallchap. In this thread > > > we have > > > been talking about the sense in which it can be said that a > > > computer > > > is conditioned. Would you say that the knowledge that a > > > computer is > > > built from parts and did not spontaneously come into existence > > > as an > > > assembled whole, or knowledge of the need for parts, skill and > > > effort > > > as a condition for the coming into existence of a computer, is > > > conventional right view? (Not a trick question, I promise > > > ;-)) > > > > S: Since it has not been included in MN 117 as right view, we > > need not speculate on whether it is conventional right view, > > else we risk falling into false views as described by the Buddha > > in MN 72. > > Jon: This is perhaps a similar answer to the one I had in mind, namely > that such a thought could arise either with or without right view, > and only the person in whom the thought arose could know which was > the case in a given instance, and even then, only if there was a > level of awareness in relation to that mindstate. > > > smallchap: Here is a small section copied from Vism. Ch XX 73. It descibes > > how one should discern with reagrds to inanimate things. I am > > sure you will find it interesting (and please don't throw away > > your copy of Visudhimagga ;-)). > > Jon: Thanks for the interesting passage from Visuddhi-Magga that follows. > > I think you're drawing my attention to the fact that, on the face of > it, the passage seems to be advocating the choosing of a conventional > object as an object of 'practice', and then 'applying' awareness to > it (I see what you mean about throwing my copy of Visuddhi-Magga > away!). > > This passage is by no means unique in its style of presentation. In > fact, a large part of the Visuddhi-Magga, including the rest of Ch > XX, reads superficially in the manner of a 'do this next' manual. > > In my view, however, it is clear from many detailed references in the > Visuddhi-Magga itself that no such literal interpretation is > intended. smallchap: Only Ven. Buddhaghosa can answer this question. What I am trying to say is that my range knowledge is limited. I don't speculate either. > Ch XX of Visuddhi-Magga deals with 'knowledge and vision of what is > and what is not the path'. To be capable of this level of > understanding, a person must have already developed the understanding > that knows nama as nama and rupa as rupa (nama-rupa-pariccheda nana, > the first of the 16 stages of 'vipassana-nana' (insight) leading to > the first stage of enlightenment), and that discerns the conditions > of nama and rupa (paccaya-pariggha nana, the second of the 16 > stages). smallchap: I think more like at the third level, knowledge of comtemplation of rise and fall, that imperfections of insight arise. > For such a person awareness arises frequently and has become > habitual; there would be the firm realisation based on direct > experience that awareness arises from its own conditions and not > because of any intention for there to be awareness of a particular > kind in relation to a particular object. smallchap: The habitual arsing of awareness comes about after one attained the knowledge of comtemplation of dissolution, not at any of the lower insight knowledge. Take care! smallchap 22268 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun May 18, 2003 1:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand > that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the > mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and > not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is > likely not atually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a > sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some > involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts > (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, > etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great > package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. But, and here is > what I maintain, these are complex, interrelated groups of individual > thoughts (and other mental phenomena), with *the mental image* referred to as > being "of" a purple, flying elephant being one of these thoughts. ____________ Dear Howard, It is, I believe, so useful to distinguish between the asabhava (non- existant) and sabhava(existant) during a thinking process. Any concepts thought about are asabhava - elephants, trees, people, ourself, .... The cittas and cetasikas arsing during the process - including sanna, vitakka, vedana (feeling) lobha (desire) or aversion and so on are sabhava - very real but so evanescent. There are different aspects to understanding Dhamma. Take the example of regularly becoming irritated over an issue or with a person. This is a habitual pattern which may arise due to taking the concept of the person or issue (war/peace for example). At one level we can reason and think about it and learn something of how it works and if done wisely this leads to less obsession about the issue. There is another, different type of insight, that comes to understand the difference between paramattha and concept . In the example above one will know as soon as any aversion arises that this is due to misperceiving - one is taking a concept (war/peace or person etc) as having some existence. Wisdom will see that these are merely concepts produced during the thinking process. Irritation dissolves spontaneously. This type of insight leads aways from belief in a world of existing concepts. It sees that this is the shadow world while the real world is continually crumbling. There is nothing to hold onto, no security, not even a foothold. There is only the understanding that detaches , lets go, that is of value. RobertK _______________ The basic > thoughts, themselves, however, are actual mental occurrences. Moreover, it is > *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts > of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps > our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts > and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which > they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal > identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they > need to be clearly seen. To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss > them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. You do say "Good > to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too > much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only > possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our > world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our > concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and > empty. > ______________ 22269 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 2:51pm Subject: Way 90, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 4. Agitation and Worry Wrong reflection on mental agitation brings about flurry and worry. Mental agitation is inner turbulence. Actually it is flurry and worry, only. Intense wrong reflection on that mental agitation produces flurry and worry. Therefore the Blessed One said that wrong reflection on mental agitation when plentifully done produces fresh flurry and worry and increases and expands flurry and worry already in existence. The casting out of agitation and worry occurs through right reflection on mental tranquillity called concentration and an abundance of right reflection on mental tranquillity, says the Blessed One, is a condition for the keeping out of fresh mental agitation and worry and the dispelling of agitation and worry already in the mind. Six things are conducive to the casting out of agitation and worry: Knowledge; questioning; understanding of disciplinary rules; association with those more experienced and older than oneself in the practice of things like virtue; sympathetic and helpful companionship and stimulating talk that helps the rejection of mental agitation and worry. In explanation it is said as follows: Agitation and worry disappear in him who learns in the spirit and in the letter one, two, three, four or five collections of Scripture. This is how one gets over agitation and worry by knowledge. Questioning means: inquiring much about what is befitting and not, according to the practice of the Sangha. In him who does this, too, agitation and worry disappear. Then these twin evils disappear in him who has got the mastery of the Discipline due to practical application of and conversance with the nature of the Rule of the Sangha. This is the understanding of the disciplinary rules. Association with those more experienced and so forth; the going to the presence of and the conversing with virtuous elders in the Sangha. By such visits mental agitation and worry disappear in one. Sympathetic and helpful companionship: association with experts of the Disciplinary Rules like the Elder Upali, the first of the great masters of the Discipline in the Sangha. In such company mental agitation and worry disappear. Stimulating talk in this connection refers particularly to matters of disciplinary practice by which one comes to know what is befitting and what is not. By this agitation and worry vanish in one. Therefore, is it said that six things lead to the rejection of agitation and worry, but the agitation cast out by these things finally ceases to arise in the future through the attainment of the path of Arahantship, and the worry cast out by these things finally ceases to arise in the future through the attainment of the path of the Non-returner. [Tika] In their own state or actually as they are individually, mental agitation and worry are two different things. Still, as worry in the form of repentance or remorse for ill done and good undone is similar to agitation which is characterized by distraction and disquiet of mind, mental agitation is called flurry and worry. [T] Mental agitation does not overtake the intelligent well-read man who probes into things by way of what is written in books and by way of the significance and import of the things themselves. Therefore, it is said that by way of knowledge not merely of the Disciplinary Rules, but by way of knowledge of the ninefold Buddha-word, beginning with the Discourses, according to the principles of the method already stated, and by the application of the proper remedies mentioned by way of questioning and so forth, remorse and regret for ill done and good undone do not take place. [T] By associating with elders who are older than oneself in the practice of the precepts of virtue and similar good things, who are restrained, aged, matured seniors, there is brought to one a measure of restraint, matured bearing, dignity and calm, and mental agitation and worry are cast out. [T] Good companionship refers to association with those versed in the Discipline who are able to dispel worry as regards any doubt concerning what is proper and improper practice. 22270 From: connie Date: Sun May 18, 2003 6:36pm Subject: Re: 'Regulation for all Buddhas but not shared by others' Hi, Sarah and All ~ I hope someone might comment on a few of the Regulations for all Buddhas that Sarah had shared. I can only guess that '30)the final nibbana after having attained the twenty-four hundred thousand crores of attainments' has something to do with '21) constantly attaining the attainments of the fruits'. In '16) on the full-moon day of Magha the recital of the Patimokkha in an assembly having the four factors', would the four factors be the four kinds of believers? And in '18) the performance of the Marvel of the Double at the gateway to the city of Savatthi' is that where fire and water come out of his body? I don't know what it means to 'make a stumbling block', either. ..... "These, thirty exactly, are regulation for all Buddhas. In respect of all Buddhas, no one is able to make a stumbling-block to the four requisites presented specially (to any one of them.) No one is able to make a stumbling-block to the life-span. Accordingly it is said: "It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that one should deprive a Tathagata of life by aggression". No one is able to make a stumbling-block to the thirty-two Marks of a Great Man (or) to the eighty minor characteristics. No one is able to make a stmbling-block to the Buddha rays. These are called the four things not causing stumbling-blocks." Thank you, connie 22271 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Regulation for all Buddhas but not shared by others' Hi Connie, Thanks for your interest and I can’t resist adding a few comments before I look at some other posts for reply. Pls note these are just my guesses as no further notes are given (I’ll be glad for any corrections from anyone): --- connie wrote: > I can only guess that '30)the final nibbana after having attained the > twenty-four hundred thousand crores of attainments' has something to do > with '21) constantly attaining the attainments of the fruits'. ..... I understand them as being quite distinct - 30) I understand to refer to the parinibbana of all Buddhas, having attained omniscience and all attainments. 21) I understand to refer to abiding in phala samapatti (fruition attainment), sometimes translated in the texts as ‘Signless Concentration of Mind’ etc. ..... > In '16) on the full-moon day of Magha the recital of the Patimokkha in > an assembly having the four factors', would the four factors be the four > kinds of believers? ..... I understood it to refer to the four factors would refer to the abhinnas (the 6 ‘higher’ powers or supernomal knowledges). I believe the last 3 often appear under one heading of threefold higher knowledge. The assembly must have attained all jhanas for the abhinnas. ...... > And in '18) the performance of the Marvel of the Double at the gateway > to the city of Savatthi' is that where fire and water come out of his > body? ..... Yes, I believe so. ..... > I don't know what it means to 'make a stumbling block', either. ..... No one can - 1) prevent the presentation of the 4 requisites 2) cut short the life of the Buddha, i.e kill him 3) destroy or affect the 32 marks 4) or the rays Also, note given here by Horner after passage below, to see Miln (Qu of K. Milinda)157 where the 4 stumbling-blocks that cannot be made are to the Lord’s receiving a gift made specially for him, to his rays, omniscience, and life-principle, jiivita. ...... Metta and thanks again, Sarah ====== > "These, thirty exactly, are regulation for all Buddhas. In respect of > all Buddhas, no one is able to make a stumbling-block to > the four requisites presented specially (to any one of them.) No one is > able to make a stumbling-block to the life-span. Accordingly it is said: > "It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that one should deprive a > Tathagata of life by aggression". No one is able to make a > stumbling-block to the thirty-two Marks of a Great Man (or) to the > eighty minor characteristics. No one is able to make a stmbling-block to > the Buddha rays. These are called the four things not causing > stumbling-blocks." 22272 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Intermediate States (Bardo) Hi Connie, We were discussing ‘intermediate states’ after death and I promised to get back to you. (sorry, I’ve lost your post): Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy), Bk V111,2,”Of an Intermediate State’, discusses in detail why the proposition “that there is an intermdiate state of existence” is not valid. In summary from the commentary: “Some (as, for instance, the Pubbaseliyas and Sammitiyas), by a careless acceptation of the Sutta-phrase - ‘completed existence within the interval’ - held that there is an interm stage where a being awaits reconception for a week or longer. The counter-argument is based on the Exalted One’s dictum that there are three states of becoming only - the Kama-, the Rupa-, and the Arupa-worlds . And it is because of that dictum that the opponent (in so far as he is orthodox) has to deny so many of the questions.” Also from the commentary: “.........Here the sense is this: If there be such a state as an intermediate state of becoming, then it must be a ‘five-mode becoming’ etc., such as Kama-life, and so forth. Let us then ask you: “Do you identify the intermediate state with either the Kama-life, or Rupa-life, or Arupa-life?” All these the opponent denies, because he would not admit such things. “The expressions “either of the Kama-life” and so forth have been brought forth in order that, if there be an intermediate state, it must be between these states of becoming, like an interval between two boundaries. The opponent who would not admit such things, denies all these questions. Thus he refuses the Sakavadin’s “indeed” simply for his view, but not in accordance with the doctrine.” Hope that helps. Let me know if you need anymore;-) With metta, Sarah ===== 22273 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:29pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 49-58 for comment Wholesome Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all good cittas: - Faith / Confidence / Conviction / Trust - Mindfulness / Attentiveness - Moral Shame / Conscience / Scruples / Modesty - Fear of Blame / Moral Dread - Non-attachment / Unselfishness / No Greed / Generosity - Non-Hate / Goodwill / Non-aversion - Equanimity / Mental Balance - Tranquility, Agility / Lightness / Buoyancy, Pliancy / Elasticity, Wieldiness / Adaptability / Workableness, Proficiency, Uprightness / Rectitude In some good cittas: - Abstinence from Wrong Speech / Action / Livelihood - Compassion - Sympathetic Joy / Appreciative Joy - Wisdom / Understanding Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of all wholesome mental states. We will examine the first factor on the list, faith, in more detail. Faith, Saddha in Pali, is a different from what other religions call faith. Imagine you are standing next to a stream, wondering how to get across. You see a person come up beside you, takes a running leap and jumps over the stream. Having witnessed this, you have faith, confidence, conviction and trust that it is possible to get across the stream. Faith in Buddhism is not blind faith, it is faith rooted in experience. Once you yourself have jumped over the stream, following the example of the other person, you can look back with an even stronger "pure faith" that it is possible to get across; you have faith that it is possible to get across the stream because you have done it yourself. Wholesome Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== The next series of drawings show some misunderstandings about faith in Buddhism. Manussa is unhappy. (Manussa is a Pali word for mankind. Dukkha means unsatisfactoriness, suffering or stress.) - Manussa: "Dukkha." He is unhappy because he is in jail. His crime? Craving. His sentence? Life imprisonment. The prison? Samsāra. (Samsāra is the= continuous cycle of endless rebirths.) He had just finished a life term for the crime of craving and as soon as he was released, he was thrown back into the prison of Samsāra for the same crime. (Craving binds us to samsāra.) One day, the Buddha appeared. - Buddha: "Like you, I used to be a prisoner in Samsāra. I escaped and I showed my friends, the Ariyas, how to escape as well." The Buddha gave Manussa a key. (The Buddha left behind the Dhamma.) - Buddha: "This key opens the door to the prison of Samsāra. To use it, you must walk to the door, put the key in the keyhole, turn the key and open the door." The Buddha disappeared leaving the key behind. Unfortunately, Manussa lacked wisdom (paññā) and wasn't sure what to do with the key. - Manussa: "?" Manussa decided to put the key on the wall. He worshiped the key, hoping that it would release him from Samsāra. (Rites and rituals, without proper understanding, do not help.) - Manussa: "This key is from the Buddha!" Manussa needed faith to believe that there was a door and that the key could work. However, to get out of Samsāra, effort is needed. Without right effort, the key is useless! (We study the Dhamma to get faith; we "see how the Buddha jumped over the stream". However, nothing will happen without we ourselves making the right effort.) Slide Contents ============== Faith must be balanced with the other wholesome cetasikas - Faith without wisdom -> blind faith - Wisdom without faith -> cunning - Faith without energy -> no exertion - Energy without faith -> no resolve - Faith without concentration -> easily distracted - Concentration without faith -> no absorption - Faith without mindfulness -> no foundation - Mindfulness without faith -> no comprehension Speaker Notes ============= Faith is one of the five spiritual faculties or powers. The other four spiritual faculties or powers are wisdom, energy, concentration and mindfulness. Faith must be balanced with the other four spiritual faculties or powers. For example, too much faith with not enough wisdom leads to blind faith which is bad. On the other hand, too much wisdom with not enough faith leads to cunning, which is also bad. 22274 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken H, I hope you all had a good weekend of discussion and comraderie. Look forward to your reports;-) Sorry, I got held up..... --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hello Sarah, > So again, even without right view, we can be liberated [to an extent] > by all kinds of kusala. ..... momentarily;-) ..... > In my post to Christine, I did warn that there would be a lot of mere > speculation. I think the only value in it, was that it revealed > black holes in my own understanding (to which you have so helpfully > pointed :-) ) ..... we’re all here to poke away at the black holes and hopefully gain some insight about them :-) ..... ..... > So the panna of jhana, just like the panna of vipassana, cannot be > developed in a mind-without-panna. I tend to forget that. ..... Exactly so. The panna is not the same, of course, in that the object of wisdom/knowledge is different in the development of samatha and vipassana. Still, it is essential as I see it. I liked these two quotes from the latest installment Larry posted from The Satipatthana Sutta comy on ‘Agitation and Worry’: “Six things are conducive to the casting out of agitation and worry: Knowledge; questioning; understanding of disciplinary rules; association with those more experienced and older than oneself in the practice of things like virtue; sympathetic and helpful companionship and stimulating talk that helps the rejection of mental agitation and worry.” “[T] Mental agitation does not overtake the intelligent well-read man who probes into things by way of what is written in books and by way of the significance and import of the things themselves. Therefore, it is said that by way of knowledge not merely of the Disciplinary Rules, but by way of knowledge of the ninefold Buddha-word, beginning with the Discourses, according to the principles of the method already stated, and by the application of the proper remedies mentioned by way of questioning and so forth, remorse and regret for ill done and good undone do not take place.” Also at the very end of the section, the Tika adds: “Good companionship refers to association with those versed in the Discipline who are able to dispel worry as regards any doubt concerning what is proper and improper practice.” I’m sure you’ll all have spent the weekend dispelling worries an doubts;-) ..... > > No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) > -------------- > > Again, very true. And no need for me to add anything beginning with > "Yes, but . . ." > > ------------------- ..... ;-) ..... > I have spent several hours theorising on how a concept of one's own > self can be the object of akusala citta only. (except for a concept > of a self who is a bhikkhu.) I know it is a doomed theory, but at > least it has made me aware of some things I need to learn. For > example, you referred me to a post of Smallchap's in which he quoted > conceptual thinking that was, apparently, recommended by the > Buddha: > > I need to know more about the definition of pannatti. Take, for > example, "Just as I fear pain and death, so too do others so I > shouldn't hurt them;" could that be a single concept (cognized by a > single citta), ..... no.... ..... >or is it necessarily a series of concepts, cognized by > a series of cittas? Could it be described as a concept of others > (possibly accompanied by metta)? Or is a concept of self -- or of > both, or neither? .... Many series of cittas (I think like Howard explains rather well). At moments of wishing others well there may be metta. At these moments there’s no thought of oneself, even if it were prompted by a ‘talk-through’ reflecting on how no one likes pain and death. ..... > Can I just say that I didn't think the quoted concepts entirely > disproved my theory. I was able to interpret them, either > as 'concepts of others' or as conventional descriptions of paramattha > dhammas. ..... I think the truth, as you’ve said, is that usually when there’s thinking of oneself (or even of others) it is akusala, but there may be kind wishes and thoughts for others and moments of kusala with oneself as object. Only panna can know;-) In other words, it’s not the concepts that make the difference, but the mental states accompanying the cittas. ..... > I'm being stubborn, but I really can't see how the conception of > one's own suffering and death, could be accompanied by wholesome > mental states. ..... Unlikely, I agree, but there can be moments of wise reflection with detachment in between, I think. ..... >We need to be aware that it is only namas and rupas > that are anicca dukkha and anatta. Conventional thoughts of our own > vulnerability and mortality, would seem to be fraught with fear -- > or, at least, with selfishness. ..... I agree. Usually, but not necessarily. I’m sure Mike or others could add some helpful comments to this thread too. I appreciate your comments very much - the honesty (sacca) is an integral part of developing panna as we’ve been discussing. With metta, Sarah ===== 22275 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Mike & Kom, I appreciated Kom’s helpful comments. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Kom, > > QUOTE from 'The Perfections': > > > ... > > > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the > complete > > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > > namely, the defilements. > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the > immaterial > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than pa~n~naa) > could > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only > the > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > potential readings seem misleading to me. ..... I understand your point and Nina may like to see it as well. I don’t read any suggestion of ‘one’ but I’m also unsure that abhisankharas can be ‘equated’ with defilements as suggested. I think as Kom explained well, the meaning is that when the defilements are eradicated (‘relinquished’), ‘kusala and akusala are abandoned automatically’. ..... > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to > consciously > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). ..... Yes, I understand what you’re saying. That’s why wrong view is most dangerous and the first fetter that has to be eradicated. Again, like we’ve discussed with regard to reading the suttas, the understanding is very important and how we say or write things can always be misinterpreted as RobM pointed out to me the other day;-) In the end, just as Kom pointed out, “this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there is really nothig beyond the 4 paramattha dhammas. Once we understand this, then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas.” Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to express what we say as clearly and with as little room for misunderstanding as possible;-) ..... >Even if they > are > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent tendency to > grasp > at them again remains unabated. ..... Still I wouldn’t like to underestimate the value of moments of kusala or the tendency to give up grasping just for an instant.... ..... > > In the verse, > > "Gain/loss, > status/disgrace, > censure/praise, > pleasure/pain: > the 'wise person's (the arahant's, in this case) > > "...welcoming > & rebelling are scattered, > gone to their end, > do not exist." > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as > the > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > Sorry if I'm belaboring the obvious... ..... I think you’re making very good points which I agree with. No belaboring of anything obvious as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t understand or requote the passage having any idea of it being about ‘conscious relinquishing’ but quite see how it can be interpreted in this way. As Rob M pointed out, with self-view, any refrain to ‘do good’, the 4 exertions and so on can be understood wrongly. Thanks for the comments and Kom’s as well. With metta, Sarah ===== 22276 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa, --- yasalalaka wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you for looking at my websites. ..... Thank you do much for introducing your Buddhist websites and also for ‘sharing’ your personal window with us. It sounds like a wonderful way to spend your retirement and I appreciate that you’re able to share some of it with us here;-) ..... >The first one "Buddha": > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan , gives a short history of the > ancient India when the Prince Siddhartha was born, up to his leaving > the Palace to become an ascetic. I have included lots of Buddhist > statues coming from almost all the Buddhist countries in Asia. I > think, it is unique because you cannot get a whole collection of > images of Buddha statues in one website, any where else in the web. .... It is a fine collection of statue images and as Sandy said, the kids found the history very clear. ..... > The second one "Dhamma" http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI, is about > the Enlightenment . There I have included some facts about his > teachings. I have written the articles myself and I still haven't > got down to re-reading them to edit. This second site needs a few > more articles; one will be on Meditation, and perhaps a small > introduction to Abhidhamma, when I have finished reading Nina's book > ADL. Reading takes a lot of time as I am taking notes on every > chapter, so that when I write I need not go back to the book. ..... Before ‘Way’, we went through ADL together here. If you’d like to share any of your notes or have any questions/comments, there should be many members to respond;-) ..... > ......... As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! ..... Ah, but all these paramattha dhammas love looking at the other paramattha dhammas they’re talking to;-) If you can select one reasonably up-to-date pic from your many albums to put in our member album here, then you might just encourage a few others to follow your example (Htoo?, Swee Boon?, Suan?, KKT?, Rahula?, Lee?, Smallchap?, Connie?.......???) ..... > These websites are not very intellectual works, but simple straight > forward facts, about Buddhism. I did them for English speaking > French web-surfers as an introduction to Buddhism, and to make myself > familiar with the teachings, and as a quick reference. ..... I’m impressed at your linguistic skills. Like Rob M, we can all learn a little more about the teachings by sharing and helping each other as best we can;-) Anumodana. ..... > I was happy that little Sandy found them interesting. .... I did too. With metta, Sarah p.s we also share your love of hiking in areas like Mt Blanc region. Unless SARS flares up again here, we plan to be back Switzerland end of June. Perhaps we’ll see you! ================= 22277 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment To Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/18/03 5:10:09 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi All, I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": === Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the software applications that you use on your computer?" Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I know how the software functions." Buddha: "Exactly." === Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I hope you don't mind if I butt in here. I like your idea, it sounds good. But, how about questioning who is the programmer and who is the program. That might reveal some pretty cool non-dualist ideas along the way. good work, Jeff 22278 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 19, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Swee Boon, Thanks for your perceptive comments. Sorry for the delay. --- nidive wrote: > Sarah, > Thank you for your post on this topic. > > But I still think that "ideas" in Majjhima Nikaya 148, Chachakka > Sutta, The Six Sextets includes concepts. > > When I think about the concept "my mother has cheated me", I feel > angry. It is only being mindful of this feeling that anger simmers > down more quickly and then disappears. I am not angry at rupas or > namas or nibbana, but I am angry at the thought "my mother has cheated > me". If "ideas" doesn't include concepts, there simply isn't any other > way to put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now. ..... This is a very good point. Just as you say, anger can take anything as object, even one of RobK’s flying purple elephants! In other words, anything - concept or reality can be the object of consciousness. This is why dhammarammana includes concepts as well. In my post on ayatanas, I wrote: “Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e. experienced by) consciousness (citta/mano/vin~n~nana)” Let me just add a quote from Way87 on this very point of anger which you’ll agree with;-): “Wrong reflection has just the same character everywhere, and when it occurs much in the resentment-object or the resentment-sign, anger arises. Therefore the Blessed One said that intense wrong reflection on an object of resentment is the cause of fresh anger and of the increase and expansion of anger already existing.” So true! However, satipatthana can only have paramattha dhammas as object. Whilst there can be anger at “my mother has cheated me” or a flying purple elephant, there can only be right understanding at those moments of the thinking itself, the feeling, the anger or other phenomena with characteristics which can be known, i.e namas or rupas. ..... Whenever we read about the six internal and external bases in the suttas, it is a reference, as I understand, to the 12 ayatanas. At the beginning of the Chachakka Sutta (The Six Sets of Six), MN, Nanamoli/Bodhi transl, we read: “(Synopsis) “3. “The six internal bases should be understood. the six external bases should be understood. The six classes of consciousness should be understood. The six classes of contact should be understood. The six classes of feeling should be understood. The six classes of craving should be understood.” “ It continues to enumerate the internal and external ayatanas as I set out in my other post, I believe as the first two sets of six. > "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the > intellect. ..... or in the Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: “dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind consciousness arises...” This comes under the third set of six on the 6 classes of consciousness. As I mentioned, I understand these to be referring to the ayatanas of mind-base (mano/citta/manayatana) and mind-objects (dhammayatana = subtle rupas, cetasikas, nibbana). ..... “Seeing this, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye...etc”. In other words, as I understand, seeing these paramattha dhammas, leads to disenchantment. Seeing or knowing flying purple elephants or long trains of other pannatti will never lead to liberation or detachment from the idea of self. So I believe it is important to understand the distinction between dhammarammanas (which we both agree about) and ayatanas. I believe that at least we now understand better why we may understand some details in the suttas a little differently. Thank you again for your comments. These are quite subtle points. I’ll be glad of any further feedback. With metta, Sarah ==== 22279 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:08am Subject: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi all, The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently being made internet-savvy by Christine. In spite of this injection of talent, there were some discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To begin with, there was the story of how Christine had recently come home from work to find her storeroom had been broken into and some quite valuable equipment stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome vipaka? Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) objects to begin with. What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma but what paramattha dhammas are involved? Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered here already and that if we don't understand it by now . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more time? Kind regards, Ken H 22280 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo, Thank you for adding your helpful comments here and on other threads. We can all benefit a lot from your familiarity with Pali and all parts of the Tipitaka - --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more > understandable. ..... Yes, I understand aayatana and dhatu to refer to different ways of classifying the same realities (paramatha dhammas) and I agree that it’s useful to look at them together. I intended to do this initially, but feared my post was already too long and complicated;-) I found these definitions helpful, so would like to add them for other members: From Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii, ch 7,comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha: AYATANAS “They are the spheres (aayatana) in that they are where consciousnesses and mentalities, which take objects through the various doors, exert themselves (aayatananti), struggle, endeavour, in their different functions; or in that they spread (tanonti), extend, the dhammas that come to the entrance (aaya); or in that they make (nayanti) the suffering of sa.msaara, cause it to be, long (aayata); or in that they are the causes of eye-consciousness, etc. Places of dwelling, distribution, meeting, and production are also commonly called ‘spheres’.” DHATUS “The elements (dhaatu) are the things that bear (dhaarenti) their own particular nature. Alternatively, they are elements in that they distribute (vidahanti), according to circumstance, the various forms of the suffering of sa.msaara; they are placed (dhiiyanti) with beings, borne by them, like a burden by a labourer. Not acting under any authority, they alone are what regulate (vidhaana) suffering. By their menas the sufering of sa.msaara is created (anuvidhiyati) by beings. The suffering that has been thus created is played (dhiiyati), is established, on these very (elements)” ..... I find the way you have presented them below to be very helpful, but I don’t understand some terms to be synonymous as I believe you may be suggesting: H:> ==================================================== > > A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana > > 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana > 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana > 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana > 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana > 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana > 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana ..... As I understand: dhamma dhatu and dhaamayatana = cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana BUT dhammarammana = CITTAS, cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana, PANNATTI ..... H:> B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara > > 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara > 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara > 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara > 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara > 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara > 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara ..... Again, the last terms are not synonymous, I believe and even more complicated: Mano dhatu (mind-element) = panca-dvaravajjana-citta (5 sense door adverting consciousness), sampaticchana citta x2 (receiving consciousness) Manaytana (mind-base) = all kinds of consciousness not included in dvi panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness), inc bhavanga cittas ..... H: > C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana > > 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) > 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) > 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) > 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) > 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) > 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) ..... and manovinnana dhatu (mind-consciousness element) = all cittas not included in dvi-panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness) OR in mano-dhatu (mind-element), eg includes javana cittas, santirana citta, mano-dvaravajjana citta (mind-door adverting consciousness). ??bhavanga cittas > =================================== > H: > Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are > > 1.Citta > 2.Cetasikas > 3. 5 Pasada Rupas > 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa > 5. Nibbana > 6.Pannatta ..... Agreed. However, I don’t understand pannatti to be included in dhammayatana (or dhammadhatu) and it was this distinction between dhammarammana and dhammayatana that prompted my first post. From B.Bodhi’s CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: “the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends ONLY to ULTIMATE REALITIES, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana.” This conforms with what we read in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhanga and Sammohavinodani. ..... > I hope these will work for more understanding. ..... Your comments and stress on the importance of looking at elements as well are much appreciated. Please let me know if I’ve made any errors or your understanding of any points is different. I greatly respect and admire your obvious familiarity with all the Pali Abhidhamma and apologise for being slow to respond. With metta and thanks for your help, Sarah ===== 22281 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Rob K Thanks for clarifying this reference to 'thoughts' in A. IV, 41. Very helpful. Yes, I remember now your earlier post. Looks like I was on the wrong track with my assumption, which was based on the footnote to the succeeding passage in the sutta. Apologies to all for any confusion. Jon PS I saw from an earlier note that you're not back in Japan yet. Are you still in NZ, and what are you up to these days? --- rjkjp1 wrote: ... > Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. > I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught > this letter and thought I could add something. > You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara > Nikaya 4) > Specifically this paragraph: > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. " > > This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing > understanding of these factors. > > Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect > of the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. > I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the > thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing > away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. 22282 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jon: > > I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the > question > comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and > conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our > system of > belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that > which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we > define those terms), then > > (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are > deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and > > (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they > do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? > > These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of > debate > among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and > Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) > details > these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if > it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, hasto > confront these same type of issues in my view. I'm not sure that I agree with this last observation, in the sense that these discussions seem to take place within the framework of an ongoing discourse that has its own vocabulary, assumptions and conventions, if you see what i mean. Thanks for the passage from Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” which I've had a quick look at. I'm afraid there are problems with his interpretation of the teachings that make it difficult for me to comment on the overall argument. For example, in the first paragraph the author says: "We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever?" (This last question is the theme of the whole piece.) It's apparent that the author regards the statement at (a) to be one of the truths asserted in the teachings and the statement at (b) as an example of an assertion that is inconsistent with the teachings. I think he is mistaken in this. Both assertions are assertions at a purely conventional level, and as such have nothing to do with insight. The impermanence discussed in the teachings is impermanence as a characteristic of fundamental phenomena (dhammas), not of conventional objects such as mountains. Again, in the final paragraph the author says: "In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how reality can be understood by thought." The teachings do not hold that 'reality can be understood by thought', if that is what is being suggested. The unique characteristic of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the time, but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. Every moment of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing the dhamma that is visible object. I hope I've not misread the author, and that my comments are to the point of the question you have raised. Jon > Here is a passage you may find interesting: > > ------------ > > From Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” at 319-321 > > We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From > this > experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it > changes > and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the > most > part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian > epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid > experience. > Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish > the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a > Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever? 22283 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:23am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Ken, We haven't chatted in a while! My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post 19983 on sanna. However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class called simply "the undesireable". According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants." I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from CMA? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi all, > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > objects to begin with. > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > time? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22284 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jon: > > Yes, I agree, but rightly or wrongly it is an intellectualising > that has occupied Buddhists for centuries. The Buddha makes it clear that the truths he teaches cannot be appreciated by reasoning or discussion alone. Although insight requires correct intellectual understanding as a basis, it needs in addition the concurrent reflection on and appraisal of that intellectual understanding by reference to the present moment in order to develop. I see a distinction between the intellectual understanding that is a necessary basis for the development of insight and intellectualising about some aspect of the teachings. I do not see any particular relevance, or merit, in the latter (although we are all prone to it to a greater or lesser degree -- it is not necessarily harmful, but can become a distraction for some). ... > But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality > appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such > questions? > Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that > "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and > these > are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > appropriate conditions have been developed"? There is no need to make any a priori assumptiona. Indeed, the Buddha cautioned against such. There is only a need to have heard enough of the teachings to have the confidence that they are the words of someone who very likely knew what he was talking about, and not of someone who had it all wrong (some people seem more ready to give credence to modern-day commentators than to the ancients ;-)). There are aspects of the teachings that can be the 'investigated' at any time, without having to make any assumptions about their validity. For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated without the need for any a priori assumptions. Jon 22285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Swee Boon) - ... H: I don't understand how you reach the conclusion "I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight." J: That was an assumption I made, based on based on the footnote relating to the passage that followed that one. It turns out that assumption was incorrect, and my apologies to all for any confusion. However, the important thing is that the sutta is referring to the arising, persisting and subsiding of paramattha dhammas, not of concepts. H: The sutta talks about a process leading to the ending of the effluents. (Also, B. Bodhi's footnote refers to insight meditation, but that is a secondary matter.) In any case, the sutta includes "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside." J: Rob K's post clarifies that what is translated as 'thoughts' here is in fact 'vitakka' in the original Pali. Vitakka is a mental factor that arises with the citta that conceives of an object, and hence is part of the act of thinking (and not the thought that is object of that consciousness). It is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. H: If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? (I agree that the imagined referents of most concepts are nonexistent, but that isn't the issue here.) J: According to the Abhidhamma and commentaries, concepts do not manifest the 3 characteristics that are attributed to all conditioned phenomena. They are not 'things having sabhava' and, accordingly, do not manifest characteristics. They are not 'things' of any kind whatsoever, simply names and other mental images. H: Your post follows below. BTW, you are NOT, as you put it, "coming in here". This thread involves you essentially - and even if it didn't, your input is always very much welcomed. J: Thanks for this, Howard. Much appreciated ;-)) Jon 22286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > So far, my experience of anatta is limited to the experience of a > whole > and its parts. I experience this only when regarding other people > and it > amounts to an experience of space and disappointment that there is > no > "wholeness" there. I don't experience other objects, such as myself > or mechanical objects, in this way, unfortunately. Of course the > conceptual > understanding "there is no self" isn't nothing. At some point one > is bound to get it. Would you say your experience of anatta is of anatta as a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma, or of the 'anattaness' of conventional objects? I believe there would be a significant difference in terms of insight. > My experience of asabhava amounts to a disconnect between an object > and > its name. Both these experiences are liberating; maybe that was my > point. In any case, I need further research in order to > discriminate between the two in detail. Not all experiences that are subjectively 'liberating' experiences are necessarily kusala moments. For example, the experience of 'disconnect between an object and its name' is something that could happen under the influence of a hallucinogen (not that I'm imputing anything about you, Larry ;-)). This is why we need to have a firm basis in the theoretical understanding of the teachings as to how understanding is to be developed. Regarding the textual references, I'll comment on these separately. Would you mind giving me the references you have for "pannatti" in the Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas; I'd like to check them out. Thanks. Jon > As to the source of this philosophical understanding of concept and > reality, I am starting to suspect either the Abhidhammatta Sangaha > or > its commentary. ... 22287 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > ... > >>Hi Jon: >> >>I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the >>question >>comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and >>conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our >>system of >>belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that >>which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we >>define those terms), then >> >>(a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are >>deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and >> >>(b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they >>do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? >> >>These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of >>debate >>among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and >>Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) >>details >>these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if >>it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, hasto >>confront these same type of issues in my view. > > > I'm not sure that I agree with this last observation, in the sense > that these discussions seem to take place within the framework of an > ongoing discourse that has its own vocabulary, assumptions and > conventions, if you see what i mean. > > Thanks for the passage from Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” which I've > had a quick look at. I'm afraid there are problems with his > interpretation of the teachings that make it difficult for me to > comment on the overall argument. For example, in the first paragraph > the author says: > "We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From > this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it > changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed > for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called > inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused > equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid > perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from > the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no > validity whatsoever?" > > (This last question is the theme of the whole piece.) > > It's apparent that the author regards the statement at (a) to be one > of the truths asserted in the teachings and the statement at (b) as > an example of an assertion that is inconsistent with the teachings. > I think he is mistaken in this. Both assertions are assertions at a > purely conventional level, and as such have nothing to do with > insight. The impermanence discussed in the teachings is impermanence > as a characteristic of fundamental phenomena (dhammas), not of > conventional objects such as mountains. Hi Jonothan: I am not sure I understand your comments. In particular, I don't see how the distinction between ultimate and conventional truths helps you out of the problems posed by the author - such as, how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. > Again, in the final paragraph the author says: > "In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents > of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how > reality can be understood by thought." > > The teachings do not hold that 'reality can be understood by > thought', if that is what is being suggested. The unique > characteristic of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain > level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, > dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the time, > but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. Every moment > of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing the > dhamma that is visible object. Yes, I understand that is what the Abhidhamma approach asserts, but, to me, it still does not answer the question of how to bridge the gap between perception and conception. I think Larry also suggested the idea of panna as a solution to the problem, but frankly, I don't understand how either of you intend it as a solution. I believe I have a rudimentary understanding of panna's positioning within the Abhidhamma system of thought, but don't see how it works as a solution within the context Dreyfus is discussing. I would be interested in hearing the reasoning of either you or Larry on this point. -- Lee Dillion 22288 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 19, 2003 6:47am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa (and Sarah), Thank your for the links to your websites. I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self-view. Thank you again for the links. Regards, Victor > Dear Sarah, > [snip] As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! > [snip] > > With metta, > Yasa. 22289 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 19, 2003 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi Jeff (and all); I have been reconsidering using this last piece in the analogy. "Nama" is influenced by and adapts to its environment. The traditional type of software that people are used to doesn't work this way. If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets too complicated for the average reader. I think I will leave this part out. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To Rob M :-) > > In a message dated 5/18/03 5:10:09 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: > > << Hi All, > > I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": > > === > > Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me > wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." > > Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the > software applications that you use on your computer?" > > Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I > know how the software functions." > > Buddha: "Exactly." > > === > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) >> > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > I hope you don't mind if I butt in here. I like your idea, it sounds good. > But, how about questioning who is the programmer and who is the program. > That might reveal some pretty cool non-dualist ideas along the way. > > good work, > > Jeff 22290 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon May 19, 2003 8:39am Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Howard Dear Howard and all How are you? You wrote in your message 22246 as follows. "You know that I distinguish the 5 aggregates from the 5 aggregates afflicted by clinging." When I was about to compose, and while composing, a reply to your message 22219, you have not had posted your post "Distinguishing ..". Only after I have posted my message in reply to your post 22219, I saw your post "Distinguishing ..". By then it was very late and I was sleepy in Canberra, so I did not even have a chance to read that post. Only the next very late night, I had a chance to read and replied to it. I reply to the messages on a thread on the "First Come, First Serve" basis, usually the ones directly responding to my posts. It is true that ideally I should read all the relevant posts on a thread first before I reply to a key post. But, I now have less and less time to do so. On the day of Vesak, Dr Des from Los Angeles has enlisted me to become a moderator for his large Mahayana group despite my exuses of scarce time. Imagine the scenario of me, a Theravada specialist, moderating a Mahayana group with nearly 1000 list members. As it is a Mahayana group, Vedantists also come along! :) Only last night, I had to reassure a list member who began to question if he had joined the wrong non-Buddhist group, i.e a Vedantist group. Now, returning to the episode under question. Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of oppression" The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, Majjhimanikaaya. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan and all - Observe the negative effect of anger. First I addressed a post to the wrong person. Then, as seen below, I misspelled. Anger agitates the mind, stirs it up, makes it muddy, and leads to mistakes. Calm has the opposite effect. The anger was there. I cannot take that back. But I apologize for it, and I shall attempt to more closely guard the senses in the future. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - > > Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee > Boon. It was a reply to Suan. > > With metta, > Howard > > 22291 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jonothan: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > The Buddha makes it clear that the truths he teaches cannot be > appreciated by reasoning or discussion alone. Although insight > requires correct intellectual understanding as a basis, it needs in > addition the concurrent reflection on and appraisal of that > intellectual understanding by reference to the present moment in > order to develop. I agree. > I see a distinction between the intellectual understanding that is a > necessary basis for the development of insight and intellectualising > about some aspect of the teachings. I do not see any particular > relevance, or merit, in the latter (although we are all prone to it > to a greater or lesser degree -- it is not necessarily harmful, but > can become a distraction for some). Again, we agree. > > But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality > > appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such > > questions? > > Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that > > "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and > > these > > are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > > appropriate conditions have been developed"? > > There is no need to make any a priori assumptiona. Indeed, the > Buddha cautioned against such. There is only a need to have heard > enough of the teachings to have the confidence that they are the > words of someone who very likely knew what he was talking about, and > not of someone who had it all wrong (some people seem more ready to > give credence to modern-day commentators than to the ancients ;-)). And again, we agree. :) > There are aspects of the teachings that can be the 'investigated' at > any time, without having to make any assumptions about their > validity. Yes, that is one of the attractions of Buddhism for me and, I suspect, many others. This attitude of "come and see" grounds the practice in experience and not mere intellectualizing. > For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is > correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences > other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't > experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the > different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are > very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated > without the need for any a priori assumptions. This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the experiential process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily intended as a description that serves ontological rather than purely salvational needs. In saying this, I don't mean to denigrate the value or wisdom of the Abhidhamma approach. Rather, I am simply describing where I am in my own thought process at this particular time. The approach that you and others follow on DSG is fascinating and, consistent with the call to come and see, I have much to learn about your approach. 22292 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards to Robert Epstein Dear Rob Ep, I was just going to tell you that I miss you. I understand that you cannot read all mails and that you need time for inspiration to write and think about your work re theater. I had asked Sarah for your personal address and shall fwd this to it, in case you overlook me. What a conceit, fear to be overlooked. Best regards, Nina. op 18-05-2003 15:29 schreef Howard: >> >> I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm >> greetings! >> Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some >> point. >> He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. 22293 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no cyber silence. Hi smallchap, You made me laugh. Please, no cyber silence, you never talk enough!!! Nina. op 18-05-2003 17:16 schreef smallchap op smallchap@y...: > smallchap: Dear Nina and Sarah, > > Thank you both for your kind words. > > I realise that I talked too much. It's time to observe cyber-silence. > > Take care! 22294 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: responses to mails Dear Yasa and Rob Moult, Your good questions deserve more attention and I take some time, being just back from a vacation, Nina. 22295 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Dhamma discussions in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 1. Chapter 2 The Conditions for Direct Understanding We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101, Adze-handle) that the Buddha used similes in order to explain that freedom from defilements cannot be attained by mere wishing, but only by cultivating the right cause. We read: Just as if, brethren, some eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs are not fully sat upon, not fully warmed, not fully brooded over by the hen. Then suppose that in that hen there arise such a wish as this: ²O that my chicks with foot and claw or mouth and beak might break through the eggshells and so be safely hatched.² Yet for all that those chicks are not made fit to break up the eggshells with foot and claw or mouth and beak, and so be safely hatched. What is the cause of that? It is because those eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs, brethren, have not been fully sat upon, fully warmed, fully brooded over by the hen. Even so, brethren, if in a brother who lives neglectful of self-training there should arise this wish: ³O that my heart were freed from the Åsavas without grasping², yet is his heart not freed thereby from them. What is the cause of that? It must be said: ³It is his lack of self-training.² Training in what? In the four Earnest Contemplations...in the Ariyan Eightfold Path...² We then read that just as when the eggs are fully brooded and the chicks are safely hatched, the monk who is not neglectful in self-training reaches arahatship. The Commentary to this Sutta, the ³Såratthappakåsiní² elaborates on this simile: Just as the eggs do not rot, so does the bhikkhu¹s insight not decrease, because he has undertaken the threefold contemplation (of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå). Just as the moisture within the eggshell dries up, so the bhikkhu¹s attachment to the threefold existence (in the sensuous planes, fine material planes and immaterial planes) is abandoned. Just as the eggshells become thinner, so the shell of ignorance becomes thinner. Just as the chick¹s feet, nails and beak have become hard and sharp, so has the bhikkhu¹s insight becomes keen and pure, it is developed with courage. Just as for the chicks the moment of hatching comes, so for the bhikkhu when insight has been developed, the time of its maturity arrives. Just as the chicks, after they have split the eggshell with nails, beak and feet, merge safely, so for the bhikkhu insight knowledge matures, when he has acquired the right conditions of climate, food, people (he associates with), and listening to the Dhamma. By the gradual attainment of insight that is developed he penetrates the shell of ignorance and reaches safety by arahatship. This reminds us of the right conditions for the development of insight. Association with the right friend in Dhamma and listening are essential conditions for the development of right understanding that will lead to enlightenment. Acharn Sujin frequently reminded us of this sutta: ³Does one know that one is in the shell of ignorance and clinging? Clinging is very strong.² Just as the chicks needed energy and courage to split the eggshell, we need energy and courage for awareness of the reality that appears now. In this way, keen understanding can be developed so that the shell of ignorance can be penetrated. If we remember this we shall not be neglectful of the development of understanding. 22296 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- Dear Robm, I wrote about this before. Just a quick note as I am going out. I'll add more later. I don't have Bodhi's work with me but the sammohvinodani explains this about average people so that it can be roughly judged )i . The sammohavinodnai then goes on to explain that in the ultimate sense it only depends on the kamma - not on anyones judgement, (not even accountants!) RobK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken, > > We haven't chatted in a while! > > My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta > process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door > citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the > mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather > detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post > 19983 on sanna. > > However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to > figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the > shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time > (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). > > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? > > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > > vipaka? > > > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > > objects to begin with. > > > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > > time? > > > > Kind regards, > > Ken H 22297 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 8. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 8. When someone maintains truthfulness in speech, speech that does not deviate from the truth, he will continue to be steadfast in every respect, even when he is in danger of life. This is the resolve for truthfulness, saccaditthåna. We should be firmly established in truthfulness so that we shall reach the further shore, nibbåna. The second foundation dhamma is the determination for relinquishment, cåga, the relinquishment of defilements. Relinquishment is not only the giving away of material things for the benefit and happiness of others, such as acts of generosity, dåna. But it is also the relinquishment of defilements, and this is to the benefit of oneself. When we give away material things to others, we should also be intent on the relinquishment of our defilements. We should consider whether our action and speech are motivated by kusala cittas, we should not give with the expectation to receive something in return. Clinging, lobha, is the opposite, the enemy, of each one of the perfections. When we have lobha, when we desire to gain something, or when we expect something in returnfor our good deed, this is opposed to the development of the perfections. Therefore, we should consider in which way we shall give so that there is determination for relinquishment and defilements can be eradicated. When we give, we should not expect anything in return, and moreover, we should not think of giving as being tedious, we should not give without cheerfulness and generosity, we should give wholeheartedly. We need to have a subtle and detailed knowledge of our cittas so that defilements can be eliminated. When we see someone else¹s generosity, we can rejoice in his good deed, we can feel enthusiasm about it. We should remember that also forgiving is a kind of dåna, because we wish someone else to be free from any adversity or danger. Thus, generosity is not merely the giving of material gifts. There can be purity of citta when, by our acts of generosity, we are intent on giving support to the other person so that he is free from harm. We may be able to rejoice in giving and also abandon our own defilements at such moments. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² that the Bodhisatta needed to have a strong wish, a strong yearning, to become the Sammåsambuddha. We read in the ³Miscellaneous Sayings²: Strong desire (chandatå): wholesome desire, the wish for accomplishment. One possessed of the aforesaid qualities must have strong desire, yearning, and longing to practise the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Only then does his aspiration succeed, not otherwise. The following similes illustrate the magnitude of the desire required. If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can tread across a whole world-system filled with flameless, smokeless redhot coals, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... 22298 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon May 19, 2003 3:03pm Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Yasa (and Sarah), > > Thank your for the links to your websites. > > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- view. > > Thank you again for the links. > > Regards, > Victor > > > Dear Sarah, > > > [snip] > As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! > > > [snip] > > > > With metta, > > Yasa. Victor, I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I am", that is the self view. with metta, Yasa 22299 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, You wrote: (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? L: First, let me say that everyone in this group has a different understanding of what is a concept. At this point, my understanding is that a concept is little more than a name. In that light, I would rephrase the above questions and ask how do we determine which CONCEPTIONS are true and which are deceptive without using PERCEPTION? In abhidhamma there are three kinds of "perception": perception (sanna), consciousness (citta), and wisdom (panna). Consciousness and wisdom are always 100% true, according to abhidhamma. I have my doubts about sanna being 100% true as I think it is recognition and recogition is subject to error. Also, some of the functions of consciousness in citta process may be subject to error. I don't understand this very well. Wisdom is, I suppose, always true and profound but there are levels of wisdom: mundane and supramundane, and there are levels within these categories as well. I don't know if Abhidhamma goes into the details of panna's accuracy. In any case, according to this theory, a true conception is simply a naming or description of one of these "viewings". Someone else may have a better understanding of the accuracy levels of sanna, citta, and panna. Also there is bewilderment/ignorance (moha) which is a root (causal) consciousness. This consciousness may or may not manifest AS concept, depending on what you think a concept is (just a thought). Larry 22300 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:06pm Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Howard --- Dear Suan, Thnaks for this excellent quote from the Pali. If you have more it would be great. In the Channovada sutta http://www.vipassana.info/144-channovada-e.htm I thought the commentary mentions that channa believed he was an arahant because of his good insight into the teachings but upon cutting his throat realises that he isn't. He insights the pain and becomes an arahant at the moment of death. Perhaps someone could check. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Now, returning to the episode under question. > > Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is > outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not > equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned > phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three > Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the > Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe > sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. > > The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section > 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. > > "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" > > "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of > oppression" > > The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment > of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. > Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed > suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, > Majjhimanikaaya. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, 22301 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment In a message dated 5/19/03 8:09:39 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Jeff (and all); I have been reconsidering using this last piece in the analogy. "Nama" is influenced by and adapts to its environment. The traditional type of software that people are used to doesn't work this way. If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets too complicated for the average reader. I think I will leave this part out. Metta, Rob M :-) >> Yes, I would agree, but what about the hardware being rupa and the software being nama. Or, maybe nama-rupa being brand identification. "Is it true, computer geek, sir, that one kind of computer does pretty much the same as another, or is Dell really superior to HP?" Something like that. This project just reminded me of an old Doonsberry in which the priest goes into buy a computer and after getting a long string of jargon from one of the sales reps asks if they have any "user friendly sales reps." The computer sales rep. says, "No, our enduser compatible live-ware is off today." Keep up this noble work, I am sure some computer geeks will get a kick out of it. Jeff 22302 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites Hi, Yasa (and Victor) - In a message dated 5/19/03 6:15:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you quote Victor saying: > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- > view. and you reply as follows: > Victor, > > I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I > am", that is the self view. > > with metta, > Yasa > > ============================== Yasa, this is one of those rare and happy moments at which I both understand Victor and agree with him. To say "I am a paramatta dhamma" is both to assume that there *is* an "I" and to say what it allegedly is. That certainly is a self view. Moreover, and this I am adding, myself, and not attributing to Victor - as a conventional statement it is actually *false*. Whatever an alleged "I" might be [I say it is concept-only], it certainly is *not* a paramattha dhamma; it is not a direct, irreducible, element of experience. 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) 22303 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Larry: Thanks for your thoughts on this. As you note, everyone seems to have "a different understanding of what is a concept." That was one of the distinct problem I had with Dreyfus' book since it describes debates that have raged for centuries among so many different Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups, each one using their own definitions of reality, perception, concepts, etc., and each seeing their understanding of reality as the correct one. --- Lee LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > You wrote: > > (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are > deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and > > (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do > not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? > > L: First, let me say that everyone in this group has a different > understanding of what is a concept. At this point, my understanding is > that a concept is little more than a name. In that light, I would > rephrase the above questions and ask how do we determine which > CONCEPTIONS are true and which are deceptive without using PERCEPTION? > > In abhidhamma there are three kinds of "perception": perception (sanna), > consciousness (citta), and wisdom (panna). Consciousness and wisdom are > always 100% true, according to abhidhamma. I have my doubts about sanna > being 100% true as I think it is recognition and recogition is subject > to error. Also, some of the functions of consciousness in citta process > may be subject to error. I don't understand this very well. Wisdom is, I > suppose, always true and profound but there are levels of wisdom: > mundane and supramundane, and there are levels within these categories > as well. I don't know if Abhidhamma goes into the details of panna's > accuracy. In any case, according to this theory, a true conception is > simply a naming or description of one of these "viewings". > > Someone else may have a better understanding of the accuracy levels of > sanna, citta, and panna. > > Also there is bewilderment/ignorance (moha) which is a root (causal) > consciousness. This consciousness may or may not manifest AS concept, > depending on what you think a concept is (just a thought). > 22304 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 7:56pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Dear ken, Wish I could have made it to your discussions. I think you've reflected well on it already but I try to add more. The Dhamma about kamma and vipaka is complex as we all know. Sometimes the Buddha put it in fairly simple terms. SO: 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'... [AN V.57] And illustrated it with stories. One related to theft, in the commentaries, is about a rich man in the time of the Buddha (forget his name). He had given to a past Buddha or Pacceka Buddha and made other good kamma in past lives. One of the results of this was that he was rich now, another was that he could never have anything stolen. King Ajatasattu hearing of his wealth decided to claim some and took his men to get it. But nothing they did resulted in the man losing any of his possesions. These stories help us to get the general idea of how kamma/vipaka work. I love them and trust in them so that I rarely lock my house or car. (However, this also depends on the neighbourhood as I know other factors support receiving result of kamma.) Last month I was ripped off on an internet auction for about US $250 -but honestly I never minded as I just think of it as the result of past kamma. It makes life easier to think in this way. When we know about paramattha dhamma it becomes even clearer and better. In Christine's case we can understand that the loss of vaulable equipment means that perhaps in the future weeks there is less experience of some kusala vipaka. Say it was a latest movie projector and she can't enjoy such high quality images, so just a tad less kusala vipaka (on occasion)than before. Or maybe she has to do extra overtime to get the money to replace it ..and this extra work conditions some unpleasant feeling through the bodysense. These are just rough examples to help to see. Sometimes it can be quite different from the story: We have to stay in hospital. We might think "Bad ": that is the story. However,I stayed in a hospital in thailand where they had service equal to a fivestar hotel! I was experiencing a few pains in the stomach area (partly conditioned by akusala kamma) but the surroundings (attractive decor, nice bed, pretty nurses) were possibly kusala vipaka through the eyesense. It is really all changing so quickly . RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi all, > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > objects to begin with. > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > time? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22305 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi RobM Thanks for answering. -------------- > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 > on sanna help? -------------------- It was good to read but, actually, you may have missed the point of my question. So I'll put it another way: The conventional understanding of kamma/vipaka is that what happens to us is due to our past actions. So, if someone steals my car, then it is only because I have been a thief (or something like that), in a past life. Now, can we describe that in terms namas and rupas? When I step outside in the morning, what sense object/s tells me that my car has been stolen? Where is the moment of vipaka conditioned by my past criminal actions? Is it the visible object that arises when, conventionally speaking, I look at the empty space in my driveway? The answer to this question may well be in the explanation of citta processes as you have suggested. But I, and the Cooran group as a whole, had a mental block. Were we thinking wrongly -- asking the wrong questions? We suspect it is only a matter of hearing again, certain explanations already given here on dsg. Such as, for example, when Eric ran into terrible trouble with bureaucratic red tape or when Christine was kept awake on a plane by crying babies. ----------- > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above > extract from CMA? ----------- I'd like to have a go. To reiterate: All experiences of sense objects are caused by our kusala and akusala actions in the past. Kusala actions cause us to experience pleasant (desirable), objects; akusala actions cause us to experience unpleasant (undesirable), objects. The general problem people have in understanding this, lies in the idea of intrinsic quality. Desirability and undesirability are not normally seen as intrinsic. Conventionally, it is extrinsic, subjective judgement that decides what is desirable and what is undesirable -- 'one man's meat is another man's poison.' Even so, the Dhamma definitely states that sense objects are intrinsically desirable or undesirable and it is only a perversion of perception that confuses the two. When we wonder how this could be, there is bound to be a degree of wounded pride: "What seems obvious to my precious intellect, is being flatly denied by the Dhamma!" So we assume that this intrinsic nature must be something esoteric -- totally foreign to anything in the known, conventional world. (Otherwise, it would have been obvious to us.) But the answer is no, it is very much the same sort of desirability and undesirability that is known to ordinary men and women of average intelligence. A merchant knows "This is desirable merchandise, that is not so desirable, that is undesirable merchandise," or an accountant knows, "This is a desirable set of figures, this is a not so desirable set of figures, etc., etc.," In this same, quite straightforward way, sense objects can be rightly perceived as; "This is desirable visible object, that is not so desirable visible object . . etc." Am I on the right track? Kind regards, Ken H > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? > > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? 22306 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken, > > We haven't chatted in a while! > > My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta > process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door > citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the > mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather > detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post > 19983 on sanna. > > However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to > figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the > shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time > (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). > > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > > Question : Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) _______________ Dear RobM, Firstly I add what Ken H wrote: kenhowardau" wrote: > To reiterate: All experiences of sense objects are > caused by our kusala and akusala actions in the past. > Kusala actions cause us to experience pleasant > (desirable), objects; akusala actions cause us to > experience unpleasant (undesirable), objects. > > The general problem people have in understanding this, > lies in the idea of intrinsic quality. Desirability and > undesirability are not normally seen as intrinsic. > Conventionally, it is extrinsic, subjective judgement > that decides what is desirable and what is undesirable -- > 'one man's meat is another man's poison.' > > Even so, the Dhamma definitely states that sense objects > are intrinsically desirable or undesirable and it is only > a perversion of perception that confuses the two. > > When we wonder how this could be, there is bound to be a > degree of wounded pride: "What seems obvious to my > precious intellect, is being flatly denied by the > Dhamma!" > > So we assume that this intrinsic nature must be something > esoteric -- totally foreign to anything in the known, > conventional world. (Otherwise, it would have been > obvious to us.) > > But the answer is no, it is very much the same sort of > desirability and undesirability that is known to ordinary > men and women of average intelligence. > > A merchant knows "This is desirable merchandise, that is > not so desirable, that is undesirable merchandise," > > In this same, quite straightforward way, sense objects > can be rightly perceived as; "This is desirable visible > object, that is not so desirable visible object . . etc." ---------------- Now I add some more. I don't have CMA with me but it is important to understand the whole passage ?hat Ven. Bodhi is citing from. The next paragraph (same page) explains that in the ultimate sense only by kamma result can it truly be distinguished. Sometimes we might all see a scene (like looking out over Bangkok- remember Azita) and not be fully sure whether it is kusala vipaka or very mild akusala vipaka. And it doesn't especially matter except that we should realise that in the ultimate sense it is one or the other. Here is the next paragraph: """The elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to vipaka (kamma result) only, not according to javana (impulsion that follows the vipaka). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sannavipallasa)only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable; that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same agreeable. Only by way of vipaka however is it rightly distinguishable. For resultant consciousness (vipaka citta) cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen. Although those of wrong view on seeing such exalted objects as the enlightened one(buddha) shut their eyes and feel domanassa (unpleasant feeling)[arising during the javana stage]and on hearing the Dhamma they stop their ears nevertheless their eye-consciouness, ear-consciousness , etc are only profitable kamma result (vipaka). Although dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result."" ENDQUOTE RobertK 22307 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 20, 2003 1:07am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Yasa (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 5/19/03 6:15:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you quote Victor > saying: > > > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- > > view. > > and you reply as follows: > > > Victor, > > > > I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I > > am", that is the self view. > > > > with metta, > > Yasa > > > > > ============================== > Yasa, this is one of those rare and happy moments at which I both > understand Victor and agree with him. To say "I am a paramatta dhamma" is > both to assume that there *is* an "I" and to say what it allegedly is. That > certainly is a self view. Moreover, and this I am adding, myself, and not > attributing to Victor - as a conventional statement it is actually *false*. > Whatever an alleged "I" might be [I say it is concept-only], it certainly is > *not* a paramattha dhamma; it is not a direct, irreducible, element of > experience. > > With metta, > Howard > > ____________________________Yasa replies_____________________ Dear Howard, But I am in agreement with Victor, when he takes the whole sentence " I am a paramatta dhamma" and says, that it is a self-view. But, may be I am splitting hair, but I see the sentence having two parts, "I am", qualifies the other," a paramatta dhamma". I tend to think, the prefix "I am" is a concept, therefore a self view of that, which is a "paramatta dhamma". I am using a conventional term " I am". I will see the reality of it only when there is no more "moha" in me. Until then I will be qualifying paramatta dhamma , in conventional terms. Please see what, Nina Van Gorkom, says in Chapter 7 –Ignorance. Abhidhamma in Daily life" "The world experienced through the six doors is real but it does not last; it is impermanent. When we see, there is the world of the visible, but it falls away immediately. When we hear, there is the world of sound, but it does not last either. It is the same with the world of smell, the world of flavour, the world of impressions through the body-sense and the world of objects experienced through the mind-door. However, we only seem to know the world of conventional terms, because ignorance and wrong view have been accumulated for so long. Ignorance of paramattha dhammas is the kind of ignorance which should be eradicated; it brings sorrow." With metta, Yasa 22308 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Sarah, I think you do have a good references and a great deal of knowledge than me.I just put the information to think about six-senses.But there are disagreeable things especially in case of the sixth sense.I will probably try to post a separate topic ''The sixth consideration and its essence'' in a series which might stretch to 30 posts(probably?). First I will re-state five senses.I think I have posted the same things a couple of months ago.For example,sight(Rupa)_eye(Cekkhu)_light_cognition causing Vinnana that is Cekkhuvinnana in this example.All five senses have these components. But,the sixth sense behaves differently. (1).Dhamma-Arammana is the same as you said. 5 Pasada Rupa(because they are not the senses of Panca-Arammana) 16 Sukhuma Rupas 89 Cittas 52 Cetasikas 1 Nibbana 1 Pannatta (2).Manodvara This is a bit different from Pancadvara.19 Bhavangacitta beyond Manodvaraavajjanacitta may be assumed as Manodvara.In the series of Vithicittas,before Manodvaraavajjanacitta(Vutthabbanacitta) there are Pancadvaraavajjanacitta,Panca-Vinnanacittas,Sampaticchanacitta and Santiranacitta.All these Cittas home on Pancavatthus(that is Pancadvara).After Manodvaraavajjanacitta,Javanacittas come in both Pancadvara-Javana and Manodvara-Javana.So,it is preferable that The Bhavanguppacchedacitta beyond Manodvaraavajjanacitta is assumed as Manodvara. This is a bit different from Pancadvaras. (3).Hadaya-Vatthu Panca-Vatthus function as Pancadvaras.But Hadayavatthu does not function as Manodvara.But it is the seat of all Cittas when a Satta is in Pancalokara-Bhumis. (4). Manovinnana There are 89 Cittas.10 Cittas are Panca-Vinnanacittas.So there left 79 Cittas.All these 79 Cittas are Manovinnanacittas.They include 3 Manodhatu namely Pancdvaraavajjanacitta and 2 Sampaticchanacittas. (5). Dhamma-aayatana These constitute 16 Sukhuma Rupa,52 Cetasikas and 1 Nibbana.5 Pasadas in Dhamma-arammana become Panca-aayatanas.Cittas are not in group of Dhamma-aayatana.Pannatta is not a Paramattha-dhamma as you said. (6).Mana-aayatana These have separate entity unlike other Aayatanas which cause and expand Cittas and Cetasikas as they function as Arammanas and Dvaras. (7).Dhamma-Dhatu These are Sukhuma Rupa 16,52 Cetasikas and Nibbana. (8).Mano-Dhatu Three Cittas,Pancadvaraavajjana,2 Sampatcchanas, are not assigned as Manovinnana-Dhatu but as Mano-Dhatu.This is because they just only sense and cannot fully sense. (9).Manovinnana-Dhatu There are 89 Cittas.10 are Panca-Vinnanacittas and they are under the heading of Panca-Dhatu(Cekkhu,..etc).79 Cittas left.As 3 described above are Mano-Dhatu the remaining 76 Cittas are called Manovinnana-Dhatu. I hope this will clear up nearly all the queries.I apologise for my allegation.I happened to do so just to equate with Panca-Arammana,Vatthu,Dvara and Vinnana with the sixth sense. Thank you very much for your encouragement all the time. With best regards, Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, Thank you for adding your helpful comments here and on other threads. We can all benefit a lot from your familiarity with Pali and all parts of the Tipitaka - --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more > understandable. ..... Yes, I understand aayatana and dhatu to refer to different ways of classifying the same realities (paramatha dhammas) and I agree that it’s useful to look at them together. I intended to do this initially, but feared my post was already too long and complicated;-) I found these definitions helpful, so would like to add them for other members: From Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii, ch 7,comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha: AYATANAS “They are the spheres (aayatana) in that they are where consciousnesses and mentalities, which take objects through the various doors, exert themselves (aayatananti), struggle, endeavour, in their different functions; or in that they spread (tanonti), extend, the dhammas that come to the entrance (aaya); or in that they make (nayanti) the suffering of sa.msaara, cause it to be, long (aayata); or in that they are the causes of eye-consciousness, etc. Places of dwelling, distribution, meeting, and production are also commonly called ‘spheres’.” DHATUS “The elements (dhaatu) are the things that bear (dhaarenti) their own particular nature. Alternatively, they are elements in that they distribute (vidahanti), according to circumstance, the various forms of the suffering of sa.msaara; they are placed (dhiiyanti) with beings, borne by them, like a burden by a labourer. Not acting under any authority, they alone are what regulate (vidhaana) suffering. By their menas the sufering of sa.msaara is created (anuvidhiyati) by beings. The suffering that has been thus created is played (dhiiyati), is established, on these very (elements)” ..... I find the way you have presented them below to be very helpful, but I don’t understand some terms to be synonymous as I believe you may be suggesting: H:> ==================================================== > > A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana > > 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana > 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana > 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana > 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana > 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana > 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana ..... As I understand: dhamma dhatu and dhaamayatana = cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana BUT dhammarammana = CITTAS, cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana, PANNATTI ..... H:> B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara > > 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara > 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara > 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara > 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara > 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara > 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara ..... Again, the last terms are not synonymous, I believe and even more complicated: Mano dhatu (mind-element) = panca-dvaravajjana-citta (5 sense door adverting consciousness), sampaticchana citta x2 (receiving consciousness) Manaytana (mind-base) = all kinds of consciousness not included in dvi panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness), inc bhavanga cittas ..... H: > C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana > > 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) > 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) > 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) > 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) > 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) > 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) ..... and manovinnana dhatu (mind-consciousness element) = all cittas not included in dvi-panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness) OR in mano-dhatu (mind-element), eg includes javana cittas, santirana citta, mano-dvaravajjana citta (mind-door adverting consciousness). ??bhavanga cittas > =================================== > H: > Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are > > 1.Citta > 2.Cetasikas > 3. 5 Pasada Rupas > 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa > 5. Nibbana > 6.Pannatta ..... Agreed. However, I don’t understand pannatti to be included in dhammayatana (or dhammadhatu) and it was this distinction between dhammarammana and dhammayatana that prompted my first post. From B.Bodhi’s CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: “the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends ONLY to ULTIMATE REALITIES, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana.” This conforms with what we read in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhanga and Sammohavinodani. ..... > I hope these will work for more understanding. ..... Your comments and stress on the importance of looking at elements as well are much appreciated. Please let me know if I’ve made any errors or your understanding of any points is different. I greatly respect and admire your obvious familiarity with all the Pali Abhidhamma and apologise for being slow to respond. With metta and thanks for your help, Sarah ===== 22309 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:23am Subject: Trim reminder time again Dear All Recently there have been quite a few messages that have contained long passages of untrimmed material from an earlier post or posts. Members are asked to kindly trim out all material from earlier posts that is not necessary for an understanding of their own comments. (If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you can assume that other members will have seen it.) Thanks for your cooperation Jon and Sarah PS Any comments off-list, please. 22310 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To lary, Lee and others: In a message dated 5/19/03 7:08:58 PM, leedillion@c... writes: << Hi Larry: Thanks for your thoughts on this. As you note, everyone seems to have "a different understanding of what is a concept." That was one of the distinct problem I had with Dreyfus' book since it describes debates that have raged for centuries among so many different Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups, each one using their own definitions of reality, perception, concepts, etc., and each seeing their understanding of reality as the correct one. >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more illusions of the mind. Don't you think? Best to you, layman Jeff Weight Age Gender Female Male 22311 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:13am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 We have heard the word vipassanå, insight, many times, but we should know what it is and how it is developed. Vipassanå is paññå that clearly knows the characteristics of the realities that appear through the six doorways. It is gradually developed, stage by stage, so that enlightenment can be attained. We should remember that there is dhamma, reality, at this very moment. If understanding of the dhamma of this moment is not developed we shall continue to merely think about the texts of the Tipiìaka we read and studied instead of realizing the characteristics of the dhammas that are appearing. The Buddha spoke time and again about the objects experienced through the senses and through the mind-door. He spoke about seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and other realities. These are conditioned dhammas appearing now, one at a time. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 64, Migajåla) that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, said to Migajåla: There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye, desirable, pleasant, delightful and dear, passion-fraught, inciting to lust. If a brother be enamoured of them, welcome them, persist in clinging to them, so enamoured, so welcoming, so persisting in clinging, there comes a lure upon him. The arising of the lure, Migajåla, is the arising of Ill (dukkha), so I declare... We read that the Buddha said the same about the other objects experienced through the appropriate doorways. The Buddha then said: There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye... savours cognizable by the tongue... Mindstates cognisable by the mind... inciting to lust. If a brother be not enamoured of them... the lure fades away. The fading away of the lure, Migajåla, is the fading away of Ill, so I declare. We then read that Migajåla, dwelling solitary, secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring, attained arahatship. This sutta demonstrates the danger of forgetfulness of realities and the benefit of right understanding. We are reminded that right understanding of nåma and rúpa should be developed with zeal and ardour, that is, with courage and energy. We should not think of a self who is zealous or who makes an effort, zeal and effort are cetasikas accompanying the citta. When sati-sampajañña arises, there is already energy, viriya cetasika. When right understanding of nåma and rúpa is being developed we may cling to having more moments of awareness, but that is not the right way of development. Acharn Sujin asked us: ²Would you like to have more awareness?² If that is the case, there is clinging. We should know whether we wish to develop right understanding in order to gain something for ourselves. Do we develop it for our own sake? Acharn Sujin stressed that right understanding is to be developed with detachment and that it leads to more detachment. In our life there are moments of forgetfulness and sometimes moments of sati. We should learn the difference between such moments, so that we come to know the characteristic of sati. 22312 From: Lee Dillion Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities macdocaz1@a... wrote: > I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have > hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions > and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would > answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more > illusions of the mind. Don't you think? Hi Jeff: Well, that is the question, I suppose - whether concepts "are just more illusions of the mind" or whether some concepts are something more real, more existent, or more efficacious than the non-existent pink elephant I imagine dancing on the piano. Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. But in the end, I wonder whether these attempts to articulate a comprehensive approach aren't misguided if taken too seriously and whether the answer might really be found in the experiential. 22313 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 Hi, Nina - I like the following very much. It makes it clear, I think, that there is much to do - carefully attending to what arises and ceases, distinguishing the knowing from the known (and noting their interdependence I would add), and exercising zeal, aspiration, and effort, but it also makes it clear at the same time that there is truly no "one" at all to be doing it. There is just the doing. As I see it, to do nothing will be to get nowhere, but to seriously think there is someone to do something is to sabotage the project at the outset. Of course, we all somewhat think there is someone doing things. If we had no sense of this at all we would be arahants. So, though thinking that "Someone is on the path of practice", while sabotaging the effort, doesn't fatally compromise it. We begin where we are, not where we'd hope to be. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/20/03 1:14:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 > > We have heard the word vipassanå, insight, many times, but we should know > what it is and how it is developed. Vipassanå is paññå that clearly knows > the characteristics of the realities that appear through the six doorways. > It is gradually developed, stage by stage, so that enlightenment can be > attained. We should remember that there is dhamma, reality, at this very > moment. If understanding of the dhamma of this moment is not developed we > shall continue to merely think about the texts of the Tipiìaka we read and > studied instead of realizing the characteristics of the dhammas that are > appearing. > The Buddha spoke time and again about the objects experienced through the > senses and through the mind-door. He spoke about seeing, visible object, > hearing, sound and other realities. These are conditioned dhammas appearing > now, one at a time. > We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 64, Migajåla) > that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, said to Migajåla: > > There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye, desirable, pleasant, > delightful and dear, passion-fraught, inciting to lust. If a brother be > enamoured of them, welcome them, persist in clinging to them, so enamoured, > so welcoming, so persisting in clinging, there comes a lure upon him. The > arising of the lure, Migajåla, is the arising of Ill (dukkha), so I > declare... > > We read that the Buddha said the same about the other objects experienced > through the appropriate doorways. The Buddha then said: > > There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye... savours cognizable by > the tongue... Mindstates cognisable by the mind... inciting to lust. If a > brother be not enamoured of them... the lure fades away. The fading away of > the lure, Migajåla, is the fading away of Ill, so I declare. > > We then read that Migajåla, dwelling solitary, secluded, zealous, ardent > and > aspiring, attained arahatship. > This sutta demonstrates the danger of forgetfulness of realities and the > benefit of right understanding. We are reminded that right understanding of > nåma and rúpa should be developed with zeal and ardour, that is, with > courage and energy. We should not think of a self who is zealous or who > makes an effort, zeal and effort are cetasikas accompanying the citta. When > sati-sampajañña arises, there is already energy, viriya cetasika. > When right understanding of nåma and rúpa is being developed we may cling > to > having more moments of awareness, but that is not the right way of > development. Acharn Sujin asked us: ²Would you like to have more > awareness?² > If that is the case, there is clinging. We should know whether we wish to > develop right understanding in order to gain something for ourselves. Do we > develop it for our own sake? Acharn Sujin stressed that right understanding > is to be developed with detachment and that it leads to more detachment. In > our life there are moments of forgetfulness and sometimes moments of sati. > We should learn the difference between such moments, so that we come to > know > the characteristic of sati. > > /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) 22314 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Rob M, op 10-05-2003 12:30 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > If I understand your points, you are saying: > - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible > object, not a mental image > - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- > door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image... > Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and > the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of > the retina. At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the > eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and > vicara are not required in this citta. N: I understand your point of view, you want to explain Abhidhamma to people who know about science, and think in terms of retina, coloured dots. But science is another point of view, and it may be confusing to combine Abhidhamma and science. We think of the back of the retina, but we do not have to think of it, because we cannot experience this directly. Visible object is impinging on the eyedoor, not on the eyebase, because the base is only the place where the citta arises. In this case it is the same kind of rupa, but we have to discern the different functions. It is better to be very precise, otherwise we may become confused. R: Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, > the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still > impinging on the eye-base, but this citta arises at some other place > than the eye-base (the heart base). Nina: It does not matter, the eyesense is, apart from being base for seeing, also the eyedoor and keeps this function for the whole process. Eyesense does not fall away yet. Receiving-consciousness receives the object immediately after seeing has fallen away, it is all in a flash, so very fast. R: If I understand correctly, this > citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and > higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base > and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. N: We better not say: citta accesses its object through the heart base. Because the heartbase is only the place where citta arises. To be more precise: citta experiences its object through a doorway. The doorway is the means through which citta experiences an object. Citta accesses? I would rather say: citta experiences. Citta experiences visible object which has not yet fallen away. Seeing only sees, but the other cittas of that process also experience visible object, although they do not see, they have other functions and they need vitakka and vicara. As to the succeeding mind-door process, these cittas still experience visible object which has just fallen away. It is all very fast, we cannot count cittas or processes. R: This is where I am > confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other > cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- > base rather than heart base). N: The object does not exist somewhere else, it is still the same object that keeps on impinging, on the same doorway. The object is not staying at a base. Again, thinking of retina may be confusing. I think we have to be precise in distinguishing the functions of doorway and base. I hope this clarifies somewhat, but if not, please let us discuss this more. Nina. 22315 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 4:05pm Subject: Way 91, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 5. Doubt Wrong reflection on things which are founded on doubt brings about the arising of doubt. Things which are founded on doubt are known as just doubt owing to the state of being the reason of doubt again and again. Therefore the Blessed One said that wrong reflection on things founded on doubt is the condition for fresh doubt and for the increase and expansion of doubt already arisen. By right reflection on wholesome things, karmically and the like, there is the casting out of doubt. Therefore, the Blessed One said that right reflection on things which are karmically wholesome and not, things blameful and blameless, things to be practiced and not to be practiced, things of low and high value, things dark and fair, the counterparts of bad and good, done intensely, keeps out fresh doubt and casts out doubt that has already come into existence. There are these six things which help to throw out doubt: The state of being learned in the Buddha's teaching; of inquiring about the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; of understanding thoroughly the nature of the Discipline; of being decided about the truth of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt. The first has been explained earlier. It is the knowledge of the Suttas generally both in the letter and the spirit. The second is obvious. The third indicates a state of mastery of the Discipline through practical application and great conversance with it at first hand. The fourth is the strong inclination towards or reliance on the Triple Gem called the faith that is capable of settling in the object of the virtues of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. The fifth is association with good companions like the Elder Vakkali, bent, inclined, sliding towards faith, mentally. The sixth is stimulating talk on the Triple Gem at all times possible in every state of behavior. One can cast away doubt by means of these six things, but the doubt cast out by these six things does not ever arise in the future only when it is destroyed by the attainment of the first stage of the Arahant. [Tika] Things which are founded on doubt are things which stand or proceed on doubt. Taking doubt itself one sees that the doubt arisen first is the particular reason by way of a common cause of the doubt arisen afterwards. [T] Surely by the knowledge of the Dhamma and by inquiry all doubts are cast out. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind. Here origination and dissolution, only refer to the origination of the five hindrances by way of wrong reflection on sensuously attractive or beautiful objects etc., and the dissolution of the five hindrances by wise reflection on the impurity of the sensuous objects etc. Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of deliverance of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood. 22316 From: Bonnie Chong Date: Tue May 20, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] trip to Burma Dear Betty, please email me the ininery of the trip. Thank You & Regards, BonnieCHong "Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: Dear Dhamma friends, The Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, where Tan Achaan Sujin teaches, is organizing a trip to Burma in January, to include Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan, among others. The exact dates are yet to be announced. We hope that by that time the SARS threat will have abated somewhat to allow any of you who might wish to join us to do so. I have a preliminary itinerary and an estimated cost of Bt 28,000 (US$650), from Bangkok and return. If you would be interested in joining us, please e-mail me at the address below and I will send you a translation of the itinerary. metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22317 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 20, 2003 7:05pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka RobertK, Thanks for your reply; all Cooranites should be over their mental block by now. We may have been experiencing one of those occasions when we know the answers but lack confidence in them and get stuck in our old ways of thinking. Matching paramattha dhammas with their conventional counterparts is a complicated business. If we want a description, in absolute terms, of the theft of our property, then we have to be prepared to think. Recently, Sarah (or it may have been Nina), recalled asking K Sujin if she was tired. The reply was, "It's only a moment." Wouldn't it be good if we could remember that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of nama and rupa. I also appreciated what you added to RobM's discussion about sense objects but I haven't fully cottoned on. As I understand it, a perversion of perception takes place at the vipaka citta. Does this perversion then become irrelevant? In other words, can we have detachment for an unpleasant object that we have mistaken for a pleasant object (and vice versa)? Thanks again for your help, Ken H 22318 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 8:19pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > RobertK, > > > Recently, Sarah (or it may have been Nina), recalled > asking K Sujin if she was tired. The reply was, "It's > only a moment." ____________________- Dear Ken, This is a very typical reply from Sujin. The thing is it is true. The present moment - as in paramattha - is a refuge that can never be taken away by anything or anyone. I told the story of a King in sri lanka who was deposed by one of his ministers. He was placed in a wall alive and was getting covered up. He reflected wisely that his enemey had caused his downfall in this life and if he became agitated is might cause his loss in the new life soon to come. he met his death fearlessly. __________ Wouldn't it be good if we could remember > that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? ________ _ Sure, why not. It is nothing compared to the loss when we die - as we will one day. _________ > Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if > we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of > nama and rupa. > ____ This is when it is harder for me. The good times I like to wallow in. __________ > I also appreciated what you added to RobM's discussion > about sense objects but I haven't fully cottoned on. As > I understand it, a perversion of perception takes place > at the vipaka citta. Does this perversion then become > irrelevant? In other words, can we have detachment for an > unpleasant object that we have mistaken for a pleasant > object (and vice versa)? _____________ The vipaka citta happens very fast, as you know. There is no perversion during vipaka but immediately after there can be as dosa mula citta (citta rooted in dosa, aversion) or moha mula citta (rooted in ignorance) or lobha mula citta (rooted in desire). And in fact these perversions come in different ways and degrees. A pig might see disgusting offal (definitely akusla vipaka ) but then have lobha afterwards. If the sight or sound or taste is genuinely kusala vipaka and we have lobha mula citta then it is still vipallasa (perversion). So it is not critical to know whether each vipaka is the result of kusala or akusala kamma. It is why the jatis are only 4, not 5. It is critical to know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. Anoter wayto understand this is via the three rounds of the Paticcasamuppada - vipaka-vatthu, kilesa-vatthu and kamma-vatthu. Robertk T > > Thanks again for your help, > Ken H 22319 From: dharmabook2003 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 8:21pm Subject: need bodhi advice for new site.. Good morning friends Recently I created a new website to host free dharma books for international readers. (real bookstore located in Singapore) http://www.dharma.cn Appreciate everybody Bodhi insight & advice to improve this site. Please feedback (positive or negative things) so that I know what should or should not be included in my website (eg. ethics, contents etcs). Do not wish to be disrespectful to anybody /organisation, via my website. Though I'm already running a real bookstore in Singapore, I still lack experience onlne and hope some kind-hearted webmasters can give advise on the site improvement and their various methods in exposing it - in the cheapest way - being mindful that my site do not generate any income at all! Thank you in advance for your help. "Peace to all" Wu Ming Shen ps: If you wish to email me personally, I can be contacted at dharma@s... 22320 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, Robert's note to Ken reminded me that a good way to look at perception and truth issues is by means of the 4 perversions (vipallasa). There are 4 perversions of perception, of consciousness, and of views (opinions or beliefs). The four are: seeing the impermanent as permanent, seeing pain as pleasure, seeing not self as self, and seeing the foul as beautiful. I find all of these to be extremely challenging to my inclinations but the only tricky one conceptually is seeing not self as self. I think this is a matter of seeing a whole as a sum of its parts and no more. I don't think it is necessary to see all the parts; two is probably enough. Usually we see objects with a conceptual overlay, like a symbol, or else we lock onto one part and fail to see the whole, or we say a whole is more than the sum of its parts. I think not-self and wholes (compounds) are interdependent. You can't have one without the other. If you are interested in reading more on vipallasa, here is an article by Ledi Sayadaw: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html Larry 22321 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Ken, Robert's answer of living in the moment is the best practical answer to your puzzle, but here is a conceptual one. Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a confabulation of accumulations and not a true kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are a kind of kamma result. There are several interesting differences between kamma vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that accumulations don't get used up. They just keep accumulating. Larry 22322 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Cooran and after Dear Group, Just a quick note to say the weekend at Cooran exceeded expectations. Much gratitude to Andrew and Sandra for enabling us to meet in such lovely surroundings and for taking such good care of our comfort. As you know, KenH has been delegated to raise the questions on list. I'm glad he put up the vipaka question first - I'm was trying to clarify what was vipaka in the events of the 'break-and- enter' of my garage. I've now read the Useful Posts of RobM and Sarah plus the current postings by KenH RobM and RobK - they are a great help. During the lovely warm autumn weekend, questions, articles, suttas, and papers were robustly discussed (and I'm sure more questions will appear on dsg for comment) - the formal meditators meditated - the others didn't - some of the blokes cooked, the rest of us lent a hand cleaning up - and talking (often loudly and all at the same time). Then there was eating, drinking, contending with other sentient beings - the midges, the mossies, and the "rat" Andrew ambushed in the toilet, walking, talking and gazing into the camp-fire on Saturday night and Sunday morning. And, as always, we teased each other and laughed a lot. I believe I have a photo of Smokey Joe 'King Cat of Cooran' as well. :-) [he hasn't lost any rupa]. Azita came to stay for a couple more days with me - today we went to Univ. of Queensland for a lecture by Professor Bhikkhu Dhammavihari (formerly Professor Jotiya Dhirasekera) from Sri Lanka. http://www.metta.lk/authors/dhamvi.html http://www.metta.lk/english/index_author.htm#dhammavihari He was available at very short notice to speak to Primoz Pecenko's Sanskrit, Pali and Meditation students. I am so happy that I was on leave from work, and that Azita was here as well, to be able to hear him. He is a very warm, friendly, scholarly person, who confidently spoke for an hour without notes on the topic of 'Bhakti and the Buddhist tradition'. metta, Christine 22323 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, You wrote some excellent questions. I didn’t forget but apologise for being so slow: L: >One more point that is causing confusion, or debate, is what is a concept. Reading part way through A. Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" I discovered that form is considered to be a concept. Is that correct? ..... S:Let me add this link to the book you mention and a few quotes from what you’ve been reading so that hopefully we're on the same track: http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm R&C (Sujin): “If one does not know the characteristics of citta, cetasika, and rupa, paramattha dhammas, which arise and fall away and succeed one another very rapidly, one knows just concepts. One takes rupa and nama,3 which arise and fall away in succession, for things which are lasting. Thus, one lives in the world of conventional truth, sammutti sacca. When realities appear one clings to shape and form, to a "whole", one takes fleeting realities for things that exist.” S: Let’s say we’re talking about visible object which is being seen at this moment. As soon as there’s any idea or impression of shape or form or detail, then it’s a concept that is being experienced. Visible object is just that which appears to seeing when the eyes are opened...no ‘thing’ in it. ..... L: >Is it correct to say ultimately rupa is formless and any form or shape "apparently" experienced through the 5 senses is, in reality, a mind door conception of self. This would apply to all 5 rupa senses, not just "visual" form. Any form is an intimation of wholeness, and wholeness is considered to be a synonym for self. ..... R&C: “Ignorance is deeply rooted and very persistent. It conditions us to cling to conventional truth and to take realities for things, beings, and people.” ..... R&C: “We cling to a concept of things as a mass, a conglomeration or whole (gana pannatti). We may do this even when we don't know yet the conventional terms of things. Even small children, who cannot talk yet and do not know the meanings of things as expressed in language, and also animals, know concepts of a "whole".” ..... S: As you say, Larry. Of course, there are bound to be many, many (zillions is popular here) cittas accompanied by moha (ignorance)only. But when there is the (wrong) idea that forms and wholeness and things are actually seen or heard, then it’s likely to be with wrong view and an aspect of sakkaya ditthi at these times, I believe. ..... L: >If I have this correctly, the main problem I see is that if rupa is in reality formless, how can it be kamma result? ..... S: Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of them is always kamma result. How can elements (dhatus) be formless, you ask? How can they be a form? Isn’t it like the parts of the chariot question again? How can we say the parts are the chariot? This doesn’t mean that when we look at what is taken for hair or rock or chariot with sati(awareness) panna(understanding)that anything different is seen from usual. Just that there is no ignorance or wrong view or illusion at that instant. Also see the extract from the Satipatthana Sutta at the end of the post*. Just as you wrote in a neat post to KKT on 'feelings' L: "One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self")." S: Of course you are referring to panna(wisdom) here when you write 'you'. ..... L: >How can the formless be desirable or undesirable? ..... S: This reminds me of Dan’s question about how visible objects can be inherently desirable/undesirable. To take a simpler example, which I think I gave before, hearing the sound of what we refer to as a waterfall and what we refer to as thunder, is quite different. One is inherently desirable and the other isn’t (these sounds are conditioned by temperature, not kamma). If someone is deaf or not in the vicinity, there is no vipaka citta to hear them. They are elements with characteristics which can be experienced. The reason we read about classifications of dhatus, ayatanas and so forth is to help break down any idea of form, shape, thing or self in reality. ..... L: >This approach seems to lead to the view that kamma is not a paramatta dhamma, is not ultimately real. Is that how you see it? ..... S: I think kamma tends to have a very general meaning as we use it conventionally. When we say that getting robbed is the result of kamma, we understand it as a shorthand for many factors and concepts too. Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces results in the javana process. The results are vipaka cittas and various rupas in what we take for our bodies. All of these, the cetana, the vipaka cittas and the rupas are paramattha dhammas. Larry, I think these are very helpful questions to pursue. I apologise again for the delay (and I know you prefer quick sharp responses;-)). ‘Realities and Concepts’ would be a good booklet to go through slowly sometime, given the interest in this subject. Let me know if I've missed your point or if anything is not clear (or you still have a different understanding of the concepts;-)). With metta, Sarah ...... *From Way 76http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21291 Therefore, the Blessed One declared: "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions should be sitting at the junction of a cross-road, in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects... thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity... And the mode of oscillation.' = Imameva kayam yatha thitam yatha panihitam dhatuso paccavekkhati: atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatuti. Seyyathapi bhikkhave dakkho goghatako va goghatakantevasi va gavim vadhitva catummahapathe bilaso pativibhajitva nissinno assa evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kayam... paccavekkhati atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu... vayodhatuti.” ============== 22324 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Larry, > > You wrote some excellent questions. I didn't forget but apologise for > being so slow: > Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces results in > the javana process. The results are vipaka cittas and various rupas in > what we take for our bodies. All of these, the cetana, the vipaka cittas > and the rupas are paramattha dhammas. =================================== Dear Sara, Just a minor correction.Kamma is Cetana Cetasika which arose along with Cittas in Javana processes of the past events. With Metta, Htoo Naing ================================== > Larry, I think these are very helpful questions to pursue. > With metta, > Sarah > *From Way 76http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21291 > Therefore, the Blessed One declared: > > "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or > disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in > this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of > caloricity, and the mode of oscillation. 22325 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi again Robert, I was talking about you on the weekend. In fact, I read out two of your posts (20953 and 20923). (I did this without asking your permission but I knew you wouldn't mind.) I said you were a person who could always put his finger on an appropriate quote from the texts. So, I'm sorry to drag our discussion down to my level, which is more along the lines of; "I think I've read something, somewhere . ." :-) But, I think I've read something on dsg, to the effect that perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa), DOES take place in the ahetu, sense consciousness. The point being made, was that our accumulations can condition faulty perception even before hetu (motivation), comes into the picture. This highlights the lack of any control over dhammas.(It also means that worldlings don't see the way arahants see.) That's what I seem to remember reading but, chances are, I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick. :-) Kind regards, Ken H > > There is no perversion during vipaka but 22326 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Larry, You wrote: > Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a > confabulation of accumulations and not a true > kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are > accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are > a kind of kamma result.. That makes sense. I don't know if concepts are accumulated but dhammas are marked for all time, and recalling those dhammas can give rise to concepts. Thus, some beings can remember (conceptually), "In a former life I was a carpenter. " Similarly, in this lifetime we can remember, "I was robbed." > There are several interesting differences between kamma > vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that > accumulations don't get used up. They just keep > accumulating. I agree that is interesting. Potentially, we can recall any dhamma from any moment over the past infinity of aeons (potentially). Thanks Larry, Ken 22327 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo & All, Thank you very much for all the additional details and kind comments. I assure you that without texts and references to check I would be making lots of mistakes and I retain very little knowledge about the details, lists and numbers. However, I have learnt a considerable amount from our friends on DSG, especially on the various topics which I might never have considered carefully or realised to be so relevant to the understanding of suttas and daily life. The ayatanas is one such topic which has been discussed before in great detail here by Num, Nina and others with reference to the Abhidhamma texts. Your comments help me to understand just a little more. I found that even Nyantiloka writes an error in the dictionary under aayatana. It says: “...Mind-object-base’ (dhammaayatana) is identical with ‘mind-object-element’ (dhamma-dhatu and dhammaarammana). It may be physical or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary.” As you confirm in great detail, this is not correct according to the texts and shows how careful one has to be, even whilst reading a really excellent resource as this dictionary certainly is. (I was expecting someone to quote it back to me...). Thank you for all the additional details which I need to study more carefully. I look forward to any of your series as I can learn a lot from them and I find the way you count out loud is a practical way of helping to see how the numbers add up. I need this help! H: >''The sixth consideration and its > essence'' in a series which might stretch to 30 posts(probably?). ..... Sounds a great stretch;-). I think it’ll have to be in small ‘bites’ for most of us here, like you did so well in the rupa and cetasika segments. ***** Some other friends here may wonder what the relevance of these details we’re discussing is to the understanding of the suttas and direct experience. To recap, the question arose because of repeated differences in the reading and understanding of terms in translation such as mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas when reading well-known and apparently simple suttas such at the ‘Sabba Sutta’ (The All) or the ‘Chachakka Sutta’ (The Six Sets of Six). Even the Pali scholars who don’t need to rely on translations are reading the Pali terms such as dhamma, dhamma-arammana, mano, dhamma-dhatu etc according to different understandings of the terms in context. The only way to break this impasse, as I understand, is to refer to the ancient commentaries and to the Tipitaka as a whole which is entirely consistent, I believe, when it comes to the Truths. Surely the ancient commentaries and Abhidhamma pitaka should be relied on in precedence to modern commentaries for an interpretation of any disputes? Furthermore, I believe it can be tested out and confirmed at this moment that whilst the cittas and cetasikas that are ‘thinking’ can be known, concepts (pannatti) can only ever be conceived or thought about, but being without characteristics (lakhana) can never be ‘known’ by panna (wisdom). For myself, I’ve always appreciated particular suttas, such as these ones or the Mighajala sutta just quoted again by Nina more than anything else I read in the Tipitaka. What I would add, though, is that the more I delve into the details of the Abhidhamma, the more I appreciate the depth in these same suttas and even now I feel I’m just scratching the surface. Many thanks again, Htoo, for your help and I look forward to learning more from you. With metta, Sarah ====== 22328 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > S:> > Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces > results in > > the javana process. > H:> Just a minor correction.Kamma is Cetana Cetasika which arose along > with Cittas in Javana processes of the past events. ***** Thank you for this. I see your point. Pls check any messages I write carefully;-) I agree that what I wrote was clumsy and misleading - I should have put (and meant): "Kamma is cetana cetasika in the javana process which sometimes produces results...." Many thanks and look forward to more of your comments and corrections. Metta, Sarah ======= 22329 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] trip to Burma Hi Bonnie, --- Bonnie Chong wrote: > Dear Betty, please email me the ininery of the trip. .... I'm not sure if the itinerary has been finalised/translated yet - at least we haven't received a copy yet, but I'm sure Betty will be glad to email it to you as she gets it and I'll also make sure of this. I understand that the trip is now planned for October this year and Jon and I hope to go if possible. It would be great if other friends and DSG members are able to join. May I also use this chance to welcome you to DSG. Have you been reading mail for sometime and do you live in England? We'd be glad to hear anything else you'd care to share with us about your interest in dhamma too. Perhaps we'll meet in Thailand or Burma. Please let me know off-list if I can help with and details/arrangements too. With metta, Sarah ======= 22330 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:26am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > But, I think I've read something on dsg, to the effect > that perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa), DOES > take place in the ahetu, sense consciousness. The point > being made, was that our accumulations can condition > faulty perception even before hetu (motivation), comes > into the picture. This highlights the lack of any control > over dhammas.(It also means that worldlings don't see the > way arahants see.) > >____ Dear Ken, Quote my letters anytime, no need to ask. There are a couple of aspects to this. Firstly for a wordling akusala is latent and ready to break out at any time. It is latent even during moments of kusala, what to mention of kiriya or vipaka. However what you might be thinking of is the difference betwen sense door and minddoor processes. Many minddoor proccesses arise after each sense door process. It is when concepts are known and vipallasa becomes strong. However even during the very brief initial sense door process there are seven javana cittas and these can also be akusala and hence vipallasa - this is even before the object can be known (as this or that). These javana cittas arise after the vipaka citta and we cannot say there is any vipallasa at the moment of vipaka(except that they lie latent). So in fact I think arahants do see just as we see - I mean the moment of cakkhu vinnana. It is simply that after there is no possibility of vipallasa arising that misunderstands what was seen as lasting, beuatiful, plesant or self. It is all so conditioned. No arahant controlling the process but the causes for misperceiving are gone. here is an url about the sense door process. http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3a.htm Sense-door process and mind-door process of cittas: When a sense object, which is rupa, impinges on one of the sensedoors, it is experienced by several cittas arising in a sense- door process. Counting from the "past bhavanga", there are seventeen moments of citta if the sense-door process of cittas runs its full course. Rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, and thus it falls away when that process is over. The seventeen moments of citta are as follows: 1. atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga). 2. bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga). 3. bhavangupaccheda (arrest bhavanga), the last bhavanga arising before the object is experienced through the sense-door. 4. five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness (pancadvaravajjana-citta), which is a kiriyacitta. 5. sense-cognition (dvi-pancavinnana, seeing-consciousness, etc.), which is vipakacitta. 6. receiving-consciousness (sampaticchana-citta), which is vipakacitta. 7. investigating-consciousness (santirana-citta) which is vipakacitta. 8. determining-consciousness (votthapana-citta) which is kiriyacitta. 9-15. seven javana-cittas ("impulsion", kusala citta or akusala citta in the case of non-arahats). 16. registering-consciousness (tadarammana-citta) which may or may not arise, and which is vipaka citta. 17. registering-consciousness. After a sense object has been experienced through a sense-door it is experienced through the mind-door, and then that object has just fallen away. Before the mind-door process begins there are bhavanga-cittas and the last two of these are specifically designated by a name. There are the following cittas: bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga) bhavangupaccheda (which is, in this case, the mind-door through which the cittas of the mind-door process will experience the object) mind-door-adverting-consciousness (mano-dvaravajjana-citta) which is kiriyacitta Seven javana-cittas Two tadarammana-cittas (which may or may not arise). After the mind-door process has been completed there are bhavanga-cittas again 22331 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran and after Dear Christine, Ken H and Cooranites, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick note to say the weekend at Cooran exceeded > expectations. ...... Sounds like a great set-up and between you, there is a lot of knowledge and expertise......Anumodana to Andrew and Sandra from me too! >...As you know, KenH has been delegated to raise the questions > on list. I'm glad he put up the vipaka question first - I'm was > trying to clarify what was vipaka in the events of the 'break-and- > enter' of my garage. ..... From the way he raised the questions and his subsequent well-written posts to Robs M & K, it’s hard for me to see where any ‘blocks’ are. I think there’s a lot of modesty in the group;-) Ken H, I thought your comments on the CMA passage were spot on. I’ve looked at the commentary to the Abh. Sangaha which have been well ‘reflected’ in B.Bodhi’s Guide. “The resultants, which occur by the power of kamma, acquire a feeling appropriate to the object not because of the existence of choice, but by automatic production, like the reflection of a face in a mirror.”(Abbhidhammatthavibhavini, ch1V). This text also gives its own summary of the passage RobK just quoted from the Sammohavinodani: “For it is thus that the unfaithful have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with the very desirable objects, such as the Buddha, and the followers of other religions impulsions accompanied by unhappiness; and (thus that) those of profound sensibilities have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with an unpleasant object, and dogs, etc, impulsions accompanied by happiness; but the initial and subsequent resultants are of exactly the same nature, it is only that dogs, etc, take pleasure in the sight of filth....”(ch1V) ***** It’s a very good point and question you all raised about the burglary. We may look at the empty shelves or garage after the robbery and there may not be any akusala vipaka at all at that time. In other words, at such times, we may do the opposite of the dogs in the passage and in effect take misery in the pleasant sights....hmm...Conditioned by the trains of thought and papanca, the kilesa run wild. When Jon had a tumour on his leg a few years back, similarly there was no physical pain, not necessarily any akusala vipaka (to repeat an old example). The sound of the doctor’s voice was not harsh and it’s difficult to say there was anything intrinsically unpleasant about the pieces of paper with test results. Within a very short time, however, on account of the proliferations, our lives had been turned upside down. I liked RobK's hospital story and usually it's like this.....ever changing phenomena, kusala and akusala phenomena all the time. On the otherhand, when there are crying babies on the plane, to most ‘average’ people (I’ll check in with my co-resident ‘average ..government official’), there most likely is some akusala vipaka through the ear-sense. Still, these are just brief moments followed by the usual disturbed thinking patterns. Like RobK said, there's no need to speculate about which moments are kusala or akusala vipaka (impossible to tell anyway), but it does help to undestand where the problems are and to see there's no guarding of the senses most the time or ‘living alone’ with the dhammas experienced through the sense doors. Anticipating another question, we might ask in this case, why there should be any sympathy for the lack of apparent akusala vipaka or brief momentary experiences at most. I think the answer is that knowing that certain concepts or conventional truths such as ‘robberies’, ‘noisy aeroplane babies’, ‘SARS’ and so forth are likely to be a condition for a lot of aversion and papanca for most of us, given our accumulated kilesa, and understanding how destructive and unpleasant these kilesa are, we can have metta and compassion for each other whilst helping to clarify if appropriate. Any more comments? ..... > During the lovely warm autumn weekend, questions, articles, suttas, > and papers were robustly discussed (and I'm sure more questions will > appear on dsg for comment) - the formal meditators meditated - the > others didn't - ..... Different views and practices always lead to better discussions too;-) I’m sure it was very beneficial for all. Perhaps another friend and ex-bhikkhu whom Azita (and our other mutual friend)are also in touch with might be invited in future..... ..... > ...... And, as always, we teased each > other and laughed a lot. ..... It sounds like you’ve become one of the blokes, Chris;-) ..... >I believe I have a photo of Smokey Joe 'King > Cat of Cooran' as well. :-) [he hasn't lost any rupa]. .... Maybe Sandra and Smokey Joe could be placed in ‘Significant Others’...any ‘member’ update pix?? ..... > Azita came to stay for a couple more days with me ...... Glad to hear this.....I’m looking forward to her witty report as well. Thanks for the update. Metta, Sarah ===== 22332 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 3:56am Subject: Pain As A Signal (01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In simple term,pain is nothing but a signal that reminds individual's body is in danger of derangement and starts to depart from its normality(as defined by Samuti Sacca).If neglected there might or might not be problems of ceasation of all bodily functions. Pain is one of the daily life problems.It happens nearly all the time.There are many different types of pains and even under one category there are many subdivisions with regard to its degree. Someone may think that the nastiest and naggiest pain ever exists is the pain that he or she has just suffered.This thought may be right for those who experienced the pains. But there is difference in type of pains.Actually these pains cannot be comparable to each other. Once a woman was asked which pain is the worst ever since.And she answered ''Oh! what will be worse than our labour pain.''It may be right.Pains in childbearing is not to compare with others. Another woman would answer that ''Oh! menstrual pains are not like other pains.Who can bear that pains.'' When a man was asked,he would answer ''Have you ever been kicked your testicles?No pain will match that sort of pain.I believe that pain will be the worst of all pains.'' Other people would say ''Stop.No pain like tooth-ache will disturb our daily routine.I had to be sacked for a day for my pains of tooth-ache.How piti I am!'' Still there left many people who had had bad pains in their lives.Once a man had very bad head-ache.He was sick and could not withstand that pain so that he wished to kill himself. Many types of pains are there.But in terms of Abhidhamma it is just ''Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta''.This is not the view of reductionists.We need to review Pains in detail.Because we all are escapable from pains.So we need to prepare to withstand that and peacefully accept that. May you all be able to withstand Pains,see it as it is and feel peace. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing P.S : This series will come in succession.Reply posts and discussions posts should all be headed as '' Signalling pains and discussions / Series No...'' If you want to reply or query or add or amend or support to a particular post or series number,heading should be replace with ''Signalling pains and ....'' If not,just reply with ''Signalling pains and discussions''. Leaving the topic as it is will help in following the whole thread. With Metta, Htoo Naing 22333 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Thanks for the reference to the article Larry. I will read it this weekend. Lee LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > Robert's note to Ken reminded me that a good way to look at perception > and truth issues is by means of the 4 perversions (vipallasa). > If you are interested in reading more on vipallasa, here is an article > by Ledi Sayadaw: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html 22334 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 21, 2003 6:15am Subject: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Dear Ken and Larry, A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:27 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka > Hi Larry, > > You wrote: > > Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a > > confabulation of accumulations and not a true > > kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are > > accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are > > a kind of kamma result.. > > That makes sense. I don't know if concepts are > accumulated but dhammas are marked for all time, and > recalling those dhammas can give rise to concepts. Thus, > some beings can remember (conceptually), "In a former > life I was a carpenter. " Similarly, in this lifetime we > can remember, "I was robbed." > > > There are several interesting differences between kamma > > vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that > > accumulations don't get used up. They just keep > > accumulating. Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. > I agree that is interesting. Potentially, we can recall > any dhamma from any moment over the past infinity of > aeons (potentially). > > Thanks Larry, > Ken Thanks (all) for your patience. mike 22335 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 21, 2003 6:39am Subject: Signalling pains and discussions Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:56 AM Subject: [dsg] Pain As A Signal (01 ) > Dear Dhamma Friends, >... > Many types of pains are there.But in terms of Abhidhamma it is just ''Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta''.This is not the view of reductionists.We need to review Pains in detail.Because we all are escapable from pains.So we need to prepare to withstand that and peacefully accept that. While reading your post, my back was quite painful (a little work strain yesterday). Still, I was quite happy while reading your message. Actually, these happy moments were, I'd guess, somanassasahagata.m, ~naa.navippayutta.m, sasankhaarikam ekam (accompanied by joy, dissociated from knowledge, prompted), interspersed between moments of Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta. Does this sound about right? I certainly agree that these are not the views of reductionists. As understanding of these moments develops, so does detachment from them. >... > P.S : This series will come in succession.Reply posts and discussions posts should all be headed as '' Signalling pains and discussions / Series No...'' If you want to reply or query or add or amend or support to a particular post or series number,heading should be replace with ''Signalling pains and ....'' If not,just reply with ''Signalling pains and discussions''. Sorry, don't know the 'Series No' as these don't appear in emails from dsg. Thanks in advance, mike 22336 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 21, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; vipaka Ken H Thanks for the informative report on the Cooran weekend. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but 'loss' is given as 1 of the 8 worldly conditions (loka-dhamma), as I'm sure you know. While the loka-dhammas are all conditioned by previous deeds, good or bad accordingly, they do not represent any particular underlying paramattha dhammas at the time of being experienced. A moment of being praised, for example, is not necessarily a moment of kusala vipaka, since the vipaka has to do with the sound being expereinced through the ear-door and not the meaning of the words being spoken, and so on. Do you remember the sutta where Queen Mallika asked the Buddha what were the causes for people having different 'lots' in life (beauty, obedience from others, social standing etc)? If I remember correctly, the answers all had to do with one's past deeds. But there's no correlation between the 'experiencing' of 1 of the 8 worldly conditions, and the specific kind of vipaka citta occurring at the time. Enjoying your posts lately. Jon "Eight things are called worldly conditions, since they arise in connection with worldly life, namely: gain and loss, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery, praise and blame" (Vis.M. XXII). (Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary) --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi all, ... > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? 22337 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To Lee: In a message dated 5/20/03 10:38:59 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << Hi Jeff: Well, that is the question, I suppose - whether concepts "are just more illusions of the mind" or whether some concepts are something more real, more existent, or more efficacious than the non-existent pink elephant I imagine dancing on the piano. Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: That's good Lee, that was the best laugh I have had all day. The answer of course, is there is no way to communicate the knowledge of non-conceptual reality with any confidence. But, we can examine the literature of gnosis and pretty much come to the conclusion that most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment, and that is that it is about emptying or cessation, not about concepts and ideas. Emptiness and cessation are of course concepts, so you are quite right that we may need to accept a few basic concepts, like emptiness, or cessation, and how to get there. We know of course when we are at emptiness, or cessation, when we are empty, empty. When there is no volition, no ripples on the mind stuff; when there is equanimity, no reactions to the objects of the sense gates. %%%%%%%%%%%% Lee: Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. But in the end, I wonder whether these attempts to articulate a comprehensive approach aren't misguided if taken too seriously and whether the answer might really be found in the experiential.>> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, I think that is the point, it is a subjective experience, therefore talking about it is just conception upon conception. To get the subjective experience one has to undergo the training and the practice to have, as you say, the experiential. best to you, layman Jeff 22338 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 21, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities macdocaz1@a... wrote: > That's good Lee, that was the best laugh I have had all day. Hi Jeff: Always happy to make another laugh! > The answer of course, is there is no way to communicate the knowledge > of non-conceptual reality with any confidence. But, we can examine > the literature of gnosis and pretty much come to the conclusion that > most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about > enlightenment, and that is that it is about emptying or cessation, > not about concepts and ideas. Emptiness and cessation are of course > concepts, so you are quite right that we may need to accept a few > basic concepts, like emptiness, or cessation, and how to get there. The suggestion that "most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment" isn't clear to me if we are talking about the content of that experience. For example, within the Buddhist tradition, is the Udana's "Unborn" simply a state of mind experiencable by the living or an ineffable dimension experienced in some fashion by those awakened who are deceased? And outside the Buddhist tradition, there is substantial disagreement about the gnostic/mystical content of the experience. James, one of mysticisms more sympathetic observers, in Lectures XVI and XVII of The Varieties of Religious Experience, noted as follows: "this presumption from the unanimity of mystics is far from being strong. In characterizing mystic states as pantheistic, optimistic, etc., I am afraid I over-simplified the truth. I did so for expository reasons, and to keep the closer to the classic mystical tradition. The classic religious mysticism, it now must be confessed, is only a 'privileged case.' It is an extract, kept true to type by the selection of the fittest specimens and their preservation in 'schools.' It is carved out from a much larger mass; and if we take the larger mass as seriously as religious mysticism has historically taken itself, we find that the supposed unanimity largely disappears. To begin with, even religious mysticism itself, the kind that accumulates traditions and makes schools, is much less unanimous than I have allowed. It has been both ascetic and antinomianly self-indulgent within the Christian church. * It is dualistic in Sankhya, and monistic in Vedanta philosophy, I called it pantheistic; but the great Spanish mystics are anything but pantheists. They are with few exceptions non-metaphysical minds, for whom 'the category of personality' is absolute. The 'union' of man with God is for them much more like an occasional miracle than like an original identity. *(2) How different again, apart from the happiness common to all, is the mysticism of Walt Whitman, Edward Carpenter, Richard Jefferies, and other naturalistic pantheists, from the more distinctively Christian sort. " See also "The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali and The Cloud of Unknowing: A Preliminary Step in Assessing the Ontological Accuracy of the Mystical Experience (1996)" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/myst.html > We know of course when we are at emptiness, or cessation, when we are > empty, empty. When there is no volition, no ripples on the mind > stuff; when there is equanimity, no reactions to the objects of the > sense gates. Hmm. What I personally know (versus what I can recite about the tradition) is that, as I calm my mind and pay attention to how sense data can give rise to a variety of emotions and concepts, I have gained a greater awareness as to how my own cravings, conceit, and views can magnify and distort this data into intentions and behaviors that I later see as unskillful both in their immediate impact and in their longer term consequences. Having gained this awareness over time and having practiced calming techniques as I confront situations that in the past could give birth to unskillful intentions, I have experienced a greater sense of quietude and satisfaction. What I am getting at, I suppose, is that the test of awakening may be less a matter of "what" a person thinks and more a matter of "how" they think and live. > Well, I think that is the point, it is a subjective experience, > therefore talking about it is just conception upon conception. To > get the subjective experience one has to undergo the training and the > practice to have, as you say, the experiential. I agree. Take care. Lee 22339 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: Signalling pains and discussions/ Series No (01) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Htoo Naing > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:56 AM > Subject: [dsg] Pain As A Signal (01 ) ===================================== > Sorry, don't know the 'Series No' as these don't appear in emails from dsg. > Thanks in advance, > mike ==================================== Dear Mike, What I meant was ''Signalling pains and discussions/Series No (01)''. This indicates reply letter is for discussion of contents of the topic '' Pain As A Signal (01). When ''Pain As A Signal (03)'' is posted for example,then reply letter should be headed as ''Signalling pains and discussions/Series No (03). One thing I missed to edit is ''escapable'' which should be ''inescapable''. Thanks for your comments and response.I am also in pain at the time of typing these words.But,as you said,feeling of pains is intervalled by feeling of peace and joy as I am trying to part the message which brings a good essence(I think)to the group. With best regards, Htoo Naing 22340 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2, beginning where we are. Dear Howard, thank you for your input, very useful as always. You remind me again of some very important principles. op 20-05-2003 19:45 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > I like the following very much. It makes it clear, I think, that there > is much to do - carefully attending to what arises and ceases, > distinguishing the knowing from the known (and noting their interdependence I > would add), and exercising zeal, aspiration, and effort, but it also makes it > clear at the same time that there is truly no "one" at all to be doing it. > There is just the doing. N: As you say, we begin where we are, not where we'd hope to be. It is fortunate that the Abhidhamma explains that zeal and effort are cetasikas, and although we are still full of self, intellectual understanding helps, it is the foundation of the practice. If we would not know that they are cetasikas, we would be lost. I would like to quote again from the Way and what I wrote before about this quote: The way: <(There is no ego that > experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare > process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is > impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a > conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. > It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the > objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. > N: The cittas that arise in processes proceed according to conditions and arise in a specific order. The cetasikas that accompany cittas each perform their own function. Sati of satipatthana is mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Understanding realities as elements each performing their own function, as taught in detail in the Abhidhamma, can be our guiding principle in the development of vipassana. Sati of satipatthana has the function of being mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Right from the beginning we should see them as elements performing their own functions. This leads to abandoning of the idea of "I am practising, I am developing vipassana". Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. Thank you again for your post, Nina. 22341 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9. He does not become disheartened, he does not show dislike, not even slightly, when he hears, ³He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms". This is an occasion for joy and for endeavour to attain Buddhahood. He has to cross a whole world-system. There is not only this world, he has to cross a whole worldsystem. We read: If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cut through a whole world-system that has become a jungle of thorny creepers covered by a solid thicket of bamboo, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... If he were to hear: "Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. Such is the magnitude of the desire required. The Bodhisatta thought that he could achieve this, but his determination was not yet firm enough; he had to continue to accumulate keen and refined paññå so that his noble qualities could reach accomplishment. When he had visited the Sammasambuddha and his excellent qualities had become firmly established, he could begin to make the resolution to accumulate the perfections. We can see that it is extremely difficult to accumulate the perfections which lead to the attainment of the incomparable awakening wisdom of the Buddha. He penetrated the truth of the realities that are arising and falling away at the present moment, so that akusala could be completely eradicated and he could attain Buddhahood. The person who has the supreme aspiration to become a Sammasambuddha, should have eight qualifications: the human state, the male sex, the cause (which are the necessary supporting conditions), the sight of the Teacher, the going forth, the achievement of noble qualities, extreme dedication and strong desire. As regards the first qualification, the human state, if he is not a human, his aspiration will not succeed. As to the second qualification, the male sex, a woman cannot become a Buddha. The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking. 22342 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:32:28 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. On Vesak, when we were away for a vacation, Lodewijk, my husband, wanted to know more about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. I gave him an introduction to this Sutta and its Commentary. We are translating this sutta section by section with pauses in between, but we should not lose sight of the Sutta as a whole. After my introduction we had a discussion about the application of the Sutta. We read in the Sutta that the Buddha taught Rahula: "Rahula, whatever materiality, - past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, base or exalted, whether it is far or near, - all form should be seen as it really is with right wisdom in such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not me". "Materiality only, Blessed One? materiality only, Well-gone?² ³Also Materiality, feeling, recognbition (sa~n~naa), the activities (sa²nkhaarakkhandha) and consciousness, Rahula.² Nina: The same is true for the four nama khandhas. The five khandhas are past, future or present, they arise and fall away. Each moment the khandhas change. When seeing, the khandhas are completely different from the moment of hearing or thinking. Rahula had to develop understanding not only of rupa, also of nama, of all khandhas. When we take them all as a whole, there is the idea of a person. We read in the Commentary that Rahula thought: The Commentary states: < Although the Blessed One saw that Rahula had returned he did not say to him:" Do not return, because it is the time for you to receive almsfood ." Why? It is explained thus: It occurred to the Buddha : "Today Rahula will eat the food of Deathlessness²> N:This is nibbaana. We read in the Commentary: ,When the Blessed One had gone, Sariputta who came afterwards saw him. Then, why did he exhort him to develop Mindfulness of Breathing? Because it is suitable for sitting. It is said that the Thera had not observed that the Buddha had spoken about the meditation subject of matter (ruupakamma.t.thaana.m) to Rahula. As regards the word, aanaapaanasati, mindfulness of breathing, he explained: "After you have grasped inbreathing and outbreathing, and attained the fourth or the fifth stage of jhana, and you have developed vipassana, insight, reach arahatship." Rahula thought: ³Since my preceptor has told me to develop mindfulness of breathing I shall be obedient . If I don¹t follow what my teachers and preceptors say, I am indeed obstinate ( dubbaco, difficult to speak to).> We read in the Sutta: We read that the Buddha then taught him as follows: Nina: Rahula was attached to the body but he had to see it as only elements devoid of self. He had to know ultimate realities, namely the five khandhas, nama and rupa, different from conventional truth, such as tree, bowl, food. Rahula had not eaten, but he did not think of food, his bowl, his body, he was only intent on developing vipassana, understanding of nama and rupa. The Buddha taught him about the four Great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind, and also about space. After that he taught him to apply himself to the mental development similar to earth, and similar to the other great Elements and space. We can admire the structure of the sutta here: after the explanation about the Elements the Buddha taught the application of this knowledge in daily life. The Buddha said: <³Apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, For when you apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, agreeable and disagreeable impressions that have arisen, impinging on the mind will not persist.²> He taught the same about mental development like water, fire, wind and space. (to be continued) 22343 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Jatakas Jatakas. Fwd from Pali Yahoo. Dear Yong Peng, Cheango and all, people may have doubts about the stories of the Jatakas. I think it is helpful to know the difference between the teaching of ultimate truth, paramattha desanaa and the teaching of conventional truth, vohaara desanaa. The Buddha used these two kinds of teaching. If we remember this we can profit from the lessons in the Jatakas, they are, as Yong Peng says, like a mirror for us personally. We can then understand the essence of the story taught by way of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth: kamma, and its result, vipaaka, the Dependant Origination, kusala, akusala. All those qualities of the Bodhisatta which are valuable at all times, for all people, such as his unlimited mettaa, his patience, his determination to attain Buddhahood. As to the teaching of conventional truth: those are the stories, the circumstances, the people, the animals. I am not sure whether experts always understand the difference between these two kinds of teaching and hence reject important parts of the teachings, or make issues out of what is not an issue. In olden times people had already doubt about the Vessantara Jataka. We find this discussed in the Questions of King Milinda: Dilemmas VIII, 1: Do all Bodhisattas give away their wife and children? It is explained that he knew that his grandfather could not keep his children as slaves. We also read that Sakka wanted to test the Bodhisatta. We have to understand all this in the right way, not as a dogma you have to believe. It depends on the individual to believe it or not believe it. What is the essence: his unlimited compassion to become the sammasambuddha and help all beings to find the way out of the cycle. It is not said in this Jataka that we have to do likewise. Was the Buddha also a wise animal in some lives? This is not an issue. You may believe it or not. I am inclined to think, why not, we also were animals in past lives, since we have had countless lives. Animals which talk, why not? But I like to believe this, since I have a lot of affinity with animals. That is personal. These are not real issues, they are not dogmas. Nina. 22344 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah, Kom, and Mike,Thank you for your input, and I always welcome remarks about the perfections. I shall try to make an addition or footnote. Especially about the abhisankharas. As to a self relinquishing, I think this may be clearer after Perfections Ch 9, no 8. Nina. op 19-05-2003 08:27 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Dear Mike & Kom, > > I appreciated Kom’s helpful comments. > > --- "m. nease" wrote: 22345 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 3. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 3. The Buddha taught to Migajåla that the fading away of the lure is the fading away of dukkha. All realities that arise because of their appropriate conditions have to fall away, they do not last. Seeing arises and falls away, it is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent is dukkha, it is no refuge, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to. The impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized only through the development of the stages of insight knowledge. When paññå has directly understood the impermanence of the dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways, the truth of dukkha can be seen more clearly. Craving is the second noble Truth, the cause of dukkha. The Buddha taught Migajåla the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. Thus, in this Sutta the four noble Truths are taught: the Truth of dukkha, of the cause of dukkha which is craving, of the end of dukkha which is nibbåna, and of the way leading to the end of dukkha, the eightfold Path. When craving, the cause of dukkha, is eradicated there is the cessation of dukkha. Hardness appears all the time in daily life, but we are still ignorant of it. Paññå has not been developed to the degree that its true nature can be known. When hardness appears there is also the experience of hardness, the citta which experiences hardness. At that moment seeing or hearing do not occur, there is nothing else but the experience of hardness. There are many kinds of rúpa and each kind can appear through the appropriate doorway. The rúpas of the body have the characteristics of cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or pressure. If one clings to a concept of a whole, such as the whole body, the idea of self cannot be abandoned. In the ³Migajåla sutta², and in many suttas, the Buddha spoke about the realities appearing through the six doors. What we take for the whole world consists actually of six separate worlds, experienced through the six doors. The idea of a person is the result of thinking of different sense objects as they appear separately through the different doorways. In the ultimate sense a person does not exist. We think of concepts instead of being aware of realities. A moment of awareness is so short, and then we may think of realities with doubt. I asked Acharn Sujin how we can study thinking when awareness is so short. Thinking of concepts is so prominent all the time. She answered: ³Not at once, you have to learn. As a child, you had to learn reading and in the beginning you could not recognize all the different letters.² She explained that it takes time to know the difference between the moments with awareness and those without awareness. When thinking arises it can remind us that there is no awareness. However, the characteristic of thinking is real and it can also be an object of insight. A friend who is one of the teachers at the Foundation, Khun Anop, said to me: ²There is an idea of ŒI think¹, but in reality it is citta that thinks: ¹It is me who is thinking¹.² If there were no citta we would not have any idea of ³I am thinking². We take thinking for self, but when we consider the reality of thinking when it appears, we shall come to know it as a conditioned nåma which does not last. 22346 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:28pm Subject: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene people -- at least according to their brain scans. Using latest scanning techniques, neuroscientists have discovered that certain areas of the brain light up constantly in Buddhists, and not just when they are meditating, which indicates positive emotions and good mood. "We can now hypothesise with some confidence that those apparently happy, calm Buddhist souls one regularly comes across in places such as Dharamsala, India, really are happy," Professor Owen Flanagan, of Duke University in North Carolina, said on Wednesday. Dharamsala is the home base of exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama. The scanning studies by scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison showed activity in the left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners. The area is linked to positive emotions, self-control and temperament. Other research by Paul Ekman, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Centre, suggests that meditation and mindfulness can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory. Ekman discovered that experienced Buddhists were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry as other people. Flanagan believes that if the findings of the studies can be confirmed they could be of major importance. "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek," Flanagan said in a report in New Scientist magazine. 22347 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Thanks for your thorough and informative reply. Unfortunately, it still bothers me that the result of kamma is literally insignificant (without a sign [nimitta]) on the level of citta process. But I guess there is no way around it. It seems to me this comes very close to being a nihilistic extreme. See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' "Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given...no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world,' it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct,and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three uwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradaion, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing..." Larry ps: any ideas on what is the "other world"? 22348 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more." I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Larry 22349 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Wed May 21, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Burma trip Dear Sarah, Azita, Christine, Bonnie, and anyone else interested, The proposed trip to Burma is, at this writing, to take place during the last week in October and the first week in November, over 6 days. I have not yet received the exact itinerary and dates, but when I do I shall pass them on immediately to dsg. It will be wonderful if as many of you as possible will be able to join us, despite SARS and terrorism (concepts-pannatti-only, but of which "we" must be aware since we do have to live in the conventional world. But that is for discussion on another post). metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22350 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To Lee: In a message dated 5/21/03 9:55:53 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << The suggestion that "most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment" isn't clear to me if we are talking about the content of that experience. For example, within the Buddhist tradition, is the Udana's "Unborn" simply a state of mind experiencable by the living or an ineffable dimension experienced in some fashion by those awakened who are deceased? And outside the Buddhist tradition, there is substantial disagreement about the gnostic/mystical content of the experience. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Lee for the thought provoking discussion. I am aware of James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, although I regret I am not sure if I have read it. I will of course acquaint myself with his work in the next few years of study. I also skimmed the article by Mark I. Vuletic for which you kindly provided the URL. I can only speak from my own scholarship which has ranged widely including the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, portion of the Pali canon, a semester of Mahayana studies, and a semester of Sufi studies, as well as a semester of Kabballah studies; I have also studied a fair number of Christian contemplatives, such as St. John of the Cross, his teacher, Theresa of Avila, St. Bernard and St. Francis of Assisi, to mention a few; various Native American spiritual and shamanistic traditions, most notably Plains Indian and the Northern and Southern Pueblos, as well as Pheronic period Egyptian mysticism, most notably the Hermetic tradition; and last but not least, my own personal inquiry and contemplation covering 30 years. While I would agree that the variety of religious experience is as varied as the variety of the human experience itself, I have noticed there are certain patterns of experience that conform to a range and domain of experiences that I believe can be classified. For instance the out-of-body experience is not unique to North American New Agers, but has been articulated by both Pheronic period mystics as well as contemporary Egyptian Sufis. The out-of-body experience is reported in a number of traditions, and while the details of each of these experiences are unique, they all carry the characteristics of sensations of flight and an a-corporeal reality. So, should we say that out-of-body experiences don't exist, because the details are different, or should we at least give provisional acceptance to the idea when peoples as different as Plains Indians to Tibetans report a similar experience of being out-of-the-body? The same is true for the description of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which is not too unlike the description of jhana 8 in the Pottopada Sutta. Also, what is essential to the Theravadan experience of Nirvana is cessation. In Chan the concept of emptiness is used. Since both traditions are Buddhist, and they both use the word Nirvana for the experience, we might be willing to give provisional acceptance to Huineng for using 'emptiness' instead of the word 'cessation.' Now, if we were to extend our domain of provisional acceptance even further to the Sufi concept of 'fana' (annihilation), perhaps the Sufis were trying to get at the idea of annata (no-self) and cessation, when they used the word 'fana' (annihilation) to describe their highest experience, which to me is at least marginally like the concept of jhana 8 (universal being) to at least give them provisional acceptance into the domain of the concept of enlightenment. Therefore, should we at least be willing to acknowledge validity to these above mentioned experiences as being a pan-human experience for which cultures have been trying to find a way to describe subjective experiences that defy description? Additionally, I just received a degree in Anthropology, to get there I had to take the foundation courses which included Cultural and Physical Anthropology and Archeology. What we covered in these courses, among other things, was the unhappy origins of Anthropology, which were an endeavor to articulate the concept of race, and to quantify it. After a century of research it was concluded by 1900 by cultural anthropologists, like Boaz, that the variation within any given culture is greater than the differences between cultures. Physical Anthropologists at about the same time also rejected race as a means to describe humans, because they found the variation of physical traits within any given culture are greater than the differences between cultures. And, most recently the Genome Project has found the genetic variation within any ethnic community is greater than the difference between ethnic communities. The point in all of this research is that humans are remarkably homogeneous when it comes to cultural, physical and genetic traits. My research model for an examination of the contemplative traditions of the world is to argue that the variations within any given religion, such as Buddhism, are greater than its differences from any religion such as Christianity. Additionally, another Anthropological concept is diffusionism, put forth by WHR Rivers in the late 1800s. The concept of diffusionism is that goods, materials, resources and genes have been moving across the face of the earth through ethnic communities for the duration of the 100,000 to 200,000 years of the presents of anatomically modern humans on this planet. This not only explains the narrow range of variation among humans, culturally, physically and genetically, but also in the case of religious ideology. And, finally I will argue that the subjective experiences typical of the religious experience have a common range and domain, because there is a neurophysiological reason for it. Therefore when I examine a mystic's record of experience, if that record does not match the "range and domain" of experiences that I have read about, and my own subjective experiences as well then, like any researcher, I reject the record as anomalous. Therefore I am not interested in the uniqueness of any given religion, nor am I interested in proving that any religion or teacher is greater than any other. I do happen to like the Pali canon as a unique and articulate record of the range, domain and practice of the religious experience, but considering that Christians were burning libraries since the Library of Alexandria and the School of Athens, until 1492 when they burned the library of Cordoba, the Pali canon may not have been the most articulate record of the religious experience, but we will never know. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: Hmm. What I personally know (versus what I can recite about the tradition) is that, as I calm my mind and pay attention to how sense data can give rise to a variety of emotions and concepts, I have gained a greater awareness as to how my own cravings, conceit, and views can magnify and distort this data into intentions and behaviors that I later see as unskillful both in their immediate impact and in their longer term consequences. Having gained this awareness over time and having practiced calming techniques as I confront situations that in the past could give birth to unskillful intentions, I have experienced a greater sense of quietude and satisfaction. What I am getting at, I suppose, is that the test of awakening may be less a matter of "what" a person thinks and more a matter of "how" they think and live. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Oh I would completely agree. I think you have put it most excellently. I don't believe thinking has much to do with it, and when I read about 'no-thought' or 'no-mind,' I begin to get the idea that suspending the mental processes of thinking and conception is the direction for my personal practice to direct me. Thank-you once again Lee for the thought provoking discussion. Best to you, layman Jeff 22351 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:14am Subject: Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Ken and Larry, > > A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- > > > Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which > does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other > hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, > the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. > 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. Hi Mike, For a moment, I thought this was an easy question but, while formulating my reply, I was reminded that nothing about the Dhamma is easy. All sankhara khandhas are volitional activities, aren't they? Some generate speech and action, others don't. . . . I'm sorry, but I'm sure I know a lot less about this than you do; I'll follow the thread with interest :-) I think it's safe to say; 'anusaya' refers to just the unwholesome accumulated tendencies. Ken 22352 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka RobertK > However what you might be thinking of is the difference betwen sense > door and minddoor processes. Yes, I see my mistake. Thanks for the further clarification, it inspires me to take another look at the Mulapariyaya-sutta. As you know, that sutta has commentarial explanation to the effect that, even when the worldling "perceives [earth] as [earth]," he does so with a perversion of perception. I might be able to follow it better now. Ken H 22353 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, (briefly, Lee and Jeff in passing), --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Thanks for your thorough and informative reply. Unfortunately, it still > bothers me that the result of kamma is literally insignificant (without > a sign [nimitta]) on the level of citta process. ..... I’m sorry, but I’m not with you here..... What has been said that makes the result of kamma ‘literally insignificant’ on any level?. For example, seeing consciousness now is certainly not insignificant at all - quite the contrary. It is on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched that all the concepts and proliferations take place. Hence the reminders to guard the sense doors. I also don’t understand your reference to nimitta here. Kamma-nimitta (sign of previous kamma) and gati-nimitta(sign of future destiny) only arise as mental objects just before death. In the development of satipatthana (as opposed to samatha) I understand the nimitta to be the object of the citta known. ..... >But I guess there is no > way around it. It seems to me this comes very close to being a > nihilistic extreme. ..... Hope you can explain more.....I think I’m being dense, but I don’t recall anything in my last post to you which would lead to these conclusions. .... > See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and > brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, > nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad > actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings > who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins > in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and > declare this world and the other world.' ..... In other words, these recluses don’t accept the development of satipatthana, the distinction between kusala and akusala, kamma and results and rebirth. There is no point in developing wholesome states and they see no danger in accumulating unwholesomeness. ..... > ps: any ideas on what is the "other world"? .... rebirths, i.e other lives.”No mother, no father” - no fruit of wholesome and unwholesome conduct to parents. These recluses don’t accept Buddhas or arahants. The Brahmajala sutta and commentaries elaborate on annihilationist views -- showing them to be rooted in self-view-- and B.Bodhi also gives some helpful comments in his introduction. Two or three brief ones: BB: “From the conjunction of these two errors (‘method of diversity’ and ‘method of unity’ see p30)arises the view that it is a self-identical being who comes into existence out of nothing at birth, endures the same throughout life, and is annihilated at death. Correct application of the two complimentary methods whould show that it is not a being who endures, but a succession of dhammas linked together by bonds of conditioning, and that so long as the defilements remain intact in the continuum, the succession will pass on through the event of death into a new birth and a consequent existence.” Tika (sub-Cy) to sutta, annihilationism (Ucchedavaada), view 51-57(p182): “For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates occurring in the form of a continuum is not dissected (into its components). And since it is held that “the self exists so long as it is not annihilated,” the assumption of annihilationism is based on the assumption of the existence of a being.” In his introduction, B.Bodhi also gives some comments on annihilationism and mystical theologies which Lee, Jeff and others may find of interest (p30). I’ll just add a few of his comments (with none of mine;-)): “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.” .... Larry, back to your comments - I think that the ‘dissecting’ into elements through satipatthana, as shown above, leads to detachment from the idea of self and the destruction of all wrong views such as the ones you quoted from MN, rather than the contrary. Hope to hear back from you. With metta, Sarah p.s. Larry - BB's Brahmajala sutta and comy would also be good to go through in parts;-) I'm just raising alternatives for you consideration of when we get to that time. ===== 22354 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:53am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" < Thanks for the further > clarification, it inspires me to take another look at the > Mulapariyaya-sutta. > > As you know, that sutta has commentarial > explanation to the effect that, even when the worldling > "perceives [earth] as [earth]," he does so with a > perversion of perception. I might be able to follow it > better now. > Dear Ken, Yes . Do you have the translation by Bhikhu Bodhi that has the commentary and Tika with it. A book to read a dozen times or more. http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/9552400643 Robertk 22355 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:30am Subject: Concepts, Realizations and Doubts Hi Lee , Jeff, Nina & All. macdocaz1@a... wrote: > I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have > hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions > and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would > answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more > illusions of the mind. Don't you think? .... S: I think this is just the point some of us have been trying to make;-) i.e. that concepts can’t be ‘realized’. ..... Lee: >Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. ... Lee: >Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. ..... S: Exactly so and certainly the Buddha and his disciples were not at any loss of words to communicate to others with confidence and conceptually what is ‘ultimate’ or ‘non-conceptual’, i.e. paramattha. They may be ‘subjective’ experiences as Jeff writes later, but the Truths are universal. ***** Nina, I’m greatly appreciating your return from holiday and especially the Kaeng Kajang and other series. You wrote about the Jatakas which some people find hard to accept and I think it’s relevant to these issues. You wrote: N: >“As to the teaching of conventional truth: those are the stories, the circumstances, the people, the animals. I am not sure whether experts always understand the difference between these two kinds of teaching and hence reject important parts of the teachings, or make issues out of what is not an issue. In olden times people had already doubt about the Vessantara Jataka. We find this discussed in the Questions of King Milinda: Dilemmas VIII, 1: Do all Bodhisattas give away their wife and children? ......” There are bound to be doubts about the Buddha’s Teachings while we just reflect conceptually. As you implied in a comment in the KK extract, when there is awareness of thinking or any other reality, there is no doubt. I thought there were some very helpful comments in the recent extract from the Satipatthana Sutta Comy on Doubt (Way 91): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 5. Doubt “Wrong reflection on things which are founded on doubt brings about the arising of doubt.” .... “There are these six things which help to throw out doubt: The state of being learned in the Buddha's teaching; of inquiring about the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; of understanding thoroughly the nature of the Discipline*; of being decided about the truth of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt.” ..... “[T] Surely by the knowledge of the Dhamma and by inquiry all doubts are cast out.” ***** Another note on the meaning of ‘reflects’ as used from Way 76 that I thought was helpful too: “ Reflects (paccavekkhati) = Considers again and again, sees analytically, part by part, separately after sifting thoroughly with the eye of wisdom (pati pati avekkhati ~nanacakkhuna vinibhujjitva visum visum passati).” Wishing everyone wise reflection,“sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt” and the other conditions mentioned. With metta, Sarah *p.s Nina, do you take ‘Discipline’ in the 6 things to just refer to the Vinaya or to the Dhamma-Vinaya (i.e Tipitaka)? ============================================================= 22356 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards to Robert Epstein Hi Nina, Howard, Mike and other Rob Ep fans, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > I was just going to tell you that I miss you. I understand that you > cannot > read all mails and that you need time for inspiration to write and think > about your work re theater. .... I'm not so forgiving;-) I think Rob Ep needs to spend more time talking to us and hearing about metta and compassion - he obviously doesn't fully appreciate the suffering that goes with the attachment we all have to his presence;-( ..... > shall fwd this to it, in case you overlook me. What a conceit, fear to > be > overlooked. ..... ;-) What I hear from him (off-list) is promises, promises and I don't even mind if it is a little guilt which prompts him not to overlook all us mere worldlings:-/ Thanks, Howard for keeping us posted and for any further nudges you give;-) With metta, Sarah ====== 22357 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: >If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural > networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets > too complicated for the average reader. .... you could have a point here:-/ (not that I'd even aspire to being an 'average reader' when it comes to computer technology) .... > I think I will leave this part out. ..... Could be a smart move.... Metta, Sarah ====== 22358 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi RobK, Always good to see your input - --- rjkjp1 wrote: > R:> The present moment - as in paramattha - is a refuge that can never > be taken away by anything or anyone...... .... K:> Wouldn't it be good if we could remember > > that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? > ________ > _ R:> Sure, why not. It is nothing compared to the loss when we die - as > we will one day. > _________ ... S:I've been reflecting on this good reminder all day.... Thank you! Nina once wrote something to the effect about how what seemed like a big loss or difficulty at the time when we were children or ten years, five years, even one year ago now seems so inconsequential....So too our present losses or hardships. ..... K:> > Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if > > we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of > > nama and rupa. > > ____ > R:> This is when it is harder for me. The good times I like to wallow in. > __________ .... S: And isn't this the very root of the problem ...the wallowing with pleasant feelings and ignorance;-) Look forward to more pithy reminders, Metta, Sarah ======= 22359 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:56am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Dear Member, A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? With thanks, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22360 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:04am Subject: Re: Jatakas Hi Nina and All, I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel a little less dosa about them. Maybe in some cultures, or in some time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would think right now in western cultures some of the stories would probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). I don't find the Tales a source of moral training, or particularly useful in understanding the two kinds of teaching. I think the initial negative impact is too great to encourage continued reflection. The Jataka Tales don't mirror the understanding I have of worthwhile moral values from a cultural point of view or from the precepts or from the Suttas. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom 22361 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:19am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Htoo Naing, This was in today's newspaper, so I assume that it will be the next issue. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Member, > > A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? > > With thanks, > > Htoo Naing > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22362 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:14am Subject: Pain As A Signal (02) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is a part of daily routine.There are many societies which deal with people with pains.Pain is an every day problem.So,we need to deal with it sensibly. Even though there are many different types of pain exist,it may be assumed that there are physical pain and mental pain.Mental pain may cover all the terms that describe emotional pain,emotional trauma,mental trauma or any sufferings link with mind. When pain is obvious it is no need to say that it is pain.This may be referred to pains of physical nature.But still there are many pains so subtle that they may not be assumed as pain at all. Pain is pain.There are many different degrees of pain.When it is too subtle to feel as a pain,sufferers will totally neglect it.That kind of pain may be called as negligence pain (Upekkha Vedana). When pain dips down to the negative side,the sufferers may accept it as pleasant feelings (Sukha Vedana).This is the main source of causation of all things. When accept as good things,sufferers attach to it and try and continue to try to commit actions that probably bring these sorts of good things(as he assumed as good things). Some pains occur in the domain of mind.When it is inconspicuous sufferers hardly ever notice it.But when pains in mind become obvious they will notice that it is unacceptable things in their mind even though they do not try to drive out for some time (may be Samsara long).Dosa(angry) is a painful one,for an example. When pains in mind go deep into the negative side sufferers find them as sensual one and they firmly grasp it not to lose it at all.This sort of pain also comes along with physical ones. Pain,pain,pain.How pain behaves,how pain effects the sufferers and how pain does rotate the wheel of life actually does worth exploring deep into all domain of pains. May you all see pains with a bright light of wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing P.S -When reply this post please CHANGE the heading as ''Signalling pains and discussion / Series No (02)''. Thanks in advance who pay attention to this topic. Htoo Naing 22363 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Dear Ken and Larry, I've appended Ken's response below Larry's in order to try to address them both. I have several ideas about this topic all of which are probably wildly off-base. I'll try to articulate a couple of them partly as a way of straightening out my own thoughts on the subject and partly in hopes of correction. This will be a somewhat lengthy, personal post with apologies and thanks in advance for your patience. I'll start with accumulated kamma as related in stories in the Suttanta and the Jatakas. In this example from Samyutta Nikaya III.19 Aputtaka Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-019.html and Samyutta Nikaya III.20 Aputtaka Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-020.html both versions include near the beginning, "Just now, lord, a money-lending householder died in Savatthi. I have come from conveying his heirless fortune to the royal palace: eight million in silver, to say nothing of the gold. But even though he was a money-lending householder, his enjoyment of food was like this: he ate broken rice & pickle brine. His enjoyment of clothing was like this: he wore three lengths of hempen cloth. His enjoyment of a vehicle was like this: he rode in a dilapidated little cart with an awning of leaves." In the first version, the Buddha tells the story, then talks about what happens when a person of integrity vs. a person of no integrity acquires wealth, and illustrates this with the simile of a 'pond in a place haunted by non-human beings'. In the second, he illustrates the same story without the 'person of integrity vs. a person of no integrity' but with an account of that money-lender's actions (kamma) in past lives and the results (vipakka) of those actions in following lives. Unfortunately I've run out of time--I'd like to go ahead and post this as a basis for further discussion and hope to pick up the thread later. Thanks again for your patience, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:14 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > wrote: > > Dear Ken and Larry, > > > > A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- > > > > > > > Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated > kamma, which > > does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On > the other > > hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by > pa~n~naa, > > the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the > terms 'aayuuhana' vs. > > 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. > > Hi Mike, > > For a moment, I thought this was an easy question but, > while formulating my reply, I was reminded that nothing > about the Dhamma is easy. All sankhara khandhas are > volitional activities, aren't they? Some generate speech > and action, others don't. . . . I'm sorry, but I'm > sure I know a lot less about this than you do; I'll > follow the thread with interest :-) > > I think it's safe to say; 'anusaya' refers to just the > unwholesome accumulated tendencies. > > Ken Hi Mike, You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more." I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Larry 22364 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Rob, Haven't been able to find this on-line this AM--please let us know if you can find the original Reuters article anywhere. Thanks, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:19 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists > Hi Htoo Naing, > > This was in today's newspaper, so I assume that it will be the next > issue. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear Member, > > > > A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? > > > > With thanks, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > wrote: > > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > > > people -- at least according to their brain scans. > 22365 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities] macdocaz1@a... wrote: > While I would agree that the variety of religious experience is as > varied as the variety of the human experience itself, I have noticed > there are certain patterns of experience that conform to a range and > domain of experiences that I believe can be classified. Hi Jeff: I agree that many of the gnostic/mystical experiences seem to follow some broad outlines or patterns. In his essay, James describes these commonalities as ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. An online version of his essay can be found at http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm But even James admits later, as noted in my prior quote from his essay, that this apparent unanimity largely disappears under examination. Recognizing that I am in danger of veering off-topic for this group, I try below to look at several of these commonalities with respect to early Buddhism. James' first commonality - ineffability - is described as follows: "1. Ineffability.- The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one's self to understand a lover's state of mind. Lacking the heart or ear, we cannot interpret the musician or the lover justly, and are even likely to consider him weak-minded or absurd. The mystic finds that most of us accord to his experiences an equally incompetent treatment." The first question for me is what is meant or implied by the word "ineffable." For many mystics, the implication is that they have experienced a transcendent state, a feeling of grace in the presence of a higher power that simply cannot be communicated by words. It is a type of ineffability born of the sheer inadequacy of the mundane to describe the transcendent sphere - that unbridgeable gap between the profane and the divine. I would guess that some Buddhist traditions could be squeezed into this version of ineffability, especially those traditions that understand Nirvana as not simply a state of mind but as an actual transcendent sphere. A weaker form of ineffability - the one I think some forms of early Buddhism ascribe to - is where words aren't so much as inadequate but may be seen as misleading or inappropriate under the circumstances. Bhikkhu Nanananda, in his "Mind Stilled" sermons on Nibbana at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm begins each sermon with the following passage from the Pali canon: "This is peaceful, this is excellent, namely the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all assets, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction". For me, this verbal description of Nibbana is pointing to a state of mind free of verbal formulations, where our "preparations" are stilled and we have let go of "all assets." In sermon 8, he quotes a further portion of the Pali canon, then adds his own commentary: ----- "Consciousness which makes nothing manifest, infinite and all lustrous. It does not partake of the earthiness of earth, the wateriness of water, the fieriness of fire, the airiness of air, the creature-hood of creatures, the deva-hood of devas, the Pajàpati-hood of Pajàpati, the Brahma-hood of Brahma, the radiance of the Radiant Ones, the Subhakiõha-hood of the Subhakiõha Brahmas, the Vehapphala-hood of the Vehapphala Brahmas, the overlord-ship of the overlord, and the all-ness of the all." The gist of this paragraph is that the non-manifestative consciousness which is infinite and all lustrous, is free from the qualities associated with any of the concepts in the list, such as the earthiness of earth and the wateriness of water. That is to say it is not under their influence, it does not partake of them, ananubhåtaü. Whatever nature the world attributes to these concepts, whatever reality they invest it with, that is not registered in this non-manifestative consciousness. That is why this consciousness is said to be uninfluenced by them. ----- I read these passage to mean, not that the state itself cannot be described by words, but that within this state verbal formulations and the conceptual activities of a worldling are to be trivialised and not partaken of. This, to me, is a very different understanding of "ineffability" than that reported by the Christian mystic, for example. I think there are distinctions that can be made as to the other commonalities listed by James, but I should probably close for now. --- Lee 22366 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:43am Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Robert K Dear Robert and all How are you? Thank you, Robert, for reminding me to check the Commentary. Yes, you are right. What an embarrasing episode for me to write the post without checking the Commentary again! I now rememebred that I have read what the commentary reported in the past- as your post mentioned. When I wrote this reply to Howard, though, I forgot to check the Commentary, partly because it was rather late and I was sleepy. So, I request Howard and other dhamma friends to include Robert's additional information regarding Channa's suicide. ____________________ By the way, I could have replied to your post sooner, but I was not able to connect to the Internet for 3 days due to unfair phone-line interference by Telstra. Only tonight, I was able to log on to the Internet. Phone-line problems have now been resolved. ____________________________ With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: --- Dear Suan, Thnaks for this excellent quote from the Pali. If you have more it would be great. In the Channovada sutta http://www.vipassana.info/144-channovada-e.htm I thought the commentary mentions that channa believed he was an arahant because of his good insight into the teachings but upon cutting his throat realises that he isn't. He insights the pain and becomes an arahant at the moment of death. Perhaps someone could check. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Now, returning to the episode under question. > > Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is > outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not > equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned > phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three > Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the > Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe > sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. > > The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section > 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. > > "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" > > "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of > oppression" > > The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment > of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. > Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed > suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, > Majjhimanikaaya. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, 22367 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:02am Subject: Abh in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 4 Abh in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 4 We need to have a firm foundation knowledge of citta: the reality that experiences an object. When the characteristic of aversion appears, we are inclined to think, this is aversion, instead of being aware of its characteristic without thinking about it or naming it. It passes away so quickly. Even a slight yearning for more understanding hinders its development. Khun Anop also said, ³Satipatthåna is developed so that we can know what naturally appears at this moment, through one of the six doors. If we do not understand what naturally appears, we behave in an unnatural way.² Acharn Sujin, Acharn Supee, Khun Anop and others spoke for two hours in the Parliament building about the difference between sense-cognitions such as seeing or hearing, and all the other cittas which are not sense-cognitions. Cittas are accompanied by cetasikas, mental factors, which each perform their own function when they assist the citta in cognizing an object. Each citta is accompanied by at least seven cetasikas. The sense-cognitions are accompanied by seven cetasikas, and all the other cittas are accompanied by more than seven cetasikas. We may learn this in theory, but we should carefully consider what we learn, and in that way it can be a condition for understanding that the sense-cognitions are entirely different from all the other cittas. This understanding can be a firm foundation for discerning the difference between seeing and thinking, hearing and thinking. The sense-cognitions have the sense organs as their physical base of origin, whereas all the other cittas have the ³heartbase² [1] as their physical base of origin. The seven cetasikas which accompany every citta are called the ³universals² (sabbacitta-sådhåranå), and these are: contact (phassa), feeling (vedanå), remembrance (saññå), volition (cetanå), concentration (ekaggatå), vitality (jívitindriya) and attention (manasikåra). When seeing arises, each of the ³universals² performs its own function. Contact, phassa, contacts visible object. Feeling, which is in this case indifferent feeling, experiences the ³taste² of visible object. Remembrance, saññå, ³marks² and remembers visible object. Volition, cetanå, coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas. When it accompanies kusala citta or akusala citta, it has a double task: it coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas and it ³wills² kusala or akusala. Since seeing is vipåkacitta, the result of kamma, volition only coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas. Concentration focusses on visible object. Vitality sustains the life of citta and the accompanying cetasikas until they fall away. Attention, manasikåra, ³drives² citta and the accompanying cetasikas to visible object. Seeing could not cognize visible object without the assistance of these seven accompaying cetasikas. Seeing, hearing and the other sense-cognitions are only accompanied by the seven universals. All the other citttas are accompanied by more than seven cetasikas. We may learn this in theory, but when we deeply consider this it will help us to discern the difference between the sense-cognitions and the cittas which are not sense-cognitions, such as thinking. Footnote: 1. The heart base, hadaya-vatthu, is the physical base for the cittas other than the sense-cognitions. According to the commentaries it is located near the heart. In the Abhidhamma it is defined as ³that rúpa². 22368 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:02am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 2. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:28:40 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 2. Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaada sutta Part 2. Rahula had to apply himself to mental development similar to the elements. We read in another Sutta that Sariputta, who was Rahula's preceptor, said that he was like the elements, unshakable by undesirable objects. We read in the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Nines, Ch II, § 1 (IV, 373) that Sariputta was falsely accused by another monk, but that he had no ill-will.. We read that he said: ³Lord, just as on the earth they cast things, clean and foul, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the earth is not filled with horror, loathing, or disgust; even so, lord, like the earth I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will. ³ We then read that he was like the elements of water, fire and wind. After that Sariputta compared himself with a duster: ³Lord, just as a duster wipes up things, clean and foul, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the duster is not filled with horror, loathing, or disgust; even so, lord, like the duster I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will. ³ Sariputta had no conceit and could forgive whomever offended him. As we read in the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, The Subcommentary explains that through vipassana desirable and undesirable impressions do not persist. This causes me to think of another sutta. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Kindred Sayings on SEnse, Fourth Fifty, ch V, § 202, Lustful) that Mahaamoggallaana spoke to the monks about a monk who has unwise attention to the objects impinging on the senses and the mind. Objects overcome a monk, he does not overcome objects. We read about the monk who is free from lust: ³Herein, friends, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, is not attached to objects that charm, nor averse from objects that displease...² The same is said about the objects experienced through the other doorways. We read: ³With mind cognizing a mind-state, he is not attached to mind-states that charm, nor averse from mind-states that displease, but dwells, having established mindfulness of the body and his thought is boundless, so that he realizes in its true nature that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil unprofitable states that have arisen come to cease without remainder. This monks, friends, is called Œnot lustful after objects cognizable by the eye... not lust ful after objects cognizable by the mind.¹ Thus dwelling, friends, if Mara come upon him by way of the eye, of the tongue, of the mind... Mara gets no access, gets no opportunity... Moreover, friends, so dwelling a monk conquers objects, objects do not conquer him. He conquers sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states. They do not conquer him. Such a monk, friends, is called Œconqueror of objects, sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states.¹ He is conqueror, not conquered. He conquers those evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, inciting to lust, leading to rebirth, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, is one free from lust.² (to be continued). Nina. 22369 From: connie Date: Thu May 22, 2003 11:16am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi, Mike ~ This off the top of another friend's email to me... hope it helps. peace, connie Meditation Shown to Light Up Brains of Buddhists Wed May 21, 2:48 PM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo! LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22370 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of them is always kamma result." L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you say? Larry 22371 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Cooran - detachment/compassion Dear Group, As I've just heard the surf is up and 'Someone' has to catch the low tide. So, I feel quite within my rights to usurp (very temporarily) 'The Delegated Ones' position while he has gone surfin', and post a question from the weekend at Cooran. :-) There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' T.V. soapie. We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be practised together? 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? metta, Christine 22372 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Jon, Anumodana on bringing in a new (to me) dhamma term, "loka dhamma". ""Eight things are called worldly conditions, since they arise in connection with worldly life, namely: gain and loss, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery, praise and blame" (Vis.M. XXII). (Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary)" Certainly owning property is a worldly convention. Given that, I would say the acquiring of propert requires a volitional activity, even if only the accepting of a gift. Additionally stealing the property was done with volitional activity. And clearly the loss is the result of the theft. Would you agree that any result of a volitional activity is a kamma result, recognizing that kamma result is more than kamma vipaka citta? Larry 22373 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Mike / Connie, You can try this link: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030521/3/y09h.html Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Mike ~ > This off the top of another friend's email to me... hope it helps. > peace, > connie > > Meditation Shown to Light Up Brains of Buddhists > Wed May 21, 2:48 PM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo! > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22374 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine, 1. Like a doctor. 2. No. Larry 22375 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Way 92, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Aggregates Having expounded the contemplation of mental objects by way of the five hindrances, the Master said, "And, further, o bhikkhus," in order to explain the contemplation of mental objects by way of the fivefold aggregation. Pañcasu upadanakkhandhesu = "In (the mental objects of) the five aggregates of clinging." The five aggregates of clinging are the groups that grasp life. The congeries of mental objects become the condition of clinging, is the meaning. This is a brief indication of these aggregates. For the statement about the aggregates at length the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity should be read. Iti rupam = "Thus is material form." So far is there material form and no further. In this way the bhikkhu perceives material form according to nature. In regard to feeling and the things that come afterwards the same is the method of exegesis. This is the brief indication of meaning of the matters referred to here. For the lengthy explanation on these things one should read the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity. Iti rupassa samudayo = "Thus is the arising of material form." The arising of material form and the other aggregates should be known according to the fivefold way (mentioned in the Section on the Modes of Deportment) through the arising of ignorance and so forth. Iti rupassa atthangamo = "Thus is the disappearance of material form." The disappearance of material form and the other aggregates should be known according to the fivefold way (mentioned in the Section on the Modes of Deportment) through the passing away of ignorance and so forth. One should read the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity for further explanation. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating mental objects by laying hold of the fivefold aggregation of clinging amongst his own mental objects or amongst the mental objects of another or at one time in his own and at another time in another's mental objects. The origination and dissolution of the fivefold aggregate should be brought forward and connected by way of the fifty characteristics of the five groups, with the extended application of the words: "From the arising of ignorance the arising of material form comes to be." From here on according to the method already stated by the commentator should the exposition be. [Tika] According to nature means: according to the nature of breaking-up, according to the nature of the eye, color and the like in regard to material form, and according to the nature of experiencing, the nature of pleasure and the like in regard to feeling. In this way all other connected things should be interpreted. 22376 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Larry, I assume you hold a stereotype of a doctor who has both detachment and compassion? Why so? And how does it manifest? You are talking to someone who works with at least ten doctors each day - observing indifference, arrogance, discourtesy, greed, anger, self centredness as well as kindness, gentleness, sensitivity, and competence - often all in the same doctor in the same day. In their work, Doctors do not display any different behaviours or feelings than you and I. There is no special class of human being who has the corner on compassion. Compassion and detachment in a Buddhist sense can be displayed in an orderly setting like a hospital, but most of life doesn't happen there. Most of life happens in the chaotic unregulated everyday world. How do we have any detachment and compassion when there is a violent person shouting abuse and running towards us in the carpark? Or how do you have any detachment and compassion for the man who has just killed your cat with a ground glass bait? Or the woman who belts her screaming child across the head with her hand bag? I am sure there are small and great examples in everyone's daily life. Compassion, as an intellectual exercise, is easy after the fact. But how to have it arise as it is needed? I think it is important to be able to deal with, or not have arise, the emotional reaction that usually overwhelms any other states. In order to do this, I think we need to cultivate detachment. But what is detachment, and how do you get it? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > 1. Like a doctor. > > 2. No. > > Larry 22377 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 4:44:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: > > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. > > Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness > (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as > visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or > nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible > objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of > them is always kamma result." > > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? > > Larry > ========================== If I may butt in: I don't think that concept is used to see objects "as they are". I think it is used to see objects *as they are characterized*. Sa~n~na recognizes patterns within objects [for example, shapes within images], and concept enlarges and embellishes these, creatively combining what is actually observed, with relations as the "glue," constructing an apparent world of things. Wisdom, not the conceptual faculty, sees through the concepts, deconstructs (but doesn't utterly destroy) the mind-made world, and enables us to have our cake and eat it too - to use concepts as mental short-hand for the recognition of relations among phenomena without being fooled by the concepts. At least this is how I see it. 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) 22378 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, Would you say there is no panna without concept? Strictly speaking, in citta process, I don't think there is even a recognizable object without concept. 5-sense consciousness, by itself, is without concept and it is said to be formless, I think. Larry 22379 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine, Name it. Larry 22380 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 8:34:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Would you say there is no panna without concept? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I would not say that. I think of pa~n~na as non-conceptual. But conceptual understanding/characterization can follow pa~n~na and can be "informed" by it. ------------------------------------------------- Strictly speaking, in> > citta process, I don't think there is even a recognizable object without > concept. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think we can and do recognize things, hardness, for example, by an act of sa~n~na, without the involvement of concept. (Of course, as soon as we apply a word, concept is on the move.) ------------------------------------------------ 5-sense consciousness, by itself, is without concept and it is> > said to be formless, I think. > > 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) 22381 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? to Sarah, Larry, Lee and others: In a message dated 5/22/03 12:46:30 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << ..... I’m sorry, but I’m not with you here..... What has been said that makes the result of kamma ‘literally insignificant’ on any level?. For example, seeing consciousness now is certainly not insignificant at all - quite the contrary. It is on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched that all the concepts and proliferations take place. Hence the reminders to guard the sense doors. ..... > See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and > brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, > nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad > actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings > who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins > in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and > declare this world and the other world.' ..... In other words, these recluses don’t accept the development of satipatthana, the distinction between kusala and akusala, kamma and results and rebirth. There is no point in developing wholesome states and they see no danger in accumulating unwholesomeness. ..... rebirths, i.e other lives.â€?No mother, no fatherâ€? - no fruit of wholesome and unwholesome conduct to parents. These recluses don’t accept Buddhas or arahants. “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.â€? .... Larry, back to your comments - I think that the ‘dissecting’ into elements through satipatthana, as shown above, leads to detachment from the idea of self and the destruction of all wrong views such as the ones you quoted from MN, rather than the contrary. Hope to hear back from you. With metta, Sarah >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Please excuse me not giving people credit for their posts. I couldn't keep track this time who contributed what. I copied what I thought were the core concepts. I believe some of these concepts can come from or lead to nihilism, and some of this is antinomium, and still other portions are non-dualist. I will see if I can sort through it for you. All of your comments are quite good, and I think Sarah's final comment is excellent. I believe at the center of this question lies the question of what the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has completely erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, because there is no self to act or react. There is no reaction, because there is no self to react. But, one who is free of a self, is not likely to be compelled to act harmfully or selfishly, because there is no self present to be selfish. On the other hand, if there is a self present, and the practitioner only believes there is no self, then they are acting from self, whether they believe it or not, and their actions are therefore self motivated. Consequently there is karma. So, in the case of no self present, then it is non-dualism, in the all other cases, it is either nihilism or antinomiumism which require a self to maintain a belief, but no belief will save one from karma. Only not having a self for karma to cling to will releive one of karma. I feel complete here, I hope I have expressed myself adequately. If not I am sure someone here will let me know. Please excuse me if I misspelled 'antinomium' or 'antinomiumism.' I am actual a terrible speller, but thanks to spell-check I am freed of much humiliation. Unfortunately, my dead hard drive has my good dictionary on it. Best to all, layman Jeff 22382 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. Correct? I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is just sense consciousness, not understanding. We don't have a recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. Larry 22383 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:16pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I think you got it right. The only thing I would add is that not-self doesn't mean no objects. Larry 22384 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 10:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At > the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. > Correct? > > I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is > just sense consciousness, not understanding. We don't have a > recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think > any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand > in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. > > ========================= I think that the tilakkhana can be known conceptually and can also be known directly. When we *see* the simplest of phenomena disappear, when we *see* them devoid of any characteristic of being personal or substantial, and when we *see* them without any (consequent) sense of worthiness added on, that is the direct apprehension of the tilakkhana, and that is freeing. We don't need the concepts (or terminology) of anicca, anatta, and dukkha to see something disappear or to see its impersonality, insubstantiality, emptiness, and unworthiness. When wisdom is operative, this fundamental nature of conditioned dhammas is directly, wordlessly, and thoughtlessly laid bare. Our concepts will then be transformed along with every other aspect of our mental functioning. But I believe that it is the direct apprehension of these three characteristics by pa~n~na, not their conceptual grasping, that is the key to the doorway to liberation. 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) 22385 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment << Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: >If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural > networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets > too complicated for the average reader. >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, how about something like. "Oh computer geek, is this one's memory nonlinear, holographic? "Yes, oh great one, its memory is holographic, it functions on three dimensional algorithms." "Well, then is must deal with space/time domains. The past the present and the future are one and the same to it. Just so is the yogi who is free of self." I don't know, sorry you're better at this than I am, but I like your idea of adding neuralnets, even though none of us have a PC with such technology that I know of. Best, Jeff 22386 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities] To Lee: In a message dated 5/22/03 8:19:05 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << The first question for me is what is meant or implied by the word "ineffable." For many mystics, the implication is that they have experienced a transcendent state, a feeling of grace in the presence of a higher power that simply cannot be communicated by words. It is a type of ineffability born of the sheer inadequacy of the mundane to describe the transcendent sphere - that unbridgeable gap between the profane and the divine. I would guess that some Buddhist traditions could be squeezed into this version of ineffability, especially those traditions that understand Nirvana as not simply a state of mind but as an actual transcendent sphere.>> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I believe we have to accept that the subjective experience is going to be difficult to articulate because it isn't a physical world phenomena. There are however some 5 sense corollaries that can be drawn upon for limit description, but it is still limited. I have the same problem on the Jhana Support Group where we are trying to understand jhana, in part, by describing our own personal experiences. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: "This is peaceful, this is excellent, namely the stilling of all prepa-rations, the relinquishment of all assets, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction". %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I don't believe James' psychics were anywhere near these experiences. But from the amount of debate that goes on hear and other lists, not to mention what has gone on for the last two and a half millennia, it isn't surprising that the experience is ineffable, or at least difficult to describe. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: For me, this verbal description of Nibbana is pointing to a state of mind free of verbal formulations, where our "preparations" are stilled and we have let go of "all assets." In sermon 8, he quotes a further portion of the Pali canon, then adds his own commentary: %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, verbal, as well as volition in the other sense gates as well. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: The gist of this paragraph is that the non-manifestative con-scious-ness which is infinite and all lustrous, is free from the qualities asso-ciated with any of the concepts in the list, such as the earthiness of earth and the wateriness of water. That is to say it is not under their influence, it does not partake of them, an-anubhåtaü. Whatever na-ture the world attributes to these concepts, whatever reality they in-vest it with, that is not regis-tered in this non-manifestative con-scious-ness. That is why this consciousness is said to be uninfluenced by them. I read these passage to mean, not that the state itself cannot be described by words, but that within this state verbal formulations and the conceptual activities of a worldling are to be trivialised and not partaken of. This, to me, is a very different understanding of "ineffability" than that reported by the Christian mystic, for example. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: And, that would explain why it is pretty hard to describe it. But, remember it is more than preverbal, it also pre-auditory, pre-visual etc. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: I think there are distinctions that can be made as to the other commonalities listed by James, but I should probably close for now. %%%%%%%%%%% I feel compelled to point out that James' subjects were clearly trance mediums, not mystics seeking the Gnostic experience. Therefore I believe there is some problem with bridging this gap, which to me is a chasm. But, the message still comes off as useable. Best to you, layman Jeff 22387 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts, Realizations and Doubts to Lee, Nina, Sarah and others In a message dated 5/22/03 1:32:19 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Lee: >Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual.>> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Good point Lee, I think Bodhidarma was pretty close to someone who attempted to get across the concept of cessation, which he called no-mind, without offering any concepts up, or at least very few. The Bodhidarma anthology is tiny, and most of it is commentary, and writing from his students. I suppose one could argue that there are a few concepts that have to be put forth, like the 4 noble truths and 8 fold bath for instance. So, sure some concepts are useful, that I think is why we have "right thoughts," in the 8 fold path. But I think once you get the message across that a sense of self is useless and cessation, or emptiness is the "way to go," then it is just a matter of emptying and relinquishing. %%%%%%%%%%% ..... S: Exactly so and certainly the Buddha and his disciples were not at any loss of words to communicate to others with confidence and conceptually what is ‘ultimate’ or ‘non-conceptual’, i.e. paramattha. They may be ‘subjective’ experiences as Jeff writes later, but the Truths are universal. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the self. Best to all, layman Jeff 22388 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, Sense impingements may be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, regardless of (or prior to) concept. Concepts can also be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral regardless of the original (related) sense impingement. That's how I see it, anyway--please excuse my butting in! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Sarah, > > First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: > > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. > > Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness > (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as > visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or > nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible > objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of > them is always kamma result." > > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? > > Larry 22389 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hiya Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 2:49 PM Subject: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion > Dear Group, > > As I've just heard the surf is up and 'Someone' has to catch the low > tide. So, I feel quite within my rights to usurp (very > temporarily) 'The Delegated Ones' position while he has gone surfin', > and post a question from the weekend at Cooran. :-) Onya... > There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) > loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into > a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we > moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing > something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or > compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on > whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As > usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do > fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very > good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' > T.V. soapie. > We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. > > So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: > > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? Karu.naa (compassion) doesn't mean 'to relieve suffering in a positive way'. It is a mental factor, and one that's difficult to understand, not the 'feeling bad for someone' it's usually taken to mean, in my opinion--feeling bad must always be akusala, I think. > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? As you know, I'm not a Buddhist and have no interest in religion. That said, in my opinion again (of course!), detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level. That's what I reckon, anyhow... mike 22390 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, I agree. Sense impingements arise with a feeling. Do you think that affects the argument? Larry 22391 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts, Realizations and Doubts Dear Sarah, thank you for your helpful comments, I liked to be reminded of paccavekkhati. op 22-05-2003 10:30 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > *p.s Nina, do you take Discipline’ in the 6 things to just refer to the > Vinaya or to the Dhamma-Vinaya (i.e Tipitaka)? N: I think just the Vinaya. But Vinaya can have a wider meaning, good conduct: samvara vinaya, pahana vinaya (PED). In this way it can also pertain to laypeople. Nina. 22392 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I agree there is a big difference between directly experiencing something and thinking about experience. However, I would say direct experience is conceptual using the criterion that even a shape is a concept. Larry 22393 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ME again-- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Howard, > > The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At > the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. > Correct? I don't think so--pa~n~naa 'sees through'--no concept or pattern necessary. No main wisdom, either--it just penetrates whatever's there. > I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is > just sense consciousness, not understanding. Understanding can definitely see through ruupa. It is 'experiential', not conceptual. This is different from dvipa~ncavi~n~naa.na. This can definitely be known (sorry if my Pali's bad!). > We don't have a > recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think > any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand > in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. It IS the key to 'correct' conceptualization, which is very important in my opinion. It is not insight, though, except on an intellectual level (not vipassanaa)--not the insight that chips away at sa.msaara. That's how I conceptualize it, anyway... mike 22394 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Of course, Nina, thanks--the process cittas are so academic to me, I don't think in this way at all. So when I think of citta, I always just think of vi~n~naa.na. Thanks again for the elucidation (and sorry for the late reply-trying to catch up on my old, 'flagged' messages). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Sir Mike, op 27-04-2003 02:24 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > >> Nina: >> Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging >> on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the >> object. > > Understood. > >> The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase >> as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and >> vicara in order to experience visible object. > > I don't understand this. When you say, "other cittas of the sense-door > process", are you referring to vi~n~naa.nas other than seeing-consciousness? > Why would they 'need...to experience visible object'? In the eye-door process there are other cittas that also experience visible object, but they do not see. I am going to write more in my eries on Kreang Kacang. Seeing is accompanbied by just the seven universals, but the other cittas in taht process are accompanied by more than these seven. Just a quote now: Nina. 22395 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri May 23, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Dear Sarah and Jon, Thanks for your replies. There is one of Sarah's from last week that I also want to respond to but it will have to wait. As delegated chief question asker for the Cooran group, I have my work cut out for me.* Jon wrote: ------------- I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but 'loss' is given as 1 of the 8 worldly conditions (loka- dhamma), as I'm sure you know. -------------- Now that you mention it, Azita and Christine *did* introduce the 8 worldly conditions into the discussion. (The group could only remember 6 of the 8 without looking them up.) Their relevance was lost on me at the time; I should have listened more carefully. Jon continued: ----------- > While the loka-dhammas are all conditioned by previous deeds, good or bad accordingly, they do not represent any particular underlying paramattha dhammas at the time of being experienced. A moment of being praised, for example, is not necessarily a moment of kusala vipaka, since the vipaka has to do with the sound being experienced through the ear-door and not the meaning of the words being spoken, and so on. > ---------------- Thanks for pointing that out. This topic is being touched on in several dsg threads at the moment; ie., that the paramattha object on its own, doesn't have much impact or [conventional] significance. However, in the Buddha's Dhamma, the paramattha object is paramount. It has to be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. Where it fits in with our conventional world is neither here nor there as far as satipatthana is concerned. Sarah said: -------------- > Anticipating another question, we might ask in this case, why there should be any sympathy for the lack of apparent akusala vipaka or brief momentary experiences at most. I think the answer is that knowing that certain concepts or conventional truths such as 'robberies', 'noisy aeroplane babies,' SARS and so forth are likely to be a condition for a lot of aversion and papanca for most of us, given our accumulated kilesa, and understanding how destructive and unpleasant these kilesa are, we can have metta and compassion for each other whilst helping to clarify if appropriate. > -------------- Yes, the complexity of kamma/vipaka might be a bit daunting, but we are immensely fortunate to have even a little understanding of the realities involved. They are such a long way from the conventional understanding we would otherwise be limited to. It might be a little out of context, but I'd like to quote what Nina has just been saying to Howard: "If we would not know that they are cetasikas, we would be lost." Kind regards, Ken H * Just as I am about to post this message, I notice from #22371 that I may have been demoted :-) :-( 22396 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 23, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Larry, In case you wonder, the trim reminders are not addressed to you and other minimalist posters;-) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Name it. > > Larry .... I just went back and counted 8 questions in Christine's post. maybe you could at least put Q1, 2....or 8 so we know what you're referring to:-/ I'll get back to our thread after my busy weekend of teaching....in the meantime in reply to your last post: No No Yes Yes & No & No to last Qu I see Howard, Mike and others are doing a great job discussing and explaining further in the meantime;-) ;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 22397 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 1:38am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Larry: In a message dated 5/22/03 7:16:54 PM, LBIDD@w... writes: << Hi Jeff, I think you got it right. The only thing I would add is that not-self doesn't mean no objects. Larry >> “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.â€? %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? Anyway, in the case of the arupa jhanas there are no sense objects, especially jhana 8. Best to you, Jeff 22398 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? ... just to butt in quickly - I posted the quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's (from his introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta). Sorry for any confusion in my last post. One other quote was from the same source and one was from the commentary to the sutta itself. Hope this clarifies. I may add more later. Metta, Sarah ====== 22399 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri May 23, 2003 7:57am Subject: Pain As A Signal (03) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is actually a signal that something is happening.Its effects are many and effects also depend on the viewers. When a pain comes,some respond with fury and anger.Some deal with the pain frightened.Some abnormally respond as a taste which can be called as ''Masochism''. Some do want to relieve from that naggy pain.Some wish to avoid the pains entirely.Some never want to face with any pains.All these phenomena are related to their attachment to sensual things. If they are attached to sensual things then they all start to cling on unreal things.This leads to craving and they hold firmly the wrong view and will do anything that will lead to achievement of the things they want. May you all be able to avoid that clinging. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing