29400 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James and Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken: K Sujinians are trying to learn the Dhamma as found in the > Theravada texts, that's all. > > James: In my opinion that is the first mistake. You should be trying > to learn the Dhamma that is found in life, not in some texts > (Theravada or otherwise). Start with the First Noble Truth: Life is > Dukkha, and work from there. You don't need to know all the texts, > just look around and pay attention. What do you see? What do you > smell? What do you feel? What do you taste? What do you hear? > What do you cognize? These are all the teachers you need. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words focus on the current moment. Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. The Buddha never wrote anything down, yet he told the Sangha to let the Dhamma be their guide after His parinibbana. I don't think that the Buddha was referring to the texts, I suspect that He was guiding us to look at truths, through our own experiences. On a parallel note, there was a new face in my Abhidhamma class last week. He asked a very intelligent question. Later, somebody told me that he was a Christian lawyer. He had attended one of Ajahn Brahm's dhamma talks and was very impressed. However, he was not yet sure if he was being swayed by Ajahn Brahm's charisma (he's got lots!). A friend suggested that he attend a six day meditation retreat and observe his own mind. That experience was enough to make him realize that there was a lot more to Buddhism than a charismatic speaker. So now he is interested, what is the next step? This person could spend every weekend in a meditation retreat learning more through direct observation. However, he recognized that others had tread a similar path and recorded their insights. Studying these texts would help him put his own experience into a framework, a context. As the Buddha said in the simile of the raft, we have to be ready to abandon even the teachings, after we have crossed the stream. Until we make it to the other side, the texts provide a useful guide. I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. Metta, Rob M :-) 29401 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard and Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Howard: "In particular, rupas do not exist other than as objects of > > consciousness." > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > If the above were the case, eye sensitivity couldn't exist except as an > > object of consciousness. > > > > Larry > > > ======================== > Okay, a good point, a smart observation! Assuming that "eye > sensitivity" is a rupa, a proposition that I don't readily accept, and if, indeed, it > does *not* arise as arammana (a negativity which *seems* to be the case), this > would show that a rupa may arise other than as an object of consciousness, and > that would show that I overstated in saying that "rupas do not exist other > than as objects of consciousness." > What I *should* have stated, and which is all that one can *directly* > obtain from the sutta, is that rupas have consciousness as a necessary > condition for their arising. (What the form of the dependency involved is isn't > stated.) In particular, then, "eye sensitivity," if it is a paramattha dhamma, > arises in dependence on consciousness as one condition, and does not arise without > consciousness as condition. This would make eye sensitivity, whether it is an > actual phenomenon or merely the pa~n~natti of "the physical capacity to see," > something that never arises without consciousness as condition, and, thus, > never exists independent of consciousness. The sutta itself makes it clear that > all namas and all rupas arise in necessary dependence on consciousness. And, > as Swee Boon makes clear, and the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta states, namarupa and > consciousness are mutually dependent. Eye-sensitivity is a kamma-produced rupa, so it depends on nama. Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not be compared. Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an ontological issue (nature of reality). A Buddhist perspective, as explained in the Simsapa Sutta and the Culamalunkya Sutta, is an ethical issue ("conducive to the holy life") and a soterilogical issue ("attainment of Nibbana"). In these two Suttas, the Buddha warns about using the Buddha's teaching out of context. Howard, a year or so ago we had a similar discussion and at that time, you and I were on the same page. I have been mulling over this issue for many months and this was my first opportunity to raise the issue again with you. Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 29402 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/26/04 7:46:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Howard: "The sutta itself makes it clear that all namas and all rupas > arise in necessary dependence on consciousness." > > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps, but there may be another way of reading it. I think someone > could argue that "namarupa" is a particular kind of body/mind > combination and doesn't include all nama or all rupa. For example, there > are temperature produced rupas that don't depend on consciousness for > their arising and I would think in the formless realms there is no > interdependence between consciousness and rupa. > > Larry > ========================== Well, "someone could argue" whatever they want, but the sutta in question says: "Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention -- these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements -- these are called materiality." The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements constitute rupas in their entirety. So, it seems to me that the matter is settled - unless, of course, one wants to twist and stretch and squirm to the point that the claim is made that the sutta says "A" but somehow means "not A" by 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) 29403 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Rob - In a message dated 1/26/04 9:50:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Eye-sensitivity is a kamma-produced rupa, so it depends on nama. > > Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as > phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between > a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the > two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not > be compared. > > Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an > ontological issue (nature of reality). > > A Buddhist perspective, as explained in the Simsapa Sutta and the > Culamalunkya Sutta, is an ethical issue ("conducive to the holy > life") and a soterilogical issue ("attainment of Nibbana"). In these > two Suttas, the Buddha warns about using the Buddha's teaching out of > context. > > Howard, a year or so ago we had a similar discussion and at that > time, you and I were on the same page. I have been mulling over this > issue for many months and this was my first opportunity to raise the > issue again with you. > > Interested in your feedback. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > =============================== I wasn't trying to define buddhism as anything - I didn't have to. I merely pointed out what the Buddha said. 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) 29404 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Swee Boon Good to see you around again, and thanks for the sutta quote. As a nearby resident of Thailand, you may like to consider a quick trip to Bangkok to join the discussions on Thurs to Saturday. At the latest count there look like being 10-12 DSG members present (some are lurkers). The latest notification received is from Ven Yanattharo who will be in Bangkok for Rob Ed's ordination (we are hoping to see Rob Ed at the discussions also). Jon --- nidive wrote: > Hi Howard, ... > Mentality-materiality depends on consciousness and consciousness > depends on mentality-materiality. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-067.html > 29405 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Angulimala revisited Connie Thanks for the colourful explanation. Clearer now. Jon (for Sarah) --- connie wrote: > Hi, Sarah, Ken O, > ... > c: Ok, Sarah, just that it's all stories... whether they're strung > out > over aeons of lives, just this one, just today or a single > consciousness-originated breath... the stories last, but each > little All > is just namas and rupas; life is only as long as a single thought > moment > and even what I call good kamma rests on defilements. We just keep > on, > like those countless 1000's doing the Angulimala; or I look down in > the > snow on my way to the post office and I'm walking in the same > footsteps > I made two days ago. Walking with the neighbour last summer, it > was my > old tracks in the dust two miles from here. There are stories in > my > life I'd rather not repeat, however interesting they might be, but > the > footsteps say I've walked over the same mountain of bones so much I > don't even know how deep the ruts are or how much higher it would > be if > I had all my thumbs. > To make it a short story, we never know what those 7 javana dwarves > are > going to mine, but we wear the necklaces and are distracted by ever > more > glitter, all of it pauper's gems, while Pinocchio brings such > passion to > the interpretive dance that no one's watching the doors; robbers > waltz > in and we're carried away with ourselves by the ring in our nose, > forgetting to listen to the wind as we shuffle off to hell. > metta, > connie 29406 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 8:26pm Subject: Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? Larry 29407 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Wooh, Now i'm really disapointed to be missing out! rob In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon > > Good to see you around again, and thanks for the sutta quote. > > As a nearby resident of Thailand, you may like to consider a quick > trip to Bangkok to join the discussions on Thurs to Saturday. At the > latest count there look like being 10-12 DSG members present (some > are lurkers). The latest notification received is from Ven > Yanattharo who will be in Bangkok for Rob Ed's ordination (we are > hoping to see Rob Ed at the discussions also). > > Jon 29408 From: Date: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/26/04 11:31:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since > Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. > > The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all > consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? > > ============================= Larry, I disagree *entirely*! The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary or from me. (Oh, also, I should mention that this sutta states that namas and rupas arise with consciousness as a necessary condition, but does not address the converse.The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta does, asserting both. So, the converse is not part of "the question" at hand.) Another matter made quite clear in this sutta in addition to the dependence of namas and rupas on consciousness, something that has not made sense to me and that I assumed came only from Abhidhamma, is that there are the four great rupas, and that all other rupas are derivative, arising in dependence on them. I've explicitly questioned that dependeny before on this list. But here I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this sutta. I will not try to squirm, stretch, and contort, by searching all over for commentaries that will provide an obscure interpretation enabling me to hold onto my fixed beliefs and to show that the sutta means something other than what it plainly says. It clearly means exactly what it says. The Buddha has clearly asserted here that sights, sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations that are not among the four great rupas are derivatives of them, arising with them as condition. I see that the Buddha taught that as a fact in this sutta no more clearly and no less clearly than I see that the Buddha taught here that namas and rupas arise with consciousness as a necessary condition. Now it is my decision to tentatively accept that previously doubted assertion as true - pending future direct, personal confirmation, which I anticipate, or future direct, personal refutation, which I do not anticipate. I accept it, albeit tentatively, due to my great confidence in the Buddha, a confidence gained by putting into practice the Buddha's teachings and seeing the results. My inclination, rather than looking to refute the statement, is to look to understand it and confirm it. However, I will not run from truth regardless of what it is, and regardless of whom or what it may contradict. 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) 29409 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 0:22am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James and Ken, > I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and > value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) You haven't offended me. Quite the opposite! I think you have done a brilliant job! Metta, James 29410 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi Howard (Larry and All), Howard: Larry, I disagree *entirely*! James: Oh come on Howard, don't you want Suan to come in and save the day?? ;-)) Howard: The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary or from me. James: Well, I don't know about you, but I don't even find the term `consciousness' very clear. What is `consciousness' exactly? Consciousness seems to be so tied up with rupa, thought formations, and feelings that I am not able to sift it out and know what it means. Even my thoughts about `consciousness' have become immediately corrupted due to the thinking process itself. However, Suan doesn't need to provide the commentary to this sutta, it is already available online: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html However, I don't find the commentary in this regard very helpful. Using ambiguous words to define other ambiguous words is really useless to me. I guess you just gotta keep sitting, developing the mind, until the tangle untangles itself and consciousness becomes directly known. Howard: I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this sutta. James: Small point of clarification, and not terribly important, this sutta was spoken by Ven. Sariputta. Metta, James 29411 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:40am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James and all, Perhaps I should have posed the question as "Did the Buddha say that the Four Noble Truths are ultimate or conventional?" as the question "Did the Buddha characterize the Four Noble Truths as ultimate or conventional?", seemly simple, gave rise to miscommunication. Anyway, I do think that you've got the point: Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 29412 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Larry Satipatthana could only be practised by reality and not concepts. The greatest pblm I have is not understanding the material world that I am looking are just the four great elements and the other rupas. I read I think in the commentary to Abhidhimmatha Sangaha, the word Great is used for the four elements bc they are the greatest deceivers or deluders. When we see things as just rupas and not concepts, satipatthana is in IMHO immediately established. Just for eg, I am attracted to a beautiful lady that walk pass me, if I will to realise that this lady is just visible rupas in my eye cittas, the lobha and moha component will immediately cease, there arise three beautiful roots (but in practise this is extremely hard to do). But I believe once we practise this more often, eventually satipathana will be natural. I do not know how long it takes to be naturally, it may be years before we think like that, or maybe lives. kind regards Ken O 29413 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:23am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Andrew, You wrote: ------------------- A: > I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. Compassion for what? Beings. -------------------------------- True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) --------------------------- A: > Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. CMA p 90 tells us that compassion's proximate cause is "seeing helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering". Seeing helplessness in what? Those overwhelmed by suffering. Not a moment of the conditioned arising of the 5 aggregates of clinging. --------------------------- I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition dhammas.) --------------------------- A: > It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away of paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? --------------------------- Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is just `adosa.' We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" But our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are different from concepts. ------------------------ A: > Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. ------------------------- I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or not there is a Buddha in the world. ----------------------- A: > Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught it. How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see definition of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually that they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned streams of namarupa always in flux. --------------------------- Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) ---------------- A: > Too much surfing, KenH. ---------------- `Too much surfing is barely enough.' (Apologies to Roy and HG.) -------------------------------- A: > Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the waves in the ocean. What's the point? ------------------------------ I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a [wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the world and we will experience Nibbana. Kind regards, Ken H 29414 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:16am Subject: Re: Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta : To Larry Dear Larry, Howard, James and all How are you? Happy New Year to Larry! Thank you, Larry, for inviting me to enter this thread. I will read both the Suttam and its commentary soon, and then get back to you. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi Howard, The only way to settle this is to see what the commentary says. Since Nina is gone maybe Suan can look it up. The question: does consciousness condition all rupa, is all consciousness dependent on rupa according to this sutta? Larry 29415 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn: SUAN : re: "namarupa" in Sammaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/27/04 3:57:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard (Larry and All), > > Howard: Larry, I disagree *entirely*! > > James: Oh come on Howard, don't you want Suan to come in and save the > day?? ;-)) > ------------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! (No offense intended, Suan. You have impressive knowledge. :-) ----------------------------------------- > > Howard: The sutta is so eminently clear, unambigious, and > straightforward that it requires nothing at all from commentary > or from me. > > James: Well, I don't know about you, but I don't even find the > term `consciousness' very clear. What is `consciousness' exactly? > Consciousness seems to be so tied up with rupa, thought formations, > and feelings that I am not able to sift it out and know what it > means. Even my thoughts about `consciousness' have become > immediately corrupted due to the thinking process itself. However, > Suan doesn't need to provide the commentary to this sutta, it is > already available online: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html > However, I don't find the commentary in this regard very helpful. > Using ambiguous words to define other ambiguous words is really > useless to me. I guess you just gotta keep sitting, developing the > mind, until the tangle untangles itself and consciousness becomes > directly known. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, consciousness is a subtle function. And a consciousness is no more aware of itself than a knife blade cuts itself, but still we *are* aware of being conscious, presumably by a consciousness discerning a just-passed consciousness. In any case, while consciousness is subtle, it is clear to me that what it is is a mere awareness (of "whatever") - it is an initial, elementary, mental encountering of object, the subjective aspect of a contact. ---------------------------------------------- > > Howard: I see it being stated straight out by the Buddha in this > sutta. > > James: Small point of clarification, and not terribly important, this > sutta was spoken by Ven. Sariputta. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whoops! Not so unimportant! At least, however, Ven Sariputta was the Buddha's right-hand man, the "general of the Dhamma". (He is held in sufficiently high esteem by everybody - he was the Abhidhamma trustee, it is said - to make this unproblematical.) ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta, James > > ========================== 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) 29416 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:35am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The meditator is striving to realize all phenomena. He has been practising breathing meditation. In that, he knows touching of incoming air to his nostrils, continuing touching, a short pause, touching of outgoing warm air to his nostrils, continuing touching, and then he knows a long pause. He is striving on and on and again and again on his own breath nothing but on his breath. This goes for a while. For another time, he knows that he is sitting and touching of his bottom to the floor. He knows all through his changes in position to standing and then walking and then sitting on the bed and then lying and touching of his body to the bed. At a time, he knows all the processes of changing that is all his actions, going forward, moving backward, looking straight ahead, looking elsewhere, all the processes of changing dressing, and all other bodily activities with fully conscious mind with proper attention. He has been striving in this way as long as he can. At a time, he contemplates on his own body each part one after another and recognizing that body is not to be attached and he realizes that it is unwise to be proud and to be conceited on own body like this is my beautiful face, this is my lovely lip, this is my pink cheek, this is my slender neck, this is my smooth hand, this is my ivory leg and so on. Here he just contemplates his body as undesirable and it is not noted as desirable which again is the source of Mana or conceit. At another time, he contemplates on his own body grouping into four different elements. He realizes that the body is just made up of these four basic elements and it is nothing but four elements. In that, he cannot find anything more than four elements and then he is free of attachment on his own body. At other time, he contemplates his own body as a body and if lifeless it is just a corpse and it will go into different processes of decomposition and it is completely undesirable and then he realizes that his body is not desirable .( It is not Subha but just Asubha ). In all his contemplations on his body including breathing meditation ( Anapanasati ) and other contemplations, he notices that there is a feeling at each mind while he is contemplating and now he switches himself to contemplation on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With time, he realizes that there are feelings all the time, at any given time, there is a feeling. He cannot find self inside and outside awide. There is selfless. There is no one. There is no life. There is no Satta ( being ). But just feeling. Now he just knows feeling arises and feeling falls away. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana 29417 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pativeda Realization Dear Htoo Naing, Thanks for a lot of great postings which help me a lot. The booster message - is that analogous/comparable to when a days-old infant progressed into a teenager and on to adult ? If one studied carefully, the infant's knowledge and skill gets a jump (similar to quantum jump, from booster message ?) to pick up crawling, to walking and then speaking come on very soon in not-so-gradual steps or stages. In technical jargon - step progression as against stepless progression, as can be represented in a graph. I also think this might also be in aging progression. That also is when the opportune time come for booster message to appear - comparable to blossoming of a plant. In fact, I have heard real-life happenings similar to or the same as - your described booster message, learning languages in just a day or so, if not hours. I do not mean to lean towards or advocate mysticisms or superstitions because Buddhism does not encourage such ( I agreed). Mainly because every things (effects) have their corresponding reason(s) or cause(s). Nothing mystic or superstitious. Only ignorance (moha) and thus ensuing - fear, makes us superstitious. Moha - because certainly we do not know a lot and illusions abound. Science is barely scratching the surface of many true realities - through many illusions on the way. I am learning Buddhism to have 'a little fast forward' ahead of Science, which I think it may converge with Buddha's teaching in only smaller intersect as in Set theory or Venn's diagram. Reason is - I was told Science can and will never be able to measure nama (consciousness). Science maybe just a subset of Buddha's teachings. I am very fascinated and awed in the vast and complex classification/categorizing and information structures in explanation of many phenomena by Buddha with no known anomalies or discrepancies to hide or cover up - so far. After over 2,500 years of scrutiny (by other religions, maybe). Many people do not classify Buddhism as a religion because religion as a definition has other meaning. No conflict/clash with Science, so far either. No ordinary person can accomplish such capabilities. That should be enough for those (who will be curious and lucky enough) to look carefully into his many explanations. Lucky because today we are born as human beings with enough interpreting wisdom to understand the essence of Dhamma, which also still exists today. Dhamma was destined to lessen and disappear (?) in the future. In other words, both has to be there - being a human and existence of Dhamma. Correct me if I am wrong - I understand Dhamma as the 'true (or) as is (no illusion)' concept or description of true realities according to Buddha. Thanks again for imparting a lot of your wisdom. Metta, Eddie Lou --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > When the Dhammafarer thinks that Dhamma is too > complicated and ...[snipped] > Not all Arahats learned theory first and then > practical and so on but > there are those who never learned before their > enlightenment but they > did pick up a booster message where appropriate. ...[snipped] > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing 29418 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not be compared. Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an ontological issue (nature of reality). Michael: I think you have to review your definitions. In accordance with dictionary.com: Ontology: The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. Phenomenology: A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. The way the teachings of the Buddha are generally discussed in this list takes one to the conclusion that the Buddha taught some form of ontology, i.e. ultimate realities that are the real truth underlying the merely conceptual existence of beings. While in the suttas the Buddha rejects metaphysics and presents the teachings in a way which is much closer to phenomenology. Metta Michael 29419 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, and all, I hope you don't mind me jumping in to share some thoughts: You mentioned attachment to concepts in your message, and I take attachment in the sense of craving (tanha) or clinging/sustenance (upadana). The Buddha defined craving by classifying it into six classes of craving as craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. [1] In this case, craving is defined by the objects of craving. On the other hand, the Buddha taught clinging/sustenance as sensuality-clinging, view-clinging, precept-&-practice-clinging, and doctrine-of-self-clinging. [2] The objects of clinging/sustenance are classified into the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Namely, they are the five aggregates of clinging/sustenance. In particular, the Buddha also taught the following: There are, bhikkhus, these two views: the view of existence and the view of extermination. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: `Is there anything in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy?' He understands thus: `There is nothing in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy. For if I should cling, it is only form that I would be clinging to, only feeling … only perception … only volitional formations … only consciousness that I would be clinging to. With that clinging of mine as condition, there would be existence [becoming/bhava]; with existence [becoming/bhava] as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair would come to be. Such would be the origin of this whole mass of suffering. [3] Regarding attachments to concepts, I see that concepts as either the objects of craving or as the objects of clinging/sustenance. If concepts are the objects of clinging/sustenance, then they would belong to the aggregate of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness. If concepts are the objects of craving, then they would be classified as forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, or ideas. Some may say that concepts do not exist. I would suggest considering if concept is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change or if it is form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change. After all, the Buddha explicitly stated what it is that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which he too said that it does not exist, and what it is that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which he too said that it exists.[4] Peace, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, Analysis of Dependent Co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-002.html [2] Ibid. [3] The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. SN 22.80, Alms- Gatherer, p.920 [4] Ibid. SN 22.94, Flowers, p.949-950 At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist? Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, and I too say that it does not exist. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, of which I too say that it does not exist. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. "That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina and Howard, > > I've been contemplating this for a few days and I'm wondering if > something is being left out in the progress of insight as outlined in > the Visuddhimagga, namely, the investigation of concepts. For example, > investigating a whole to see if there is in reality a whole; or > investigating a concept such as beauty to see if it actually exists. Why > isn't this considered to be an element of insight? Isn't the majority of > our attachments to concepts? > > Larry 29420 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Thanks for your comments on this thread. You are welcome back any time you can make it. :-) You wrote to Chris: -------------------------- > I have been away for too long. I have a new responsibility at the office that means less travel and much more work. > ----------------------- Never mind, there is always the present moment. While you were away, there was talk about busy merchants and how, as Buddhists, they should organise their lives. In one sutta, quoted by Robert K, the question was put directly to the Buddha. From memory, the answer was; "'As to the teaching of the Tathagatha, deep, deep in meaning, concerned with the void [anatta], . . . ., from time to time we shall spend our days learning it;' that is how you must organise your lives." So you have no excuse. :-) Furthermore, whether or not we are busy merchants, we can all see, here and now, from the above quote, the path leading to Right Understanding. You wrote to James and me: ---------------- > A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words focus on the current moment. > ------------------ There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I think I needed to be there. On the face of it, this question is mixing conventional truth with absolute truth (another topic you missed while you were away): Having told you the present moment was too fast for the thinking mind to catch hold of, how did K Sujin expect you to know `what you sense right now?' My answer would have been "According to the texts, the object of sense consciousness is a rupa; visible object for example." Was that what she had in mind? ------------------ RM: > Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. > ------------------------- Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any dhamma, any where, any time. ------------------------ RM: > However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. > --------------- I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes only one approach – satipatthana in daily life. There is nothing easy about anapanasati (jhana concentration with a rupa, a paramattha dhamma, as object), but if a person has the accumulations for it, then, for him, that is a time when Right Mindfulness can occur. If a person is engaged in something less difficult (like walking, sitting, eating, toileting, reading, talking and so on), then that, for him, is a time when Right Mindfulness can occur. He should be aware of that fact -- at least, at an intellectual level. For example, when he is seeing, he should be aware of the fact that visible object is present. (!!!) ----------------- RM: > I have touched on some sensitive topics here (value of meditation and value of texts). I hope that I haven't offended either of you. > ----------------- Once again, Rob, you put me to shame with your tact and thoughtfulness. But it's a good point you raise: Why should we worry about offending the meditators (you, James, Howard, Htoo, (the list goes on and on) but not worry about offending the text studiers? We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29421 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Victor, Thanks for this material. I wonder what abhidhamma has to say about concept as object of clinging. Larry 29422 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:34pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thanks for this material. I wonder what abhidhamma has to say about > concept as object of clinging. > > Larry 29423 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi KenO, I agree. When I see a beautiful lady what I like is concept. When I see, somewhat, that the concept is in reality paramattha dhammas, the liking vanishes. Alternately, if I see that the concept is concept, liking also vanishes. Additionally, if I see that liking is impermanent, then liking vanishes. If we say satipatthana is practiced disillusionment, then all these apply. What I thought was desirable turns out to be not so desirable after all. If we say satipatthana is disillusionment based on impermanence, then only the impermanence of liking applies. Looking closer, however, it's not so easy to precisely identify liking. Without clearly seeing liking, is liking only a concept? Larry 29424 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobM, > > RobM: > Howard, it seems to me that you are trying to define Buddhism as > phenomenological. Though there are many striking similarities between > a Buddhist perspective and a purely phenomenological perspective, the > two perspectives have different objectives and therefore should not > be compared. > Specifically, a phenomenological perspective is primarly an > ontological issue (nature of reality). > > > Michael: > I think you have to review your definitions. In accordance with > dictionary.com: > > Ontology: The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. > Phenomenology: A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that > reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood > in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human > consciousness. ===== Thanks for the definitions :-) ===== > > The way the teachings of the Buddha are generally discussed in this list > takes one to the conclusion that the Buddha taught some form of ontology, > i.e. ultimate realities that are the real truth underlying the merely > conceptual existence of beings. > While in the suttas the Buddha rejects metaphysics and presents the > teachings in a way which is much closer to phenomenology. I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. I agree that the teachings of the Suttas are close to phenomenology in style, but the focus is different. As per your definition above, phenomenology is about what makes up reality. The Buddha explicitly stated that his focus was on things conducive to the holy life and supporting the attainment of Nibbana. Here is an area where the two diverge. Phenomenology denies the existence of objects outside the realm of human consciousness. There is a Sutta (can't remember which) where the Buddha said that all rupas, seen and unseen, have the three characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of anicca, dukkha and anatta. If rupas that are unseen have the three characteristics, then they must exist. Though they exist, they are not important to support the teaching of the Buddha because of the stated focus of the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Rob M :-) 29425 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Victor: "Hi Larry, No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment." Hi Victor, Desire. Larry 29426 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Larry, I suppose by desire you mean desire as defilement; lobha, kamacchanda, raga. In Samyutta Nikaya XXVII, Upakkilesa Samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn27.html we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "Hi Larry, > No problem...I wonder what you mean by attachment." > > Hi Victor, > > Desire. > > Larry 29427 From: Andrew Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:49pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi KenH > You wrote: > ------------------- > A: > I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing > paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his enlightenment, > Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for > beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. > Compassion for what? Beings. > -------------------------------- > > KH: True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) I agree. That's why we can't put a full stop after "absolute reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. You wrote: > I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > dhammas.) > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas needed? You wrote: > A: > It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and > falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our > plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away of > paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? > --------------------------- > > Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a > paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is > just `adosa.' > > We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any > apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" But > our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are > different from concepts. Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. You wrote: > A: > Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities > distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct > knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. > ------------------------- > > I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I > don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the > Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or > not there is a Buddha in the world. Are the teachings of the Buddha as contained in the Pali canon conventional or absolute reality? What meaning do you ascribe to the simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? You wrote: > A: > Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught > it. > How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see definition > of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually that > they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned > streams of namarupa always in flux. > > --------------------------- > > Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- > existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a strange coincidence? Or should it tell us to be cautious about believing we have unraveled the workings of the universe when we get a glimpse of anatta? You wrote: > As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when > disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may > be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A > contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as > I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) > Fair enough. You wrote: > A: > Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and > leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the > waves in the ocean. What's the point? > ------------------------------ > > I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a > [wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the > world and we will experience Nibbana. > KenH, we're both guessing on the long-distance view but I'm not confident that an Ariyan's outlook will necessarily be anything like my present intellectual ability to analyse conventional matters in terms of paramattha dhammas. Are you saying that "yes, the universe IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? Metta Andrew 29428 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts, Sarah Hi Larry Concepts can be an object of cittas hence liking do arise in the citta. Since we now only able to see concepts rather than realities, then if you prefer to use concepts as a basis for practising, that is fine. To me, sooner or later, we have to see the "underneath of all concepts" to realise they are just rupas or realities. And that is the start of Satipatthana. In the meantime, even though we practise using conceptss, is not satipatthana but it is a start for developing the wisdom to that level which one day we will see it as reality. kind regards Ken O --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi KenO, > > I agree. When I see a beautiful lady what I like is concept. When I > see, > somewhat, that the concept is in reality paramattha dhammas, the > liking > vanishes. Alternately, if I see that the concept is concept, liking > also > vanishes. Additionally, if I see that liking is impermanent, then > liking > vanishes. > > If we say satipatthana is practiced disillusionment, then all these > apply. What I thought was desirable turns out to be not so > desirable > after all. If we say satipatthana is disillusionment based on > impermanence, then only the impermanence of liking applies. Looking > closer, however, it's not so easy to precisely identify liking. > Without > clearly seeing liking, is liking only a concept? > > Larry > > > > 29429 From: Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Victor, Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read "idea" as "concept": "In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body... ideas cognizable via the intellect, he/she should hold the mind in check. [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown, a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity. It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with regard to ideas cognizable via the intellect." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html Larry 29430 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:30pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > While you were away, there was talk about busy merchants and how, > as Buddhists, they should organise their lives. In one sutta, > quoted by Robert K, the question was put directly to the Buddha. > From memory, the answer was; "'As to the teaching of the Tathagatha, > deep, deep in meaning, concerned with the void [anatta], . . . ., > from time to time we shall spend our days learning it;' that is how > you must organise your lives." > > So you have no excuse. :-) Furthermore, whether or not we are busy > merchants, we can all see, here and now, from the above quote, the > path leading to Right Understanding. ===== Though I wasn't participating in DSG, I was still studying the Dhamma... so the time wasn't *completely* wasted. :-) ===== > > You wrote to James and me: > ---------------- > > A few months ago, I had the opportunity to meet Khun Sujin for the > first time. After the initial greeting, I sat beside her and asked > her about a relatively obscure point in the Abhidhamma. She smiled > and asked, "But what do you sense right now?" > > It was like a slap on the face. I suspect that Khun Sujin is against > analysis paralysis, against texts for the sake of texts. Her words > focus on the current moment. > > ------------------ > > There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I > think I needed to be there. On the face of it, this question is > mixing conventional truth with absolute truth (another topic you > missed while you were away): Having told you the present moment was > too fast for the thinking mind to catch hold of, how did K Sujin > expect you to know `what you sense right now?' > > My answer would have been "According to the texts, the object of > sense consciousness is a rupa; visible object for example." Was that > what she had in mind? ===== Not sure, but I think that she was reminding me of the objective of study. If we discuss the Abhidhamma (or the Dhamma) in an academic way, we risk missing the point (this ties into my phenomenological thread). ===== > > ------------------ > > RM: > Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware > of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. > > > ------------------------- > > Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. > Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any > dhamma, any where, any time. > > ------------------------ > RM: > However, that does > not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that > support them being aware of the current moment in daily life. > Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. > > --------------- > > I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes only > one approach – satipatthana in daily life. ===== The initial section of the Sutta starts out "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. I take this section as a description of formal meditation not "daily life". It is true that the next section talks about walking, standing, sitting and lying down. I take this section as "daily life". This is why I said that the Sutta describes both approaches. Metta, Rob M :-) 29431 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken H, Ken: We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) James: You are absolutely right and I apologize if I have ever hurt your feelings in this regard. Ken: There's a lesson in that for me too (as a fellow paralytic), but I think I needed to be there. James: Also a good point. I think we all need to just follow our hearts when it comes to the practice of the dhamma. Sometimes we may need to read/write, sometimes we may need to meditate…sometimes we may just need to vegetate! ;-)) I like what Ajahn Lee said on this matter: "We have to build up our inner worth, our perfections as quickly as possible, because our conviction in these things isn't yet sure. Some days it shrinks out of sight: That's called turtle-head conviction. Some days it stretches back out again. So if it stretches out today, act on it. Tomorrow it may shrink back in again." Metta, James 29432 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:03am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Ken: I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition dhammas.) James: Here is where I believe that K. Sujin is leading people astray. She writes: "When we understand the characteristics of the citta and cetasika that arise together and how each is the paccaya on which the other depends, one would gradually attenuate the attachment that mistakes realities for entities, people and the selves." http://www.dhammastudy.com/paccaya.html Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach this? No. From the Buddha: "The Tathagata -- a worthy one, rightly self-awakened -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept (cognized) but entities are real. Metta, James 29433 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James & Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken: I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > dhammas.) According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states in three ways: - Object condition: conditioned states are the 89 cittas and 52 cetasikas. In other words, cittas can take concepts as objects - Non-disappearance condition: same as object condition - Natural decisive support condition (some strong past concepts only): conditioned states are later 89 cittas and 52 cetasikas. Here is some more background on natural decisive support condition (sounds like a health-care product, doesn't it:-) ) A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for another. One of these modes of conditioning is "natural decisive support" (pakatupanissaya). Natural decisive support works as a condition when one of the following factors is present: - Strong past concepts - Strong past citta / cetasika - Strong past rupa "Past" not only includes experiences in the current lifetime, but also experiences from previous lifetimes. A concept, citta / cetasika or rupa can be "strong" when: - It was encountered frequently in the past (a past habit) - It was experienced very recently (bad news in one moment influences your reaction to something else in the next moment) - It was associated with very strong volition in the past (strong past impression or a solemn vow) "Strong past concepts, citta / cetasikas or rupa" are the conditioning factors, natural decisive support is the mode of conditioning, but what is conditioned? The texts explain that all 89 cittas and their associated cetasikas are conditioned. In other words, natural decisive support plays a part in the arising of every mental state. Though every single citta is influenced by natural decisive support, we can see that there are certain cittas where this conditioning by natural decisive support plays an important role: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" which data will be processed. - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should enter jhana. - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is probably because of experience in past lives. There are hundreds of examples in the Suttas and commentaries where the character or circumstances of a person is linked to accumulations from a previous life. The ability to perceive a person's accumulations is one of the unique abilities of a Buddha (Arahants and others do not have this ability). At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. An understanding of how this law of nature called natural decisive support works can be a condition for the creation of kusala kamma: - We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good deeds in the future. - When there is an unwholesome state of mind, we should note it with mindfulness. Seeing an unwholesome state of mind for what it is constitutes a wholesome action. Mindfulness arrests the process of mental proliferation (papanca); the multiplication of unwholesome states of mind. Practicing mindfulness on an unwholesome state of mind weakens the power of the accumulation that conditioned the unwholesome state. - We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is clear and not troubled by restlessness. The creation of kusala kamma will bring pleasant results in the future, but it does not help us to escape from samsara. To escape from samsara, one must develop the accumulation of seeing things as they truly are (nama and rupa) and recognize the three characteristics of realities (anicca, dukkha and anatta). We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". Reflecting upon natural decisive support condition supports an understanding of anatta. To draw an analogy, gravity does not "decide" to cause something to fall; gravity is a law of nature. Natural decisive support is also a law of nature. Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / natural decisive support condition is "in control") Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 29434 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi All, I wrote the following in a post: James: In my opinion that is the first mistake. You should be trying to learn the Dhamma that is found in life, not in some texts (Theravada or otherwise). Start with the First Noble Truth: Life is Dukkha, and work from there. You don't need to know all the texts, just look around and pay attention. What do you see? What do you smell? What do you feel? What do you taste? What do you hear? What do you cognize? These are all the teachers you need. I want to clarify this a bit. I think that maybe I am giving the wrong impression that dhamma study isn't important or useful, and this is not what I intended. I think that both dhamma study and meditation/mindfulness are important: "And how is one the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Yet he doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the cessation of stress.' He doesn't discern, as it actually is present, that 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who thunders but doesn't rain. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that thunders but doesn't rain. … "And how is one the type of person who both thunders and rains? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues... question & answer sessions. He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.'... 'This is the origination of stress.'... 'This is the cessation of stress.'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who both thunders and rains. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that both thunders and rains. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-102.html The Buddha doesn't qualify which is better; he just states that these types of people exist. But hey, if I am going to be a thunderhead, I might as well rain and thunder!! ;-)) Metta, James 29435 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob M: According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states in three ways: … Hope this helps. James: Hmmm…could help. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?? ;-)) I don't know what Paccaya you are describing (Abhidhamma?) but it doesn't appear to be the one taught by Lord Buddha. Rather than quote the entire Paccaya Sutta, I will quote the last part, the part that I find relevant to what I am saying: ""When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html So, again, at the end, mountains are mountains, beings are beings, dhammas are dhammas, and there is no perplexity about it. Metta, James 29436 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:51am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 03 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is enthusiastically striving on his Dhamma practice and he is now contemplating on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. As he is well trained his mind and his mind is well concentrated each and each feeling are stitched together and they all stand in his mind as a compilation of a kind of Dhamma. That compilation or congregation is now quite obvious to see with his mind-eye. The congregation of these feeling is actually not of him, thus he realizes. That aggregation is not of him, thus he realizes. It is just non-self. The Buddha preached in His second Discourse as '' Vedana Bhikkhave Anatta...''. '' Feeling is not self ''. Vedana is feeling. Feeling here is not of an ordinary English word. This word 'feeling' has to expand to cover the meaning of ' Vedana '. There are 5 different kind of feeling or Vedana. 2 bad and 2 good from the view point of ordinary people and the 5th is not good not bad and it stays as equanimous feeling. 2 bad are bodily unpleasant feeling and mentally unpleasant feeling. They are both Dukkha in terms of Anubhavana or sense-feeling. Bodily unpleasant feeling is known as Dukkha Vedana or pain at body and mentally unpleasant feeling is known as Domanassa Vedana that is pain in mind. 2 good are bodily pleasant feeling and mentally pleasant feeling. They are both Sukha in terms of Anubhavana or just feeling kind. Bodily pleasant feeling is known as Sukha Vedana and mentally pleasant feeling is known as Somanassa Vedana. There two are desirable in beings and the former 2 are undesirable from the view point of ordinary people. The 5th feeling is not of both pairs above in terms of Indriya or faculty of feeling. Or it is the 3rd in term of Anubhavana and this 5th or 3th feeling is Upekkha Vedana or equanimous feeling. Upekkha is not apparent and not obvious to recognize. But if there is penetrative and analytical wisdom then Upekkha Vedana or equanimous feeling can thoroughly be seen as a feeling through mind-eye. Everyone knows pain and there is no one who never felt pain in their life. There are different kinds of pain. All these physical pain are bodily feeling and they are Dukkha Vedana. If not all, most people know mental pain or displeasure. Once in a life, most people experience anger, fury, jealousy, stinginess, repentence, hatred, etc etc. When these happen, there is a mental pain or displeasure. Most people at least experienced physical pleasure. Inside womb, they all felt tight and unease and tries to kick out the womb. In this way baby in womb rotates upside down and came out with head normally. Cold outside. He cried. Wrapped, he stopped crying and breast fed, he joyfully fed and then physical pleasure starts. Here nothing to expand physical pleasure or sensual pleasure as all know this. Most people at least experienced mental pleasure. Whenever they obtain what they want they feel happy and joyous. There is a mental pleasure and this is Somanassa Vedana or pleasure in mind. This feeling Somanassa Vedana is apparent in consciousness when we are laughing out loud or even when just smile and even it arises inside without external appearences. There is another feeling that is mostly ignored because of its inconspicuousness. In the morning when we change our dressing, we know that we are touching our new dress and it is soft or rough or cold or warm etc etc. But soon after we do not notice any more that we are touching with our garment. Moreover, most mind states are associated with this 5th feeling called Upekkha Vedana. The meditator is delibrately and consciously looking at each feeling when it arises. He knows when it arises and when it vanishes. He knows where it arises and also knows where it vanishes. As he clearly sees this phenomena, there is nothing for him to attach and all are in real term not desirable and all are Dukkha. Isn't that the first Noble Truth Dukkha Sacca. May all beings practise contemplating on feelings wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29437 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Andrew & Ken - I'm about to make a lengthy post longer by inserting comments of my own. If we continue in the wake of this post of mine, I'll try to comment only on parts, and do a lot of snipping. I think that one approach, which some may agree with and others disagree with, may serve to clarify this matter, and that is to accept the following proposition: Just as visual forms, sounds, tastes, odors, and tactile sensations are eye-door, ear-door, tongue-door, nose-door, and body-door objects, concepts/ideas/thoughts are (mentally constructed) mind-objects. However, there are at least the following differences: 1) A concept/idea/thought seems to point to something beyond itself, whereas a sight, for example, does not, and 2) a concept/idea/thought is a mental phenomenon that is created by sankharic operations, whereas a sight, for example, is not. Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, just as are feelings, intentions, emotions, etc, but they have sankharic constructive operations among the phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the thought being the object. So, for example: When we think we see a tree, we do not see a tree, but, via a concept, possibly wordless, we *think* we see a tree. There is, instead, a sequence of mental operations which, based on numerous visual discernments, sa~n~nic operations, and sankharic construction of ideas, culminate in the thought [a mind-door object] of a very specific, seemingly "seen" tree. It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. With this perspective in mind, I go on to add comments below. In a message dated 1/28/04 12:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > > Hi KenH > > >You wrote: > >------------------- > >A: >I hope I am reading this correctly, but IMHO just seeing > >paramattha dhammas is in the end pointless. After his > enlightenment, > >Buddha was prompted by Brahma Sahampati and "out of compassion for > >beings", Buddha surveyed the world and decided to teach the Dhamma. > >Compassion for what? Beings. > >-------------------------------- > > > >KH: True, but there's more to the story than that. :-) > > I agree. That's why we can't put a full stop after "absolute > reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. > > You wrote: > >I'm no expert on the Paccaya but I can take a guess at what this > >means: In a way, a concept can condition dhammas. The concept of a > >person overwhealmed by suffering can condition compassion (adosa). > >Actually, the conditioning is done by the dhammas that contributed > >to the concept's being formed. There would be a huge number and a > >wide variety of them and, as such, they could only be made > >intelligible, or describable, by our referring to them as the > >concept itself. (Thus it is said that concepts can condition > >dhammas.) > > > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot > contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas > needed? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, what directly conditions the compassion (in a worldling at least) is the *thought* of a suffering being. That thought is an actually cognized phenomenon even though its intended referent, the "suffering being", is not. (Of course, transitively, all those phenomena that led to that thought indirectly condition that compassion.) ----------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >It is absurd to think of feeling compassion for the rising and > >falling of the waves in the ocean. Similarly, if we look at our > >plane of existence and all we see is the arising and passing away > of > >paramattha dhammas, what is there to feel compassion for or about? > >--------------------------- > > > >Nothing. But there can be adosa. When the object of adosa is a > >paramattha dhamma, it is not called compassion (karuna), it is > >just `adosa.' > > > >We might ask, "How can there be adosa [or any > >apparent `interestedness'], for a mere, fleeting, nama or rupa?" > But > >our confusion is due to ignorance of paramattha dhammas -- they are > >different from concepts. > > Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a > wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for > adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you > cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think this is an important point, Andrew. While the Buddha knew that where there seems to worldlings to be a "person", there is not, did he not also know that included in that stream of phenomena we take for a person is much repeated suffering, and doesn't that knowledge elicit compassion? The question, it seems to me, is that of what is the nature of that knowledge? Is it conceptual, or is it a kind of direct knowing/vijja not shared by worldlings? I think the latter. But even if it has a conceptual basis, why should we assume that there is no true information encoded in those concepts. As I see it, concepts serve as abbreviational shorthands. They encode/encapsulate a complex body of information that should not be dismissed as necessarily false. ------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Like all of the Dhamma, the conventional/absolute realities > >distinction is a useful tool that will become redundant when direct > >knowledge is attained. It is a raft to be left on the far shore. > >------------------------- > > > >I'm not sure what you mean here but I wouldn't put it like that. I > >don't believe namas and rupas are part of a story made up by the > >Buddha. They remain real – just as he described them -- whether or > >not there is a Buddha in the world. > > Are the teachings of the Buddha as contained in the Pali canon > conventional or absolute reality? What meaning do you ascribe to the > simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, the distinction between what is known by five-sensory discernment and what is known via concept lies in directness versus indirectness. But, for worldlings, with our defilements, directness is insufficient. For us, conceptual knowledge reveals, in encoded form, relations among paramattha dhammas. I suspect that an arahant has other, non-conceptual means for the apprehending of relations, but certainly for worldlings concepts are essential for this, and without this ability, we would be cut off from a essential aspect of reality, the relational aspect. An arahant sees all aspects of reality, with nothing lacking, and I have no doubt that "the view from nibbana" is radically different from anything we can imagine. But for us, the obliteration of concepts would fatally destroy even our very limited grasping of the the way things are. Without concepts, we would be like mindless lumps. -------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Conventional reality IS reality and as such, the Buddha taught > >it. > >How can you possibly say he didn't? There ARE beings [see > definition > >of "sattavasa"] even if we must remind ourselves intellectually > that > >they are not permanently abiding entities but more like patterned > >streams of namarupa always in flux. > > > >--------------------------- > > > >Again, I wouldn't put it like that. The past and future are non- > >existent: Outside the present moment, there is no stream. > > The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising > of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a > strange coincidence? Or should it tell us to be cautious about > believing we have unraveled the workings of the universe when we get > a glimpse of anatta? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: All these schemes of 17 mind moments, of past, present, and future, of the four noble truths, of namas and rupas, of dependent arising - all of these, are conceptual pointings. They are "Zen fingers" pointing at the moon, but are not the moon. But they are what we have here and now. "Now we see as through a glass, darkly, but then we will see face to face." ------------------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >As I tried to explain above – with my uneducated guess – when > >disparate dhammas act together to condition other dhammas, they may > >be acting as some kind of `conventional reality.' (Ugh! A > >contradiction-in-terms by my reckoning! :-) ) But that's as far as > >I'm prepared to concede for now. :-) > > > Fair enough. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: They don't *act* as a conventional reality, but we abbreviationally substitute a conceptual construct for them that seems to point to a "conventional reality". ----------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > >A: >Your "absolute reality only" view is going way too far and > >leaves you just standing and watching the rising and falling of the > >waves in the ocean. What's the point? > >------------------------------ > > > >I think, ultimately, that is how we will see the world. Then, a > >[wholesome] kind of aversion will engulf us, we will renounce the > >world and we will experience Nibbana. > > > KenH, we're both guessing on the long-distance view but I'm not > confident that an Ariyan's outlook will necessarily be anything like > my present intellectual ability to analyse conventional matters in > terms of paramattha dhammas. Are you saying that "yes, the universe > IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the > dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? > > Metta > Andrew > > > ========================== 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) 29438 From: Andy Wilson Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:18am Subject: new member hello, i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. my background is as a non-academic interested in spiritual, psychological and philosophical matters. i do not consider myself a buddhist or a follower of any particular system or doctrine. i have worked in the armed forces, as a political organiser for a UK leftist group, and now work as a manager of computer programmers in a company i established. i am also an musician and music lover, drawn to modernist art and music, jazz, avant garde performance (i'm not sure why i mention that, maybe to make the point that i am not attracted to traditionalism and historical authority per se). i have BA & MPhil degrees in philosophy, specialising in western marxism and hegelianism. i am also particularly interested in epistemology, ontology and especially the nature of time. several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) i began reading many works of spirituality and religion, from the epic of gilgamesh to ouspenskii. i found myself especially drawn to gnostic traditions like that of early christianity and sufism, but also to the vedic tradition in general. my girlfriend took her degree in comparative religion and is interested in theravada buddhism, having studied it during her degree at manchester university. she practices yoga extensively. for a long time she encouraged me to find out more about both buddhism and yoga, but with little or no success. more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out more. i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my inevitable misunderstandings. regards -- [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253 [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060 [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net 29439 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. Michael: I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate realities. But if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha? RobM: I agree that the teachings of the Suttas are close to phenomenology in style, but the focus is different. As per your definition above, phenomenology is about what makes up reality. The Buddha explicitly stated that his focus was on things conducive to the holy life and supporting the attainment of Nibbana. Michael: I don’t view phenomenology as a definition of reality but as an approach or method to understand reality, the definition clearly states that phenomenology is a method of inquiry. RobM: Here is an area where the two diverge. Phenomenology denies the existence of objects outside the realm of human consciousness. There is a Sutta (can't remember which) where the Buddha said that all rupas, seen and unseen, have the three characteristics (ti-lakkhana) of anicca, dukkha and anatta. If rupas that are unseen have the three characteristics, then they must exist. Though they exist, they are not important to support the teaching of the Buddha because of the stated focus of the Buddha's teaching. Michael: This is a highly speculative view. Of course there is no way of confirming that objects which are not cognized exist. This has to be accepted on faith, and faith as mentioned in Canki Sutta (MN 95) can be right or wrong. On the other hand the Buddha defined the world as the five aggregates, everything and anything relevant and important, in his teachings, is to be found within those five aggregates. External objects play a role in the sense that they trigger the whole cognition process but the teachings are not concerned in identifying the true nature of those external objects. Objects that do not trigger a cognition process are absolutely irrelevant. And from that perspective, again, there is great similarity between what the Buddha teaches and phenomenology. Metta Michael 29440 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hello Victor, Let me butt in here : Victor: we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? Michael: You will not find in the suttas the word ‘paññatti’ with the meaning of concept as used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. Now how would you classify pañãatti as used in the Abhidhamma using the criteria of the suttas? Metta Michael 29441 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: new member Hi Andy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" wrote: > i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. ===== Welcome! ===== > > my background is as a non-academic interested in spiritual, > psychological and philosophical matters. i do not consider myself a > buddhist or a follower of any particular system or doctrine. i have > worked in the armed forces, as a political organiser for a UK leftist > group, and now work as a manager of computer programmers in a company i > established. i am also an musician and music lover, drawn to modernist > art and music, jazz, avant garde performance (i'm not sure why i mention > that, maybe to make the point that i am not attracted to traditionalism > and historical authority per se). i have BA & MPhil degrees in > philosophy, specialising in western marxism and hegelianism. i am also > particularly interested in epistemology, ontology and especially the > nature of time. ===== Wow, sounds as though you will have some insteresting insights and non-traditional perspectives! Great! ===== > > several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be > seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of > view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even > to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) i began reading many > works of spirituality and religion, from the epic of gilgamesh to > ouspenskii. i found myself especially drawn to gnostic traditions like > that of early christianity and sufism, but also to the vedic tradition > in general. my girlfriend took her degree in comparative religion and is > interested in theravada buddhism, having studied it during her degree at > manchester university. she practices yoga extensively. for a long time > she encouraged me to find out more about both buddhism and yoga, but > with little or no success. > > more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help > with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the > outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same > time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time > however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i > have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only > to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, > including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many > of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate > have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe > already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, > much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out > more. ===== Narada's translation of the Abhidhammatthasangaha was the classic English-language text for many years. If you can get your hands on Bhikkhu Bodhi's more recent translation, I think that you will enjoy the text even more. Bhikkhu Bodhi is American and took a PhD in Philosophy in New York before becoming a monk, so his inclinations may be somewhat similar to yours. Unfortunately, this translation is not available on-line. You might want to check out Zolag and download some books by Nina vanGorkom. Buddhism in Daily Life and Abhidhamma in Daily Life are recommended as starters. Often, one of the most difficult concepts for non-Buddhists to accept is rebirth. However, a Buddhist would completely understand your feeling of prior familiarity and affliation because it is likely that you studied (perhaps even practiced) Buddhism in a previous life. ===== > > i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer > understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially > interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of > the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also > casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who > might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. > > as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my > inevitable misunderstandings. ===== Yoga and some forms of meditation have a focus on enhancing the physical aspect of life. Buddhism has a focus on enhancing the mental aspect. Studying Buddhism probably won't help you understand yoga any better. My advice is to start with a couple of questions. Perhaps a section of Narada's text that you would like to have expanded upon. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: The moderators, Jon and Sarah, are on vacation in Thailand. 29442 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:27am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hello James, James: Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach this? No. Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept (cognized) but entities are real. Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin’s writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina’s writings, is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. Metta Michael 29443 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:13am Subject: Sotaapanno Hello All, I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. The Visudhimagga states that: Vism XX11, 15 "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta says: 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the sutta? Metta Michael 29444 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Michael and James and all - In a message dated 1/28/04 11:43:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello James, > > James: > Now, K. Sujin is saying, in an indirect way, that `entities' should > not be viewed as entitites; entities should be viewed as concepts > that are really nothing more than a collection of `realities'. In > short, there are no entities, only realities. Did the Buddha teach > this? No. > > Notice the very important part where the Buddha `directly knows > beings as beings'. He doesn't know beings as `realities'. He > doesn't say that beings are concept only and that only `dhammas' are > real. Also notice that he lists `the cognized as the cognized' > separately. This is why I say that purple elephants are a concept > (cognized) but entities are real. > > Michael: > I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin’s > writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, > or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by > the way is also found in Nina’s writings, is completely alien when compared > with the teachings of the suttas. > > Metta > Michael ============================ The Buddha has taught that everything, whether mental (nama) or physical (rupa), arises with consciousness among the conditions for its arising, and, never arises otherwise. In that sense alone, *nothing* is mind-independent! In addition, among the objects of consciousness that arise, they appear to vary in the degree of sankharic construction involved in their creation. If there are any that depend on *no* sankharic construction, they might appropriately be called "paramattha," in the sense that they are the ultimate/basic phenomena upon which sankharic construction operates. The claim made by Abhidhammikas, it seems to me, is that there are, indeed, such sankharically unprocessed phenomena, and they are exactly the elements of the so-called aggregates. What would it mean for there to be no such phenomena? It seems to me that it would mean that there can be no beginning to sankharic construction. Now, is that problematical? Well, to some it may be. But those may be the same folks who would be troubled by the idea of there being no beginning to samsara. We humans seem to have a psychological craving for "beginnings", but that shouldn't be a basis for what is or is not truth. The bottom line, though, as I see it, is that the matter of importance is not that of whether or not there are sankharically unprocessed dhammas, but rather the matter of whether or not there are dhammas that are mind-independent. I maintain the the Buddha unequivocally stated that there are not, and it is alleged mind-independent objects that are the true pa~n~natti - that is, that are concept-ONLY, and which are only imagined. 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) 29445 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:48am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Michael, Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read K Sujin's writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina's writings, is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. James: Thank you for the vote of confidence. But I don't want to appear to be placing blame or rubbing anyone's nose in it. I feel that Nina van Gorkom is a good person worthy of respect and admiration (I don't know K. Sujin well enough to decide; but I have heard nothing but good things). The Dhamma Umbrella is large enough to cover and protect us all! ;-) Metta, James Ps. However, I think that both Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga are definitely questionable and should be questioned both often and hard! Let's get to the root of the problem rather than cutting what has grown! ;-)) 29446 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno Hi, Michael - In a message dated 1/28/04 12:50:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello All, > > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the > sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. > > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 &27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. > > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the > realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > > Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the > Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different > interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the > sutta? > > Metta > Michael > ================================ I think your analysis is perfect, Michael. Under the assumption of fruition consciousness immediately following the corresponding path consciousness, the gift giver in this sutta would have to be, like Superman, faster than a speeding bullet! ;-) 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) 29447 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:43am Subject: Re: thinking of realities or concepts Hi Michael, I would like to echo your sentiment regarding the dichotomy between ultimat= e reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non-existent. As I see it, given the disc= ourses in the Pali Canon as the record of the what the Buddha taught in his fourty-five years of teaching, this dichotomy is a view that = is not in accord to the Dhamma the Buddha taught: the teaching itself is not about this dichotomy and Buddha did not phrase what = he taught in terms of it. I am not an Abhidhamma Pitaka expert. However, from what I read in the mes= sages written by people who study or agree with the Abhidhamma Pitaka, it seems to me that discussions are often deeply involve= d in the dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent vs. non= -existent. So I take that this dichotomy has its textual source in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I've rejected this dichotomy because I see that = it is not what the Buddha taught as presented in the discourses in the Pali Canon. Now, to ask how I would classify paññatti as used in the Abhidhamma using = the criteria of the suttas is a bit like asking me start with a faulty premise to reach a conclusion. Even though the logic is correct, = because the starting premise is faulty, the conclusion will be faulty. The term "paññatti" is often translated as "concept". Without the trapping= of the dichotomy of paramatha vs. paññatti, a concept is a simply an idea, a mental representation, inconstant, dukkha, not self..... Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" = wrote: > Hello Victor, > > Let me butt in here : > > Victor: > we see that there are various collections/classifications of objects > for desire & passion. Does concept belong to any of those > collections/classifications of objects for desire & passion? > > Michael: > You will not find in the suttas the word `paññatti' with the meaning of > concept as used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. > Now how would you classify pañãatti as used in the Abhidhamma using the = > criteria of the suttas? > > Metta > Michael 29448 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > RobM: > I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; > my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the > Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. > > Michael: > I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate realities. But > if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the Abhidhamma > was not taught by the Buddha? ===== According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after enlightenment, the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six colours. The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and many other Devas (He chose Tavatisma heaven as this place is accessible to the lower heaven, Catummaharajika, as well as the higher heavens, thereby allowing the maximum number of Devas to listen. This was during the seventh rainy season retreat. It took three months of human time (the entire rainy retreat) for the Buddha to complete this task; equivalent to 3.6 minutes of Deva time in Tavatisma heaven (time works differently for them). I beleive that it says in one of the commentaries that one of the responsibilities of any Buddha is to teach the Abhidhamma in Tavitisma heaven. Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, the Buddha created a Buddha after His own image and willed that the created Buddha stay in Tavitisma heaven and teach the Dhamma so much during His absence. After alms-round, the Buddha met Sariputta and told him that so much of the Dhamma had been taught during the interval. In other words, the Buddha gave a daily synopsis to Sariputta. Sariputta then filled in the middle parts and taught the 500 monks who were his students. In brief, there are three versions of Abhidhamma: - Taught by Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven (long; takes three months of continuous teacing to recite) - Taught by Buddha to Sariputta (short; almost like a table of contents) - Taught by Sariputta to 500 monks (medium length; this is what has been passed to us) Six of the seven Abhidhamma texts are said to come from Sariputta, but since the Buddha was also around, there is an implicit sanctioning of the Abhidhamma by the Buddha. According to tradition, the six books of the Abhidhamma were recited at the first council three months after the Buddha's death. The fifth book of the Abhidhamma, the Points of Controversy (Kathavatthu), is attributed to the Elder Moggalipputa Tissa during the reign of Emperor Asoka (traditionalists maintain that the Buddha also laid out the structure for this text as well, but it was left to the Elder Moggalipputa Tissa to fill in the details). So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the Suttas have a completely different style. ===== > ...the Buddha defined the world as the five aggregates, everything > and anything relevant and important, in his teachings, is to be found within > those five aggregates. External objects play a role in the sense that they > trigger the whole cognition process but the teachings are not concerned in > identifying the true nature of those external objects. Objects that do not > trigger a cognition process are absolutely irrelevant. And from that > perspective, again, there is great similarity between what the Buddha > teaches and phenomenology. ===== I think that we are 100% aligned. Metta, Rob M :-) 29449 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:07pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Michael: I just want to say that I felt in a similar way when I read > K Sujin's writings. The dichotomy between ultimate reality vs. > conventional reality, or paramatha vs. paññatti, or trully existent > vs. non-existent, which by the way is also found in Nina's writings, > is completely alien when compared with the teachings of the suttas. > > James: Thank you for the vote of confidence. But I don't want to > appear to be placing blame or rubbing anyone's nose in it. I feel > that Nina van Gorkom is a good person worthy of respect and > admiration (I don't know K. Sujin well enough to decide; but I have > heard nothing but good things). The Dhamma Umbrella is large enough > to cover and protect us all! ;-) > > Metta, James > Ps. However, I think that both Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga are > definitely questionable and should be questioned both often and > hard! Let's get to the root of the problem rather than cutting what > has grown! ;-)) The Suttas have a certain style. The Vinaya has a certain style. The Abhidhamma has a certain style. Buddhaghosa has a certain style. Nina & K. Sujin have a certain style. You and I have our own styles :-) Different styles come from different accumulations and appeal to different people because of their accumulations. I think multiple styles is a good thing. On the other hand, there should be complete alignment of substance. Based on one's style, there may be more or less focus on a particular part of the substance, but there should never be conflict. If there is a conflict, my instinct points me to the Suttas as having priority (even though I teach Abhidhamma). Metta, Rob M :-) 29450 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > Rob M: According to the Paccaya, concepts can be conditioning states > in > three ways: … Hope this helps. > > James: Hmmm…could help. Is there a Cliffs Notes version?? ;-)) I > don't know what Paccaya you are describing (Abhidhamma?) but it > doesn't appear to be the one taught by Lord Buddha. ===== That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! The Paccaya is the most complex part of the Abhidhamma. It is said in the Atthasalini that when the Buddha started contemplating on this subject, His omniscence finally found a subject worthy of His intellect and He started emitting rays of six colours. It is also said that when the Dhamma starts to decay, this will be the first part to go because it is the most complex. ===== > Rather than > quote the entire Paccaya Sutta, I will quote the last part, the part > that I find relevant to what I am saying: > > ""When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right > discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen > phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he > would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in > the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been > what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, > thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? > What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having > been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be > inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I > not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it > bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the > disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this > dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they > are actually present." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html > > So, again, at the end, mountains are mountains, beings are beings, > dhammas are dhammas, and there is no perplexity about it. ===== My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". Metta, Rob M :-) 29451 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:36pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on the > sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. > > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. > > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the > realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > > Therefore, to me, this is another instance of suspicion about the > Visudhimagga. Or could someone be creative enough to present a different > interpretation that would justify the discrepancy between the Vsm and the > sutta? Here is my interpretation. What stage am I at now (I am not yet a sotapanna)? I could be described as a worldling or I could be described as one approaching sotapanna. Both are technically accurate. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both describe a person with the same set of defilements. However, as it explains in the Sutta, giving a gift to somebody who has committed their lives to attaining a Sotapanna stage and leads their lives accordingly would be of more value than giving a gift to somebody who despised the Dhamma and lived their lives accordingly. By extension, giving a gift to a Sotapanna who is content to stay at that stage of development would be of less value than giving a gift to a Sotapanna who had committed themselves to attaining Sakadagami stage and were almost there. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both have the same set of defilements, it is a matter of degree. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 29452 From: Date: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:01pm Subject: A Test to Distinguish What Arises From What Seems to Arise Hi, all - From the Sabba Sutta: "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." So, every positive phenomenon is either a visual form, a sound, an aroma, a flavor, a tactile sensation, or an idea (by which is presumably meant any mind object). Whatever is not one one of these is nothing at all. Now, let us consider a sizzling steak just put on your plate. It is seen, it is smelled, it is tasted, it is touched, and it is heard - or so it seems. What category does it fall into then? Is it a sight? No. A sound? No. An aroma? No. A flavor? No. A tactile sensation? No. An idea? No, not that either. What is it then? Why, in fact it is nothing at all - mere pa~n~natti, mere imagined referent of a mental construct. What is neither sight nor sound nor taste nor smell nor tactile sensation nor mind object, but, instead seems to "partake" of several of these, is a figment, a part of the mind-produced magic show we call "our world." 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) 29453 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > RobM: > > I don't beleive that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate > realities; > > my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the > > Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas. > > > > Michael: > > I agree with you that the Buddha did not teach about ultimate > realities. But > > if I understand right what you are saying your view is that the > Abhidhamma > > was not taught by the Buddha? > > ===== > > According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after enlightenment, > the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. > When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of > the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six > colours. > > The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > former mother and many other Devas Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one time your mother, because they probably were.) 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… who was teaching who what? Metta, James 29454 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 0:07am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". James: I believe that this is only part of the meaning. The other part of the meaning is that anatta doesn't mean no existence, it means conditional existence. Metta, James 29455 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:05am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! James: Okay, since this is the Cliffs Notes version, I will trudge through it.;-)) I have inserted my comments on areas I want to address: Rob: A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. James: Conditionality doesn't suppose or disprove the existence of a `God' and the Buddha never spoke to such a matter. The ultimate existence or non-existence of a universal God is beyond the realm of Buddhism. Also, even though the Buddha taught anatta, he didn't say that there wasn't a self to `decide' things. This supposition is also a contradiction in some later comments you make about `vows'. Rob: The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for another. James: In conditionality, there can never be a time when ONE thing is a condition for ONE other thing. The ties and the connections are so vast and complex that it would be mind boggling to try to unravel them, and I believe impossible. Imagine it as like a bowl of fish hooks, pick one up and a whole mass of others come along with it. Rob: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" which data will be processed. - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should enter jhana. - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). James: Nice and maybe helpful for some, but this isn't nearly the entire picture. We can catalogue and describe all of the various clouds in the sky, and how each one of them affects various weather patterns, and when we are done we can feel really proud of how clever and intelligent we are; but we really haven't done a thing. The complexity of conditions is beyond our understanding. Might as well do a rain dance and hope for rain! ;-) Rob: The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is probably because of experience in past lives. James: True. The influences of kamma are both vast and subtle. Do you believe in serendipity? I do. Rob: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. James: How could they make such vows if they have no self to decide? You already said that there is no self that makes decisions; everything is a result of conditioning, so it would no be possible for each of these entities to make their various vows. This is a contradiction. Rob: We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good deeds in the future. James: Yes, performing wholesome deeds will condition the performing of more wholesome deeds in the future. But, it seems to me that some `decisions' have to be made somewhere in this process. Rob: We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is clear and not troubled by restlessness. James: Wow! Now you are asking for a lot of decisions and control. We have to understand the potential power of a vow, know when the mind is not troubled, and then make the vow then. Who is making this vow since there is no self to decide things? Rob: We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". James: Hmmm, I wonder why? ;-)) You have just stated that I can control when I make or not make a solemn vow and you have also said that I can choose wholesome actions. Just what are you saying? Rob: Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / natural decisive support condition is "in control") James: So people are just like balls rolling down a hill? No control or ability to influence their course and at the complete mercy of natural laws? Hmmm…I will ponder this next time I go bowling. Let's hope someone doesn't throw me down the lane!! ;-)) Metta, James 29456 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: Hey Azita! /Chris In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Azita, > > You will be proud of me! - six days and nights of clothes, books, > accessories and toiletries in ONE international size carry- on!!!!!!!! > + one handbag. Dear Chris, I am impressed! You can do it -see!!! And probably the concierge couldn't give a .....! Hope all goes well, and don't be eatin' any chooks!! or loiter around any chook farms :( May all beings be happy [including the chooks]. Azita "Just as the waves roll endlessly on and on, so to the myriad lives of beings roll endlessly on and are no more lasting than a line drawn on water". 29457 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:03am Subject: Today's discussion in Bangkok Hi, All Just a quick note to mention briefly that we had some lively discussion today, with Ken O leading the way this morning and Ven Yanattharo doing the same this afternoon. Ven Y was intrigued by the fact that there was no Buddha image (statue) at the Foundation, and he questioned Aj Sujin closely on this (however, I'm still not sure what his concern was!). Also there were Christine, Betty, Sukin, Manu (from Laos), Pinna, Nina and Lodewijk, and Ivan and Ell (and Sarah and me). Jon 29458 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James (and Rob) - In a message dated 1/29/04 3:10:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > >The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > >reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > >the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > >former mother and many other Devas > > Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. > However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring > from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: > 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to > his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? > (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which > states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one > time your mother, because they probably were.) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, putting aside the question of whether this is mere legend and teaching story, or a relating of facts, there was something special about *this* mother: She is the one who gave up a life as a human being that a Buddha-to-be come into this world to become a buddha and reintroduce the Dhamma. Allegorically, she is like "Mary, mother of God," to make a comparative-religion observation. Also, as long as one is looking for symbolism, Gotama's mother, Queen Maya, had to die in order that the Buddha be born, because the death of illusion (maya) is required for the birth of wisdom (bodhi). ----------------------------------------------------------- > 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and > future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it isn't attachment that is given here as motivation, but gratitude. To express gratitude by compassionate action is to act rightly. ------------------------------------------------------------ > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > who was teaching who what? > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that fits in with the whole recently discussed question of the point of compassion etc for sentient beings when, in reality, there are none. There are none as entities, but there are streams of interconnected experience within which suffering and a sense of self occur, and it isn't error to be aware of such. It is only error to think of these processes as actual entities. Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, but it still is a form of truth. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, James > > ======================== 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) 29459 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:51am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, Howard: there was something special about *this* mother: She is the one who gave up a life as a human being that a Buddha-to-be come into this world to become a buddha and reintroduce the Dhamma. Allegorically, she is like "Mary, mother of God," to make a comparative-religion observation. Also, as long as one is looking for symbolism, Gotama's mother, Queen Maya, had to die in order that the Buddha be born, because the death of illusion (maya) is required for the birth of wisdom (bodhi). James: Wow, these are some pretty grandiose ideas! I didn't know you were so allegorical! ;-)) But, anyway, I am not terribly impressed that the Buddha's mother died in childbirth; many, many women die in childbirth. Studies in 1996 showed that 585,000 women die per year during childbirth (and this is in the modern era!): http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=649 I can't find statistics for ancient India but I did find statistics for Early America, and nearly one in every eight women would die during childbirth!: http://216.239.57.104/search? q=cache:bwFmtDn9twMJ:teachers.hlpusd.k12.ca.us/~dschmus/coursefiles/Ar ticles/Unit%2520I% 2520Articles/earlypregnancy.doc+history+of+childbirth+fatalities&hl=en &ie=UTF-8 Anne Backstreet during this early colonial period, in a poem entitled "Before the Birth of One of Her Children," wrote How soon, my Dear, death may my steps attend, How soon't may be thy lot to lose thy friend. In short, dying while giving birth is not a significant or unusual event; now or then. Howard: Well, it isn't attachment that is given here as motivation, but gratitude. To express gratitude by compassionate action is to act rightly. James: True, but again, gratitude to whom? The Buddha had been born countless times, and more than likely countless mothers died in the process as well (considering statistics), and then on top of that his last mother had become a male deva! Could you imagine a deva appearing before you and saying, "Howard, I want to express my gratitude to you because you died giving birth to me in a deva realm in your previous life."? How would you react? As for me I would say, "Okay, thanks, but the past is the past; get over it. You don't owe me any gratitude." Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, but it still is a form of truth. James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! Hehehe… Anyway, until a self-proclaimed enlightened one appears before me and tells me what is what, I am not going to listen to anyone in this regard. I know I keep quoting Ajahn Lee recently, but I really love his deep, practical wisdom: "Don't believe everything you hear. If they say you're a dog, check to see for yourself if you've got a tail. If you don't, then they're wrong." Metta, James 29460 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hello Howard, Howard: The Buddha has taught that everything, whether mental (nama) or physical (rupa), arises with consciousness among the conditions for its arising, and, never arises otherwise. In that sense alone, *nothing* is mind-independent! Michael: I see it differently. The focus of the teachings is what happens within the five aggregates. External objects that impinge on the senses are relevant but other objects that do not impinge, whether they exist or not, are irrelevant. Their existence or not may provide some interesting food for intellectual speculation but my view is that such a speculation is beyond the Buddha’s sotereologic objective. So, could there be rupa arising independent of consciousness? I think this is a question that does not deserve to be answered, it is better to be left aside. Howard: In addition, among the objects of consciousness that arise, they appear to vary in the degree of sankharic construction involved in their creation. Michael: In relation to the objects of consciousness that arise, they will vary first because the mind only apprehends some signs (nimitta) of that object, second they will vary because of the sensation caused by those signs, and the sensation is determined by kamma, third there is perception which will be determined by the sensation, by the particular signs apprehended and the conditioning of perception in that mind, and lastly you have papanca which would correspond to your sankharic construction. But I don’t think this process describes the ‘creation’ of that object but really how the cognition of something that is ‘out there’ happens. In my view there is something out there (the external object) but because of how the cognition process works the apprehension of that external object can vary considerably. Howard: If there are any (objects of consciousness) that depend on *no* sankharic construction, they might appropriately be called "paramattha," in the sense that they are the ultimate/basic phenomena upon which sankharic construction operates. The claim made by Abhidhammikas, it seems to me, is that there are, indeed, such sankharically unprocessed phenomena, and they are exactly the elements of the so-called aggregates. What would it mean for there to be no such phenomena? It seems to me that it would mean that there can be no beginning to sankharic construction. Now, is that problematical? Well, to some it may be. But those may be the same folks who would be troubled by the idea of there being no beginning to samsara. We humans seem to have a psychological craving for "beginnings", but that shouldn't be a basis for what is or is not truth. Michael: The absence of ‘sankharic construction’ or papanca, does not depend on the object but on the mind which perceives the object. An arahant does not conceive, his mind is completely free of conceiving, free of papanca, irrespective of the object. Worldlings will always conceive irrespective of the object. In a worldling or in a sekha conceiving is temporarily suspended only in jhana. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29461 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the Suttas have a completely different style. Michael: I have enjoyed reading again about the origins of the Abhidhamma. I like this story. But your arguments do not help to clarify your original affirmation which was: “I don't believe that the Buddha ever taught about ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas.” If the paramatha dhammas, i.e., ultimate realities, have not been taught by the Buddha, and those are features of the Abhidhamma, ergo, the Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha. Metta Michael 29462 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:34am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello RobM, RobM: I could be described as a worldling or I could be described as one approaching sotapanna. Both are technically accurate. From an Abhidhamma perspective, both describe a person with the same set of defilements. Michael: From the point of view of the suttas there is no distinction between a worldling and someone approaching sotapanna. There is a difference though, as evidenced by the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta between a sotapanna magga and a sotapanna phala. What is a sotapanna magga? According to the explanation I heard from a well respected and educated bhikkhu, with magga, one of the three defilements is eliminated. When the three defilements are eliminated that is phala. The Vsm states that magga and phala happen one after the other, in immediate succession, and that is clearly not correct based on the evidence from the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta. Metta Michael 29463 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/29/04 2:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, > but it still is a form of truth. > > James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! > ======================= Of course! (Especially when I am correct!! ;-)) With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), 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) 29464 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/29/04 2:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Howard: Conventional truth is a shorthand truth, not a literal truth, > > but it still is a form of truth. > > > > James: Okay, I see how you are! Want your cake and eat it too!! > > > ======================= > Of course! (Especially when I am correct!! ;-)) James: Hehehe…could be, could be. I never claim to be correct; I am always wrong. Until ignorance has been eradicated and `it' has been released, I don't really know a thing. Honestly though, I am not sure what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, truth is truth. > > With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), James: Old?? Who you calling old?? ;-)) From a perusal of the member's photos, I may just be the youngest (non-lurking) bag of khandhas on this list! ;-)) > Howard Metta, James 29465 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, RobM, & all, Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a philosophical inevitability. It is certainly discussed extensively in the mahayana. There, a sutta is deemed "ultimate" if emptiness and/or the middle way between eternalism and nihilism is discussed. I don't think this is what we in this group mean by "ultimate", but we could discuss this. I think this group is actually doing original work on this distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we mean by "concept"? Larry 29466 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello Larry, Larry: So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we mean by "concept"? Michael: From the various discussions I was involved in this list in relation to paramatha/paññatti, ultimate/conventional reality, and own nature (sabhava), my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction. If there are other qualities that would make a phenomena qualify as ultimate reality, I am not aware of. In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination. And own nature has been explained as a synonym for own characteristic. That is as far as my recollection goes. Now before starting to analyze those definitions it would be good to know if the ‘abhidhamikas’ do agree with them. Metta Michael 29467 From: Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:13pm Subject: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Michael: "my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction." Hi Michael, Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have described? Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." L: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? Larry 29468 From: Tom Westheimer Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Off topic but worth reading re Yahoo Groups Privacy "Yahoo is now using something called "Web Beacons" to track Yahoo Group users around the net and see what you're doing and where you are going - similar to cookies. Take a look at their updated privacy statement http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html About half-way down the page, in the section "Outside the Yahoo! Network", you'll see a little "click here" link that will let you "opt-out" of their new method of snooping. I strongly recommend that you do this. Once you have clicked that link, you are opted out. Notice the "Success" message the top the next page. Be careful because on that page there is a "Cancel Opt-out" button that, if clicked, will *undo** the opt-out. Feel free to forward this to other groups. Of course, if you don't mind Yahoo recording every website and every group you visit you should ignore this message. -- Tom Westheimer I use Spamarrest to stop SPAM so please follow the short instructions in the confirmation email one time only to let the "good guys/gals through" :-) 29469 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Andrew, You were saying: ---------------------- A: > . . . . we can't put a full stop after "absolute reality" and think we have covered the whole of the Dhamma. ------------ That, admittedly, is what I have been doing. It seems to be working and I haven't walked in front of a bus or anything like that. Concepts are created whether I accept them as real or not. On the ways in which concepts seem to condition reality, you wrote: ---------------- A: > How can this happen if there is only the present moment which cannot contain the "huge number and wide variety" of paramattha dhammas needed? ------------------------- You'll have noticed Rob M has summarised all that material. It's over my head but I would add that it's not the concepts themselves that do the conditioning. For example, in the case of object condition; citta is conditioned by virtue of its having an object, not by the object (whether dhamma or pannatti) itself. As for the sheer mass of information: Every dhamma that arises owes its nature (in various ways) to the dhammas that conditioned it; they, in turn, owed their natures to the dhammas that conditioned them, and so on ad infinitum. So a complete record of the entire history of the universe is, potentially, readable from the dhammas of the present moment. (All you need is the omniscience of a Tathagata.) ------------- A: > Haven't you just conceded that there is no place for karuna in a wholly paramattha dhamma worldview? You can only see a place for adosa. Why then did the Buddha teach about karuna? Surely you cannot sustain your position until this question is answered. ------------ Karuna is real; it is not a Path factor but the Buddha did teach it and he did have it, at times. When there is karuna (compassion for suffering, living beings) there is no hint of "Oh dear, this is terrible – those poor people!" In its purest form, karuna is a `boundless state' or `divine abode', which, I think, is a type of jhana absorption – the highest bliss outside the Eightfold Path. At that moment, there is the concept of another living being but there is no concept of oneself as a living being. So karuna is never accompanied by the thought, "I have compassion." That sort of thinking arises after the fact. After a moment of karuna, a worldling, not being used to kusala states, would be inclined to think; "Wow, what was that? This Buddhism business has done wonders for my personality! What a kind and helpful person I've become!" (As Nina has said; `we dwell, on and on, on the pleasant object.') Sorry for wandering off there :-) ----------------------------- A: > What meaning do you ascribe to the simile of the Raft if you maintain that the teachings "remain real"? ----------- Namas and rupas remain real; they depend only on the laws of conditionality, which, I think, include two of the Four Noble Truths. Perhaps the `raft that has to be put down' is the dhammas (cetasikas) of Eightfold Path; in so far as the arahant, at parinibbana, has no further use for them. -------------- A: > The past and future are non-existent but how do you see the arising of cittas in consistent patterns of 17 mind-moments? Is this just a strange coincidence? ----------------------- I may be missing your point here. In any case, it would be better to speak of a `process' of cittas rather than a `pattern': There is only ever one citta at a time; each citta contains the conditions for the arising of the citta that follows it. ---------------------- A: > Are you saying that "yes, the universe IS pointless" and direct knowledge of this will condition the dispassion and turning-away that we often read about in the Dhamma? ------------ Yes, although I think that would be approaching it from the wrong direction. Whenever we find ourselves thinking; "I do not exist! The universe is pointless!" we are verging on wrong view. However, if we study conditioned reality and see that it is anicca, dukkha and anatta, then the realisation of `selflessness' and `pointlessness' is a natural, wholesome one. I think it is only for countering the view, "there is a self," that we ever need to say, "there is no self." Kind regards, Ken H 29470 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:18pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, We were saying: ---------------------------- >>> RM: Certainly the Satipatthana Sutta describes both approaches. >>> >> KH: I disagree, Rob (which won't surprise you :-) ): It describes >> only one approach – satipatthana in daily life. >> ------------------ Your response was: ------------------ RM: > The initial section of the Sutta starts out "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? --------------- If I may briefly interrupt: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana (as mindfulness of rupa) arises in daily life. ---------------- RM (quoting S-sutta): > "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect ---------------------------- Interrupting again: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana arises in daily life `in the case of' a monk who is practising the method known as `jhana and vipassana in tandem.' This is the most difficult of all (four) methods. The monk so described is one who has gone to the wilderness where he spends his daily life sitting with legs crossed, back straight, and so on. In other words, he has devoted his entire life to his practice (that is how jhana is developed). He is not like the office worker who takes a couple of days off to attend a meditation retreat. ------------------------- RM (still quoting): > and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. RM: > I take this section as a description of formal meditation not "daily life". --------------- `Mistakenly,' if I may say so :-) As I have said; that first part of the sutta describes how satipatthana can be developed in the case of a monk who is following the method known as `the development of jhana and vipassana in tandem.' I'm sure you know much more about anapanasati than I do. Nina has set it all out (from the suttas and commentaries) in a series of posts. I still haven't grasped the basics but they include the ability to enter, and exit, jhana at will. ------------------------------- RM: > It is true that the next section talks about walking, standing, sitting and lying down. I take this section as "daily life". -------------------------------- Having dealt with satipatthana in the daily life of a monk who is practising the `jhana-and-vipassana-in-tandem' method, the sutta goes on to describe satipatthana in the daily life of a monk who is practising one of the other methods. Obviously those methods include the `vipassana-followed-by-jhana' and the `bare-vipassana' methods, however, I am not sure if, strictly speaking, `jhana-followed-by-vipassana' is included. As you know, jhana (with the exception of anapanasati (as above)), has concept as its object and so, there cannot be satipatthana at such times. (I have asked this question before and promptly forgotten the answers – apologies to all concerned) Anyway, none of these methods is any more formal than the monk's normal life (eating, sitting, walking and so on), which includes spending some time hearing the Dhamma, contemplating it and discussing it with friends. The cases (instances) described in the Satipatthana Sutta, are those in which theoretical knowledge (pariyatti) becomes direct knowledge (patipatti). So Rob, this brings our discussion back to where you were saying in your previous post: ---------------- RM: >> Because of my accumulations, it is easier for me to be aware of the current moment when I am sitting in meditation. However, that does not preclude the possibility that others may have accumulations that support them being aware of the current moment in daily life >> ------------------- To which I objected: ----------------- KH: > Satipatthana does not require easy, or convenient, circumstances. > Provided the conditions have been accumulated, it will accept any dhamma, any where, any time. > ---------------- So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object (or any other dhamma that has arisen). Someone might ask; "So, what does it matter? If I can't help, then I can't hinder! What does it matter if I practise formal vipassana meditation in the mistaken belief that it was taught by the Buddha?" Do you have any thoughts on that question? Kind regards, Ken H 29471 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:26pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi James, --------------------------- J: > You are absolutely right and I apologize if I have ever hurt your feelings in this regard. --------------------------- On behalf of bookworms everywhere, I thank you for your apology; no hurt feelings :-) -------------------------- J: > I think we all need to just follow our hearts when it comes to the practice of the dhamma. Sometimes we may need to read/write, sometimes we may need to meditate…sometimes we may just need to vegetate! ;-)) ----------------------- Yes; generosity, compassion and wisdom (like all qualities), are accumulated, they don't need our conscious control. When the opportunity for sila, dana or bhavana arises (like now), our reaction will not depend on whether we happen to be reciting a creed at the time. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > Ken: We bookworms have feelings too, we are just as attached to, and > conceited about, our practices as you are! :-) > > 29472 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:55am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Hi Ken, Ken: If I may briefly interrupt: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana (as mindfulness of rupa) arises in daily life. James: (Ken's subtext: This is just a description of something that happens, not instructions to make it happen.) James' response: Consider this sutta reference: ""So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do -- seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them -- that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html Ken: Interrupting again: This means the sutta is going to tell us how satipatthana arises in daily life `in the case of' a monk who is practising the method known as `jhana and vipassana in tandem.' This is the most difficult of all (four) methods. James: (Ken's subtext: This is so difficult that no one should even try! [Ken's sub-subtext: This is too difficult for me and/or I don't want to try and fail, so I convince myself and others that no one should try.] James' response: The Buddha never described one method of concentration more difficult than any other (Previously I asked Nina this direct question and she refused to answer me directly); I suppose it would depend on a person's accumulations as to which is the most difficult method. Obviously the practitioner should choose the method most suitable, not the most difficult, after some experimentation. The four methods are described in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-041.html Ken: The monk so described is one who has gone to the wilderness where he spends his daily life sitting with legs crossed, back straight, and so on. In other words, he has devoted his entire life to his practice (that is how jhana is developed). He is not like the office worker who takes a couple of days off to attend a meditation retreat. James: (Ken's subtext: Only monks should meditate or try to develop jhana, anyone else Is fooling themselves.) James' response: Being a monk is most definitely helpful to the practice (if one can find the right temple that is) but it isn't a requirement. There are certain conditions that should be met for anyone who wants to achieve jhana (and they can be met by a householder with some adjustments in living situation): The following is based on Vism.126-35; PP.132-40, from "The First Jhana and It's Factors": "To develop his practice several important measures are recommended. [8] The meditator should live in a suitable dwelling, rely upon a suitable alms resort, avoid profitless talk, associate only with spiritually-minded companions, make use only of suitable food, live in a congenial climate, and maintain his practice in a suitable posture. He should also cultivate the ten kinds of skill in absorption. He should clean his lodging and his physical body so that they conduce to clear meditation, balance his spiritual faculties by seeing that faith is balanced with wisdom and energy with concentration, and he must be skilful in producing and developing the sign of concentration (1-3). He should exert the mind when it is slack, restrain it when it is agitated, encourage it when it is restless or dejected, and look at the mind with equanimity when all is proceeding well (4-7). The meditator should avoid distracting persons, should approach people experienced in concentration, and should be firm in his resolution to attain jhána (8-10)." Personally, I have begun to change my meditation practice from vipassana to jhana. I have found that my accumulations are simply not appropriate for vipassana practice. Therefore, I have become practically a hermit (living in a foreign country helps in this regard). I only associate with one spiritually-minded person I know here, and rarely go out anywhere (and participate in DSG of course! ;- )). Ken: Anyway, none of these methods is any more formal than the monk's normal life (eating, sitting, walking and so on), which includes spending some time hearing the Dhamma, contemplating it and discussing it with friends. The cases (instances) described in the Satipatthana Sutta, are those in which theoretical knowledge (pariyatti) becomes direct knowledge (patipatti). James: (Ken's subtext: I am going to convince myself and others that Right Concentration can be practiced at anytime, anywhere, without formal meditation, because I just don't want to do it! If I listen to K.Sujin and filter some obscure meaning out of about three different levels of commentaries, I can feel confident about this decision.) James' response: Jhana requires absorption concentration (appaná-samádhi) which cannot be accomplished if there are any distractions. The single object of concentration and the mind must become one. Many on this list seem to hold the mistaken notion that momentary concentration (khanika-samádhi) can be practiced during everyday activities, but this is also incorrect. Momentary concentration doesn't mean concentration for just a `moment', like a mini-meditation, it means to have single-pointed concentration on passing moments, the flow of phenomena of the five khandas. (Nárada, A Manual of Abhidhamma, 4th ed. (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1980), pp. 389, 395-96.) Ken: Someone might ask; "So, what does it matter? If I can't help, then I can't hinder! What does it matter if I practise formal vipassana meditation in the mistaken belief that it was taught by the Buddha?" Do you have any thoughts on that question? James: I do. I think it is a leading question. Metta, James 29473 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:58am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > According to the Atthasalini, in the fourth week after > enlightenment, > > the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the > Abhidhamma. > > When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part > of > > the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of > six > > colours. > > > > The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was > > reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, > > the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his > > former mother and many other Devas > > Honestly, I don't believe this story. It just rings false to me. ===== You don't believe it!?! But it is included in the Atthasalini which was written by the eminent scholar Buddhaghosa :-) . I guess this is one more black mark against Buddhaghosa's name in your book, eh? I believe that Buddhaghosa was reporting on a legend (kind of like a colour commentary). Michael asked if the Abhiadhamma was the word of the Buddha and I needed to explain how, though it is not technically the word of the Buddha, the orthodox consider it to be inspired by and accepted by the Buddha. ===== > However, I do have a few questions and they don't necessarily spring > from my doubt in the story, but my genuine curiosity: > 1.Why would the Buddha go to Tusita heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to > his former mother when he must have had countless former mothers? > (There is a Tibetan Buddhist saying, which I like very much, which > states that you should treat all living beings as if they were at one > time your mother, because they probably were.) ===== I understand your question and have no answer (I really like your quote - I will likely use it in one of my classes). ===== > 2.Didn't the Buddha lose all attachments to his past, present, and > future? Why would he want to encourage past attachments? ===== My understanding is that the Buddha did not go to heaven because of attachments, but out of compassion to allow the Devas to hear the Dhamma; the same compassion, called Mahakarunasamapatti-nana, that is unique to Buddhas, which causes Buddhas to preach the Dhamma. I beleive that one of the commentaries states that going to heaven to teach Abhidhamma is something that all Buddhas must do; part of the job description? :-) ===== > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care to > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > who was teaching who what? ===== There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some discussion :-) . Metta, RobM :-) 29474 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:13am Subject: Anatta Hi All, After attaining Enlightenment, the Buddha rejoined the five ascetics with whom He had been practicing and delivered His first sermon, The Great Discourse on the Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, SN LVI.11). One of the ascetics became a Stream Enterer (Sotapanna, the first stage of sainthood) after hearing this Sutta. Over the next few days, the Buddha instructed the remaining four ascetics until they had all become Sotapanna. After this, the Buddha's delivered His second Sutta, the Great Discourse on Not Self (Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, SN XXII.59): I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to disease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, `Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to disease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, `Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' "Feeling is not self... "Perception is not self... "[Mental] fabrications are not self... "Consciousness is not self... "What do you think, monks, is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord" "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: `This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "... is feeling constant or inconstant?..." "... is perception constant or inconstant?..." "... are mental fabrications constant or inconstant?..." "... is consciousness constant or inconstant?..." "Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: `This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever... "Any perception whatsoever..., "Any mental fabrications whatsoever... "Any consciousness whatsoever... "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, `Fully released.' He discerns that `Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' " That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents. The Buddha said that none of the five aggregates (the components of a "being") are to be taken as self. He then shows that each of the aggregates has the characteristics of impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha, here translated as stress) and are not to be clung to by thinking, "this is mine", "this is myself" or "this is what I am". Self-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is the first of the ten fetters (sammyojana). Sotapanna have uprooted all twenty aspects of self-view: - View that form (body) is self - View that self has form (body) - View that form (body) is in the self - View that self is in the form (body) - View that feeling is self... - View that perception is self... - View that mental fabrications are self... - View that consciousness is self... Though the five ascetics had given up self-view, they were still clinging to the aggregates; through this Sutta, the Buddha uprooted this clinging and the five ascetics became Arahants. Metta, RobM :-) 29475 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, Rob: There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some discussion :-). James: Good answer! My question was a leading one and this is the answer I was looking for! I can accept `collection of aggregates', I just can't accept `concept'. Purple elephants are concepts, people/entities are real (because the aggregates are real). I look forward to your posting on Anatta (like this group hasn't had enough about that! ;-)). Metta, James 29476 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:42am Subject: More discussion (and food) Another day of discussion and Thai hospitality (today's lunch courtesy of Betty and Sukin, many thanks to both). Today we were joined by Vince (and old friend from early Bangkok days) and Nancy, who happened to have planned a short stopover here on their way to a 3-month meditation retreat in Myanmar. Having learnt this just before we left Hong Kong, Sarah and I had arranged to get in touch here, and fortunately they were able to join us at the Foundation. Lively discussion ensued, mainly on the connection between formal sitting practice and the development of understanding. General agreement was reached in principle on the fact that understanding/useful reflection may occur regardless of the present activity, although some felt that one's working environment was an exception to this general rule. Christine will no doubt want to say something on this when she gets back on line ;-)) Tomorrow morning some are joining Sarah and I at our hotel, with discussion at the Foundation again in the afternoon. Jon 29477 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Rob M, The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the components of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', you might want to refer to Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, [snip] > > The Buddha said that none of the five aggregates (the components of > a "being") are to be taken as self. He then shows that each of the > aggregates has the characteristics of impermanence (anicca) and > suffering (dukkha, here translated as stress) and are not to be clung > to by thinking, "this is mine", "this is myself" or "this is what I > am". > > Self-view (sakkaya-ditthi) is the first of the ten fetters > (sammyojana). Sotapanna have uprooted all twenty aspects of self- view: > - View that form (body) is self > - View that self has form (body) > - View that form (body) is in the self > - View that self is in the form (body) > > - View that feeling is self... > - View that perception is self... > - View that mental fabrications are self... > - View that consciousness is self... > > Though the five ascetics had given up self-view, they were still > clinging to the aggregates; through this Sutta, the Buddha uprooted > this clinging and the five ascetics became Arahants. > > Metta, > RobM :-) 29478 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:14am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M and all, For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, [snip] > > > 3.If there are only dhammas, no beings, why would the Buddha care > to > > teach specially to his former mother, who is now a male deva? If > > there is really no Buddha, no male deva, no me, no you, no anything… > > who was teaching who what? > > ===== > > There was teaching but no teacher in an ultimate sense. There was > listening, by no listener in an ultimate sense. The concept > called "Buddha", "Deva", "you" and "I" is a collection of aggregates. > See my next posting on Anatta (I'm sure it will generate some > discussion :-) . > > Metta, > RobM :-) 29479 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:18am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi all, The passage in my previous message is from Samyutta Nikaya XII.63 Puttamansa Sutta A Son's Flesh http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-063.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Rob M and all, > > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of > those in search of a place to be born. > > > Metta, > Victor 29480 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Larry, See below >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:13:56 -0700 (MST) > >Michael: "my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something >that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object >that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is >that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the >case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a >being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities >those are not subject to further reduction." > >Hi Michael, > >Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a >khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have >described? I am not saying that I subscribe to those views but before analyzing them I would like to hear from the abhidhamikas in the list if the definition I gave is comprehensive enough. After that I can give you my views. > >Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really >does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." > >L: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? Dito Metta Michael > >Larry > > > 29481 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, James - In a message dated 1/29/04 11:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Honestly though, I am not sure > what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, > truth is truth. > ======================= Actually, the thing that is literal or non-literal isn't the truth, per se, of the sentence involved, but the meaning. When we say "A person is coming for dinner," it sounds like we mean that some actual thing that we can pin down (a "person") is engaging in a well delineable activity (the "coming") that involves some other actual thing we can pin down ("dinner"). Taking it that way is to provide a literal understanding for a conventional utterance. From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; and if the statement is understood quite literally, then is quite false (even when somebody IS coming to dinner ;-). However, the statement, makes perfectly good conventional sense, and it is, when understood that way, quite possibly true. Now, there is a literal meaning that the conventional formulation abbreviates - and there are levels and levels of more and more complex formulation that more and more closely express the literal meaning, but that literal meaning is pragmatically inexpressible in a direct manner, requiring a (near-)infinite complexity. Thus, to communicate, we *must* use conventional formulation. The trouble is that we are in the habit of taking our conventional formulations as bearing literal meaning. The Buddha used conventional formulations all the time, because he communicated, and they are needed to communicate, but he directly saw what is literally the case and was not taken in by convention. 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) 29482 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:49am Subject: Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi Howard and All, Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; you will see that the Buddha believed that beings are real. The mistake that beings make is that they cling to the five aggregates and that continues their suffering. The five aggregates are a burden, suffering, and dukkha. I think the problem here lies in a very superficial and incorrect understanding of the five aggregates and how the Buddha explained them. It seems to me that many people on this list are viewing people like Mr. Potato Heads and the Five Aggregates are like the parts that make up Mr. Potato Head! LOL! As Mr. Potato Head goes through different lifetimes the parts change, new eyes, new ears, new body, new feet, etc, and Mr. Potato Head can then become Mrs. Potato Head or Mr. Pumpkin Head, or whatever. Then, when Mr. Potato Head reaches enlightenment all the parts fall away, never to reassemble, and then there is no more Mr. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head isn't really a Potato Head, he is just an assembly of parts. Mr. Potato Head is a concept of a entity, but he isn't really. If he was wise he would know that there is no lasting core piece to Mr. Potato Head and he would then know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head. And other Potato Heads who have this knowledge also know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head, he is an assembly of parts and `Mr. Potato Head' is a concept. Is this what the five aggregates are like? Not to my understanding. The five aggregates are not parts, they are processes: Processes that never cease. The body is a process; Feeling is a process; Perception is a process; mental fabrication is a process, and consciousness is a process. The mistake that people make is when they look at someone and they don't see a process, they see an entity which is constant and unchanging. Does this mean that the person is a concept and doesn't exist? No. The person exists but he exists as a process. The mistake that the person makes is that he looks at himself and sees an entity which is constant and unchanging, but this is the wrong view because he is a process. When he realizes this, ignorance ceases, clinging ceases, and the process ceases. Does that prove he never really existed? No, he existed as a process. What about after that? I believe that the Buddha spoke about unbound consciousness but I won't go into that. I don't know what happens after that. But I do know that I am not, and you are not, a Mr. Potato Head! ;-)) Metta, James 29483 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi, James - In a message dated 1/30/04 11:58:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard and All, > > Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the > conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" > meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; > > James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are > concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really > don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a > quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will > believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; > you will see that the Buddha believed that beings are real. The > mistake that beings make is that they cling to the five aggregates > and that continues their suffering. The five aggregates are a > burden, suffering, and dukkha. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: No, I completely disagree. See the chariot simile, for example. ----------------------------------------- > > I think the problem here lies in a very superficial and incorrect > understanding of the five aggregates and how the Buddha explained > them. It seems to me that many people on this list are viewing > people like Mr. Potato Heads and the Five Aggregates are like the > parts that make up Mr. Potato Head! LOL! As Mr. Potato Head goes > through different lifetimes the parts change, new eyes, new ears, new > body, new feet, etc, and Mr. Potato Head can then become Mrs. Potato > Head or Mr. Pumpkin Head, or whatever. Then, when Mr. Potato Head > reaches enlightenment all the parts fall away, never to reassemble, > and then there is no more Mr. Potato Head. Mr. Potato Head isn't > really a Potato Head, he is just an assembly of parts. Mr. Potato > Head is a concept of a entity, but he isn't really. If he was wise > he would know that there is no lasting core piece to Mr. Potato Head > and he would then know that he isn't Mr. Potato Head. And other > Potato Heads who have this knowledge also know that he isn't Mr. > Potato Head, he is an assembly of parts and `Mr. Potato Head' is a > concept. > > Is this what the five aggregates are like? Not to my understanding. > The five aggregates are not parts, they are processes: Processes that > never cease. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Each dhamma, of any aggregate, is an event. An aggregate is not a process - it is a mind-conceived collection or category of events/phenomena. -------------------------------------------------- The body is a process; Feeling is a process; Perception > is a process; > mental fabrication is a process, and consciousness is a > process. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not my take. -------------------------------------------------- The mistake that people make is when they look at someone > and they don't > see a process, they see an entity which is constant > and unchanging. Does this mean that the person is a concept and > doesn't exist? No. The person exists but he exists as a process. > The mistake that the person makes is that he looks at himself and > sees an entity which is constant and unchanging, but this is the > wrong view because he is a process. When he realizes this, ignorance > ceases, clinging ceases, and the process ceases. Does that prove he > never really existed? No, he existed as a process. What about after > that? I believe that the Buddha spoke about unbound consciousness > but I won't go into that. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Unbound consciousness is the mere presence of phenomena/events without projecting a knowing self or known entities. There is no subject-object duality in it. -------------------------------------------------- I don't know what happens after that. But > > I do know that I am not, and you are not, a Mr. Potato Head! ;-)) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you might re-consider the chariot simile. It is not found only in the Milindapanha - there is also the following (provided by Nanavira Thera and findable at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/paramsac.htm): ______________________________________________ In Bhikkhuní Samyutta 10 we find these verses. Mára the Evil One: By whom is this creature formed? Who is the creature's maker? Who is the arisen creature? Who is the creature that ceases? 1 2 Vajirá the nun: Why do you refer to 'the creature', Mára, are you involved in (wrong) view? This is a pile of pure determinations; there is, here, no creature to be found. Just as for an assemblage of parts there is the term 'a chariot', So, when there are the aggregates, convention says 'a creature'. It is merely suffering that comes into being, suffering that stands and disappears, Nothing apart from suffering comes into being, nothing other than suffering ceases. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, James > ============================== 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) 29484 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:25am Subject: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/30/04 11:58:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard and All, > > > > Howard: From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the > > conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" > > meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; > > > > James: It appears to me that you are coming from the `people are > > concepts' camp. First, you say that this is Buddhism but I really > > don't think it is. The Buddha never said this. Please give me a > > quote where he said that people are only concepts and then I will > > believe that it is Buddhism. Please see the recent quotes by Victor; Howard: I think you might re-consider the chariot simile. It is not found only in the Milindapanha - there is also the following (provided by Nanavira Thera and findable at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/paramsac.htm): James: I think you might do what I asked and provide me a quote from the Buddha that is specific and not a metaphor! (hehehe…just thought I would match your tone ;-)) Metta, James 29485 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 0:05pm Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, The Samsara has been very very long and it is endless if a special wisdom cannot arise and stop creating more and more potential fuel, Kamma that drive Bhava ( life ) vehicle. The Samsara, life after life, wheel of life, circle of life needs to be broken if we do not want to suffer any more. But if want to suffer more, let it be. The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been striving to get through the Samsara. He is training his mind contemplating on his own body and then he is trying to contemplate on feeling where it arises and when it arises. He is sitting comfortably leaving all Palivodha or minor hindrances behind and concentrating his mind enthusiastically and delibrately on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. His object of attention becomes feeling that arises at each moment. He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. At each time a feeling arises, he notes that feeling arises. He also notes when that feeling falls away as falling away. In this way feeling are arising and falling away all the time. There are just feeling and no self in them. He notes that he cannot control the feeling not to fall away and he cannot afford to prevent feeling not to arise. Vedana are Anatta. Feeling cannot be controlled. Feeling are impermanent. Feeling are Anicca. Feeling are unsatisfactory as all feeling are impermanent. Feeling are suffering. Feeling are Dukkha. As feeling are arising and falling away on their own under influence of no one, feeling are non-self. Feeling are Anatta. So said '' Vedana Bhikkhave Anatta '' by The Buddha. May all beings contemplate on feeling wherever it arises and whenever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana 29486 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mr. Potato Head ;-)) (was Re: The Origin of Namarupa: ) Hi, James - In a message dated 1/30/04 2:37:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > James: I think you might do what I asked and provide me a quote from > the Buddha that is specific and not a metaphor! (hehehe…just thought > I would match your tone ;-)) > > ======================== Okay - match point! ;-)) With matchless 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) 29487 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:46pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, Some time ago, dsg was discussing dhammas with regard to their inherent superiority and inferiority. (Another aspect of sabhava, if I remember correctly.) Perhaps this sutta, you have found, is addressing that same topic. (Just my guess.) A supramundane stream-entry citta, (that has nibbana as its object), would be inherently superior to a mundane satipatthana citta (that has conditioned dhamma as its object). And it would be inherently inferior to a stream-entry fruition citta, (that has the first three fetters destroyed). A Once-returner path citta would be superior to that -- and so on up to the citta of a Tathagata. I would assume that the wholesomeness (merit-worthiness) of gift would depend on the knowledge and intention of the giver and the inherent worthiness of the recipient. A Buddha, and perhaps other ariyans, would know those things; we worldlings would be only guessing. The way in which the Buddha has explained the relative merits of gift giving and the inherent superiority/inferiority of the recipients can only be confusing to anyone who doesn't know about dhammas and sabhava. It would be especially confusing to anyone who thought people, rather than cittas, were real. But the Buddha's audience did know. I don't think they would have been worried by the difficulties of giving a gift (in the conventional sense of people and objects) to a Sotapanna-at-path-consciousness before he could become a Sotapanna-at-fruition-consciousness. (You would have to whip in there very, very quickly:-)) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). The sutta > says: > > 5. "There are fourteen kinds of personal offerings, Ananda. One gives a gift > to the Tathagata, accomplished and fully enlightened; this is the first kind > of personal offering. One gives a gift to a paccekabuddha; this is the > second kind of personal offering. One gives a gift to an arahant disciple of > the Tathagata; this is the third kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > arahantship; this is the fourth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a non-returner; this is the fifth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit of > non-returner; this is the sixth kind of personal offering. One gives a gift > to a once-returner; this is the seventh kind of personal offering. One gives > a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the fruit > of once-return; this is the eighth kind of personal offering. One gives a > gift to a stream-enterer; this is the ninth kind of personal offering. One > gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the > fruit of stream-entry. > > 29488 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry and All, > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a > philosophical inevitability. ........ I am glad you wrote this, because I had come to a similar conclusion, though I purely speculate. As I have said before, I believe that the philosophical and religious environment of India during the Buddha's time consisted of many individuals who had very highly developed panna. Contrasting with us now, those people were very much in touch with reality. They understood the primary elements and mind intimately, limited by only the lack of knowledge about Anatta. The moment we hear about the earth element or water element for example, our minds proliferate into conceivings that is quite far from the truth. Those people knew exactly what is being refered to from direct experience. Their main limitation was that they still had "self" and so were incapable of apprehending the Tilakhana, and this is why they would never also understand conditionality as the Buddha did. In other words, today we live in the world of conceptually constructed reality, reinforced by sceitific and western philosophical outlook, whereas those people then lived in a world where they understood mind and matter quite well based on direct experience. This is the basis for why the Buddha could every day, survey the world to see and fish out potential candidates for enlightenment. And I believe that then, householders who were interested in understanding the truth with very highly developed panna was also in great abundance. So when the Buddha talked to these people, he never had a need to say or stress about the distinction between concept and reality, because they basically knew it! They mostly needed only to be taught about anatta. K. Sujin is in a position today, where she is faced with what I believe to be false interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Especially when this business about 'formal meditation' is such a hit. When people suggest that one is to be aware of 'sitting posture', 'standing posture' and so on, she feels a need to remind them that there is no such *reality* as 'sitting posture' etc. That the only dhammas that can be experienced directly through the six doorways are the "Paramattha Dhammas" which we on the list talk so much about. And this fact being more easily appreciated when studying Abhidhamma, is the reason why she stresses so much on its study. The suttas were for those who could understand that Dhammas and Abhidhammas are one and the same thing. For us ignorant folks who easily get caught in stories and personal interpretations, reminders about concept/reality distinction is very important. This of course does not mean that we solidify such reminders into a 'philosophical position'. Personally, especially since the recent discussions on Rupas, life faculty, sexuality and space for example, I have developed a more relaxed attitude towards 'conventional reality'. Though I don't believe that they can be objects of insight knowledge, I think we can experience manifestations and intimations of those realities as also given as examples to in the commentaries. I don't believe that I can know 'feminity rupa' for example, no matter how much I observe for how many lifetimes the different conventional manifestations of the same. But I do believe that to observe with understanding can accumulate as Sankhara such that when the time comes, the paramattha dhamma can one day be the object of insight. This leads me to another topic, 'theoretical knowledge'. There have been discussion about how much knowledge of *what* is needed for ultimate realization. I persoanlly don't think that I can decide. I believe that the way pariyatti conditions patipatti and this conditioning pativedha, is not something I can know with any certainty. However, I do believe that nothing in the Tipitaka should be judged as being irrelavent. And I do believe for example that to insist upon only those objects within the scope of the six doorways as being worthy of 'knowledge', is to risk being caught in subjective interpretation of reality and an accounting for which would be quite off the mark. As I said above about conditioning as sankhara, even though many realities are not experienced and seemingly experiencable, the way pariyatti works to condition patipatti may be quite different from what seems to us at this level of understanding. Sorry fo the abrupt ending, got to go for a breakfast appointment with Sarah, Jon, Nina and others. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 29489 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michael, RobM, & all, > > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > I think this group is actually doing original work on this > distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. > > ========= Dear Larry, I think it depends what we have studied. I see a great deal about pannatti and paramttha in the texts - and nothing original on dsg. I give a quote from Kurunadasa because this is availble on teh web http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm III. Pannatti and the Two Truths """What may be described as the first formal definition of pannatti occurs in the Dhammasangani.107 Here the three terms, pannatti, nirutti, and adhivacana are used synonymously and each term is defined by lumping together a number of appropriate equivalents. In Mrs. Rhys Davids' translation: "That which is an enumeration, that which is a designation, an expression (pannatti), a current term, a name, a denomination, the assigning of a name, an interpretation, a distinctive mark of discourse on this or that dhamma." 108 Immediately after this definition, a "predication of equipollent terms," 109 it is observed that all the dhammas constitute the pathway of pannattis (sabbe dhamma pannatti-patha).110 As shown by this definition, designation is the pannatti; what is designated thereby is the pannatti-patha. Whether the term pannatti, as used here, denotes the individual names given to each and every dhamma only, or whether it also denotes names assigned to various combinations of the dhammas, is not explicitly stated. According to the Abhidhamma, it may be noted, every combination of the objectively real dhammas represents a nominal reality, not an objective reality. The fact that the term pannatti includes names of both categories, the objective and the nominal, is suggested not only by what is stated elsewhere in the Abhidhamma Pitaka,111 but also by the later exegesis.112 We may conclude then that according to the Dhammasangani definition, pannatti denotes all names, terms, and symbols that are expressive of the real existents as well as of their combinations in different forms. Another important fact that should not be overlooked here is that according to the later exegesis pannatti includes not only names (nama) but also ideas corresponding to them (attha).113 Since the assignment of a designation creates an idea corresponding to it, we may interpret the above definition to include both. It is true, of course, that the dhammas do not exist in dependence on the operation of the mind, on their being designated by a term and conceptualized by mind. Nevertheless the assignment of names to the dhammas involves a process of conceptualization. Hence pannatti includes not only the names of things, whether they are real or nominal, but also all the concepts corresponding to them. This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five aggregates are present." 114 """ This is just one example. So many references in Abhidhamma commentaries to pannatti and paramattha. robk 29490 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:19pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Ken, KenH: Some time ago, dsg was discussing dhammas with regard to their inherent superiority and inferiority. (Another aspect of sabhava, if I remember correctly.) Michael: Dictionary.com defines ‘inherent’ as: Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable. Is this the meaning you attribute to ‘inherent’ in your statement? KenH: The way in which the Buddha has explained the relative merits of gift giving and the inherent superiority/inferiority of the recipients can only be confusing to anyone who doesn't know about dhammas and sabhava. It would be especially confusing to anyone who thought people, rather than cittas, were real. Michael: Dictionary.com for ‘real’: Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language. Is that how you understand ‘real’ in your statement? Can you define ‘sabhava’? Metta Michael 29491 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Michael, RobM, & all, > > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > =========== Dear Larry, There are different versions of the Visuddhimagga about. In the one I have there is on page 780-781 (VIII n11) it gives a great deal of commentarial notes based on the Puggalapannatti- one the books of the Abhidhamma. So: "24 kinds [of pannatti]are dealt with in the commentary to the Puggalapannatti........." If you have the Puggalapannatti you can read about these matters too. It is the 4th book of the Abhidhamma and translated by PTS as 'A Designation of Human Types' Buddha net gives a succint summary of it: http://www.buddhanet.net/puggala.htm RobertK 29492 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobertK, RobertK: This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five aggregates are present." Michael: The important word here is ‘implied’. The conclusion drawn depends very much on the logic employed by who is doing the ‘implication’. And that logic could be flawed. I don’t read anything in the suttas that would lead one to imply that paññatti is meant. Maybe you want to elaborate on that logic to convince me and others otherwise? Metta Michael 29493 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Michael, Robert Eddison, whoc recently ordained as a monk, wrote this a whiole back: "Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)" ***** Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobertK, > > RobertK: > This theory of pannatti, presented as ancillary to the doctrine of > dhammas, is not a complete innovation on the part of the Abhidhamma. > Such a theory is clearly implied in the early Buddhist analysis of > empirical existence into the aggregates, sense bases, and elements, > and the only really new feature in the pannatti theory is its > systematic formulation. Accordingly the term "person" becomes a > common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently > originated psycho-physical factors: "Just as there arises the > name `chariot' when there is a set of appropriate constituents, even > so there comes to be this convention `living being' when the five > aggregates are present." > > Michael: > The important word here is `implied'. The conclusion drawn depends very much > on the logic employed by who is doing the `implication'. And that logic > could be flawed. I don't read anything in the suttas that would lead one to > imply that paññatti is meant. Maybe you want to elaborate on that logic to > convince me and others otherwise? > > Metta > Michael > 29494 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Michael: "I am not saying that I subscribe to those views but before analyzing them I would like to hear from the abhidhamikas in the list if the definition I gave is comprehensive enough. After that I can give you my views." Hi Michael, As far as I am concerned what you wrote is a good beginning. Go for it. Everyone else is either out of town or not interested. Subscribing to these views isn't exactly the issue. The question is, do these views accurately represent the concept/reality distinction, and, are they found in any suttas? IMO, as per this distinction in this group, ultimate reality is the 5 khandhas and nibbana as they may arise one at a time as an object of consciousness. Concept is a mental formation (synthesis) of realities, whether objects of consciousness or not, sometimes encoded as an "idea". Concept could also be just a name. I could easily not be aware of everything that goes into a mental formation. Given this working definition, I would say only those very highly skilled in concentration would have access to ultimate realities and consequently only they would be capable of being attached to them. [I don't see this point being made in the suttas.] All others are presumably only attached to mental formations and names. The practice seems to be to experientially break down mental formations into individually arising realities. I don't know of a sutta that talks about individually arising realities but there is a lot of discussion on breaking down an object of desire into parts which are seen as undesirable because of impermanence, foulness, etc. Furthermore, concept is said to be unconditioned, presumably because of being nonexistent. Except for the notoriously nonexistent carriage I don't know of any other discussions on nonexistence, but there is discussion of a reality being empty of a particular characteristic, in other words being without that characteristic. I think "anatta" falls into this category in the sense of a reality being without permanence or some other characteristic regarded as desirable. [Nibbana is a special case] There is also a bit of pointing out of errors. An error could be said to be a nonexistence but the Buddha doesn't make that point, to my knowledge. So, on the whole, I would say the concept/reality distinction isn't found in the suttas, but elements of it are found, i.e., 5 khandhas and nibbana as basic elements of reality, mental formations, analysis, experiential mindfulness, and emptiness and error. One other point, it seems that analysis is for the purpose of disenchantment. Abhidhamma is extensive analysis and whether or not it serves that purpose is an individual matter, imo. Larry ------------------------- Michael: ...my conclusion so far is that ultimate reality is something that truly and actually exists because it is a phenomena or an object that has its own and unique characteristics. Maybe another feature is that those phenomena or objects cannot be further reduced, like in the case of a being that can be reduced into khandhas, or we could say a being is made up of khandhas, but in the case of ultimate realities those are not subject to further reduction... Larry: Would you say that any sutta that talks about a khandha or describes a khandha is talking about ultimate realties in the sense you have described? Michael: "In contrast, conventional reality is something that really does not exist. It exists only in our imagination." Larry: Does talk of anatta qualify as "concept"? 29495 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert, Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't too clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is the concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as it involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in Vism., I meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say about it. However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later commentators. Larry 29496 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin: "When people suggest that one is to be aware of 'sitting posture', 'standing posture' and so on, she feels a need to remind them that there is no such *reality* as 'sitting posture' etc." Hi Sukin, Good to see you again. When you are sitting do you think there is no such reality as this sitting, or do you think the reality of this sitting is tangible data, or do you just experience tangible data, or do you look at the experience of tangible data? If you look at the experience of tangible data, what happens? Larry 29497 From: Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/30/04 10:12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > belongs > to self...." > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > ============================== Could you please indicate exactly where in the Alagadduupama Sutta this quoted material occurs. I've looked through the sutta as translated in the Middle Length Discourses, but I miss it. I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. 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) 29498 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:49pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the components > of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', > you might want to refer to > > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > > > Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five > aggregate. > > The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are > this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. I read the Sutta a few times at Access to Insight and still felt that it could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a collection of five aggregates. Nevertheless, the quotation, "when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta)" did seem a little strange. I then referred to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (hard cover only, not available on line) of the Samyutta Nikaya and found the following footnote against this quotation: This reply hinges upon a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent as Skt Sattva, "a being" and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached". In other words, I suggest that you may have misinterpreted this Sutta. Do you know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being is anything other than a collection of the five aggregates? Metta, Rob M :-) 29499 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: My interpretation of this portion of the Sutta is that once one > realizes that everything arises naturally because of conditions > (paccaya), there is no place for the concept of an "I". > > James: I believe that this is only part of the meaning. The other > part of the meaning is that anatta doesn't mean no existence, it > means conditional existence. Yup! I think you're right. Metta, Rob M :-) 29500 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 1/30/04 10:12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > > > > "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what > > belongs > > to self...." > > (Alagadduupama Sutta ) > > > ============================== > Could you please indicate exactly where in the Alagadduupama Sutta > this quoted material occurs. =============================================== Dear Howard, I think Rob. Eddison probably used the PTS edition . In Bhikkhu Bodhi's edition the same verse is translated "since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established........would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching" p232, first paragraph. RobertK 29501 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: That was the Cliffs Notes version!!! > > James: Okay, since this is the Cliffs Notes version, I will trudge > through it.;-)) I have inserted my comments on areas I want to > address: > > Rob: A fundamental principle of Buddhism is that everything arises > because of conditions; there is no God and no self to "decide" things. > > James: Conditionality doesn't suppose or disprove the existence of > a `God' and the Buddha never spoke to such a matter. The ultimate > existence or non-existence of a universal God is beyond the realm of > Buddhism. Also, even though the Buddha taught anatta, he didn't say > that there wasn't a self to `decide' things. This supposition is > also a contradiction in some later comments you make about `vows'. ===== You are correct that Buddhism does not deny the existence of Gods. The Buddha often referred to Devas (Gods) in the Suttas. The grammar of my sentence makes my point not clear. I am saying that decisions are not made by a "self" or by a "God"; decisions arise naturally because of conditions. After this, I will insert a new post on the subject of Free Will that will certainly stir things up a bit. ===== > > Rob: The Patthana, the seventh book of the Abhidhamma, explains > conditional relations; ways in which one thing can be a condition for > another. > > James: In conditionality, there can never be a time when ONE thing is > a condition for ONE other thing. The ties and the connections are so > vast and complex that it would be mind boggling to try to unravel > them, and I believe impossible. Imagine it as like a bowl of fish > hooks, pick one up and a whole mass of others come along with it. ===== You are correct that nothing is conditioned by one single thing. What the Patthana describes are the ways in which one thing can be a condition for another thing. In other words, the modes of conditioning. There may be hundreds of conditions arising to support the arising of something, but the ways in which these hundreds of condtions work is limited to 24 (according to the text). ===== > > Rob: - Sense-door adverting: this citta controls the flow of the citta > process and "decides" that a certain rupa will become the object of a > citta process. Each of the senses is constantly bombarded with > information; it is natural decisive support condition that "decides" > which data will be processed. > - Determining / mind door adverting: this citta controls the flow of > the citta process and "decides" which type of javana (kamma > producing) cittas will follow. Natural decisive support > condition "decides" if our thoughts will be kusala or akusala. > - Javana: these cittas create kamma. The weightiness of the kamma > produced depends on the strength of the volition (cetana). It is > natural decisive support that "decides" how strong the cetana will be > and therefore the weightiness of the resulting kamma. > - Jhana: The arising of the jhana citta depend on natural decisive > support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when we should > enter jhana. > - Path: The arising of the supramundane cittas depend on natural > decisive support condition. It is this condition that "decides" when > we are ready to become a Sotapanna (or higher). > > James: Nice and maybe helpful for some, but this isn't nearly the > entire picture. We can catalogue and describe all of the various > clouds in the sky, and how each one of them affects various weather > patterns, and when we are done we can feel really proud of how clever > and intelligent we are; but we really haven't done a thing. The > complexity of conditions is beyond our understanding. Might as well > do a rain dance and hope for rain! ;-) ===== You are absolutely correct. There could be a dozen or more modes of conditioning operating on hundreds of conditioned states. The purpose of the Patthana is not to try and unravel this, but to show that all the conditioning is arising naturally to help us appreciate intellectually that there is no "self" directing things. On a parallel note, in AN IV.77, the Buddha said that the precise workings of kamma were unknowable and would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Nevertheless, the Buddha still talked about kamma to illustrate that it was a natural force. ===== > > Rob: The popular saying that "people are creatures of habit" is true. > If we do metta meditation each morning, our mind naturally reacts with > metta throughout the day. If we feel drawn to the Dhamma, it is > probably because we studied the Dhamma in a past life and have > accumulations to study the Dhamma in this life as well. If we are > attracted to a person, it is probably because we have been associated > with them in a past life (Yasodhara was the wife of the Buddha in a > previous existence). If we have a "talent" in music or art, it is > probably because of experience in past lives. > > James: True. The influences of kamma are both vast and subtle. Do > you believe in serendipity? I do. ===== My dictionary defines serendipity as "the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident". I don't believe in accidents; everything arises because of conditions. However, in accordance with AN IV.77 quoted above, I don't believe that such things are knowable. Therefore to the partially blind eye (such as mine), things can arise which are conventionally described as "accidents". ===== > > Rob: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit made a > solemn vow that he would become a future Buddha. This solemn vow > influenced the Bodhisatta for countless lifetimes. Sariputta and > Moggallana were chief disciples of the Buddha and Ananda was the > attendant of the Buddha because they had made solemn vows in previous > lives that this was the role that they wanted to play. > > James: How could they make such vows if they have no self to decide? > You already said that there is no self that makes decisions; > everything is a result of conditioning, so it would no be possible > for each of these entities to make their various vows. This is a > contradiction. ===== There are vows without "vowers"; actions without actors; doing without "doers". Vowing, acting and doing are all conditions, either through natural decisive support mode of conditioning or asynchronous kamma mode of conditioning. My "Free Will" post will expand on this further. ===== > > Rob: We should look for opportunities to perform wholesome deeds. This > searching for and planning a wholesome deed is, in itself, a > wholesome deed. We should ensure that all wholesome deeds are done > with strong volition, mindfulness and clear intention. We should > review and rejoice in wholesome deeds performed and share the merits > of our actions. Each of these activities creates good kamma and good > accumulations; a condition to support the performing of more good > deeds in the future. > > James: Yes, performing wholesome deeds will condition the performing > of more wholesome deeds in the future. But, it seems to me that > some `decisions' have to be made somewhere in this process. ===== Lots of decisions... but no "decider". ===== > > Rob: We should understand the potential power of a solemn vow. To > increase the potency of the vow, it should be made when the mind is > clear and not troubled by restlessness. > > James: Wow! Now you are asking for a lot of decisions and control. > We have to understand the potential power of a vow, know when the > mind is not troubled, and then make the vow then. Who is making this > vow since there is no self to decide things? ===== I a suggesting a "law of nature"; that the vow will have more potency if the recent states of minds are calm and collected. ===== > > Rob: We are often deluded into believing in a "self that has control". > > James: Hmmm, I wonder why? ;-)) You have just stated that I can > control when I make or not make a solemn vow and you have also said > that I can choose wholesome actions. Just what are you saying? > > Rob: Imagine a pile of rough gravel with a ball placed at the top. > Gravity will cause the ball to fall and the laws of physics will > determine the path that the ball takes as it rolls down. The path > that the ball takes will be determined by many factors including the > most recent bounce and any gullies that there may be in the gravel > (i.e. accumulations). From this analogy, we can see: > - It is almost impossible to predict, with accuracy how the mind will > react (i.e. don't know for sure the path the ball may take) > - There is no self in control (i.e. the natural laws of physics / > natural decisive support condition is "in control") > > James: So people are just like balls rolling down a hill? No control > or ability to influence their course and at the complete mercy of > natural laws? Hmmm…I will ponder this next time I go bowling. Let's > hope someone doesn't throw me down the lane!! ;-)) ===== Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws of physics. Metta, Rob M :-) 29502 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Dear Larry, It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- nama. Then there is thinking about what was seen. It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. Robertk Hi Robert, > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't too > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is the > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as it > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in Vism., I > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say about it. > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > commentators. > > Larry 29503 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:34pm Subject: Free Will or Not Hi All, Our ancestors did not understand the world around them. Because they did not understand, they created external "Gods" that controlled the weather. These "Gods" could control the weather according to their whims and fancies. Today, we look back and smile at the naivete of our ancestors. Today, we understand that the weather operates according to impersonal laws of nature. Modern man does not understand the world within himself. Because we do not understand, we create an internal "God" called the "self" that controls the flow of our thoughts. We believe that this self can control the flow of our thoughts according to its whim and fancy. Perhaps some day, our descendants will look back and smile at our naivete because they understand that the internal world, the world of the mind, also operates according to impersonal laws of nature (If our descendants are able to rid themselves of self-view, then they will be quite close to enlightenment). The concept of self is deeply rooted within us. A recent book, "Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg and Dr. Eugene Aquili, reported research on how the brain functions. According to this book, information from the senses is routed to a portion of the brain called the "Orientation Association Area" (OAA). The function of the OAA is to put the incoming sensory data into context by overlaying an artificial sense of self. Brain scans show that the OAA is normally a very active part of the brain; there is lots of blood flow in this area of the brain. Experiments were done with a Franciscan nun and a Buddhist meditator of the Tibetan tradition. When the subjects reached deep stages of concentration, the blood flow to this portion of the brain was dramatically reduced. When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. Belief in freewill is a belief in self The doctrine of non-self (anatta) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's activities chooses a response. Why freewill does not make sense Think of the last time that you were confused about something (reading this article, perhaps?). Does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" to be confused at that moment? What about the last time you were restless... was there a "choice born of freewill" working at that moment? We all know that anger is one letter away from danger. Knowing that anger is bad and dangerous, does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" every time anger arises? Does it make sense that "choice born of freewill" only operates when there is a choice to do something good, but "freewill takes a vacation" whenever there is a choice to do something bad? How does choice work without freewill? According to Buddhism, all things except Nibbana are conditioned. This means that our actions arise because of conditions (not because of a self or freewill). What are the factors that direct choices? There are two: our current situation and our habits (our accumulations or mental tendencies). An idea or a sensory input arises in our mind and our mind reacts naturally according to it's habits. A mind that has a habit of metta will naturally react to situations with loving kindness. A mind that has a habit of greed will naturally react to situations with craving and clinging. What does this mean in daily life? The flow of our thoughts is directed by our habits; not by a supervisory self. If we can develop and nurture "good habits" in our daily life, our thoughts will be directed accordingly. Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". In his article, "Questions on Kamma", Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about the psychological effect of kamma, "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta in the mind. When a mind that has a habit of metta encounters a difficult situation, the habit of metta directs the mind to a positive response. Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Vipassana meditation develops the habit or perspective of right view, the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. Imagine that you are driving along and somebody cuts you off. You start to get angry, but then you remember the Dhamma and calm your mind. Was this freewill at work? No. Your past experience of studying the Dhamma created a mental tendency or habit in your mind. When the situation arose, your mental tendency caused the memory of the Dhamma to arise and this calmed your mind. Everything occurred because of an impersonal law of nature, without the need for a self and without the need for freewill. Does the denial of freewill mean that Buddhism is fatalistic or deterministic? In 1927, Werner Heisenberg wrote, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Heisenberg was one of the founders of modern physics and he was referring to the path of atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg was making the point that the classical view of an "objective observer" was wrong. We can say that the 'path of our life' does not exist until it is observed. The concepts of "fatalism" or "determinism" are rooted in the self-view that there is an objective observer. If our "subjective observer" perspective makes it impossible for us to determine the future, how can we say that the future is predetermined? Conclusion Belief in freewill is a belief in a self. The doctrine of anatta is incompatible with freewill. Understanding that choices arise naturally because of our habits is an important lesson. The Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126) that results are obtained through proper practice, not through aspiration. Strong aspiration without proper practice will never yield results. Proper practice, with or without strong aspiration, will always yield results. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post it again as it was relevant to some current threads. 29504 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:54pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > RobM: > So based on this, can we say that the Abhidhamma is the word of the > Buddha? Yes and no. There should be no conflicts between the content > of the Abhidhamma and the Suttas. However, the Abhidhamma and the > Suttas have a completely different style. > > Michael: > I have enjoyed reading again about the origins of the Abhidhamma. I like > this story. But your arguments do not help to clarify your original > affirmation which was: "I don't believe that the Buddha ever taught about > ultimate realities; my understanding is that paramattha dhammas are a > feature of the Abhidhamma, not of the Suttas." > > If the paramatha dhammas, i.e., ultimate realities, have not been taught by > the Buddha, and those are features of the Abhidhamma, ergo, the Abhidhamma > was not taught by the Buddha. I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by the Buddha. In line with the story, they were inspired by the Buddha and accepted by the Buddha. According to the story, the Buddha did teach the Abhidhamma (in Tavitisma heaven) and this is what led to the creation of the texts that we have. You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate realities is not explicity included as part of the original Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at a later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition, it is not the word of the Buddha. You can read more about this fascinating topic in Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma Theory - The Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Metta, Rob M :-) 29505 From: robmoult Date: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Regarding whether "ultimate dhammas" are taught in the suttas, it might > be an interesting exercise to draw up some criteria to make a test. > Certainly all the suttas an be interpreted abhidhammiclly; that is > basically what the ancient commentaries do. However, there is actually > very little discussion of the "concept/reality" distinction in Vism. or > the canonical abhidhamma texts (I think). > > Perhaps this ultimate/conventional distinction is sort of a > philosophical inevitability. It is certainly discussed extensively in > the mahayana. There, a sutta is deemed "ultimate" if emptiness and/or > the middle way between eternalism and nihilism is discussed. I don't > think this is what we in this group mean by "ultimate", but we could > discuss this. I think this group is actually doing original work on this > distinction which is only lightly touched-on in Vism. > > So the question is, what do we mean by "ultimate reality" and how would > we recognize it in the suttas? Or would it be better to ask what do we > mean by "concept"? Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Metta, Rob M :-) 29506 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:00am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can > contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any > time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any > dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might > take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is > accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object > (or any other dhamma that has arisen). ===== I agree that satipatthana can arise at any time and that it takes whatever dhamma arises as its object. I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, breath, cemetary, etc.). If followed ardently, samatha meditation can lead to jhana (if one has three roots and other conditions are present). Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); again if one has three roots and other conditions are present. In order to use the mind as an effective tool to penetrate the object, the mind must be tamed first and that is why many meditators start with samatha and/or alternate between samatha and vipassana practice. You mentioned many different approaches (bare vipassana, samatha then vipassana, etc.) and within the samatha approach, there are many different possible objects. It is true that the Buddha did not say that one approach was the easiest for EVERYBODY, but the Buddha did often assign specific meditation objects to monks based on His ability to penetrate their past lives. The Buddha based His decisions on the monks' accumulations and since everybody has different accumulations, there is no one easiest object for EVERYBODY. I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. Metta, Rob M :-) 29507 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > With metta - you old bag of khandhas (!), > > James: Old?? Who you calling old?? ;-)) From a perusal of the > member's photos, I may just be the youngest (non-lurking) bag of > khandhas on this list! ;-)) Only if you limit your counting to this existence! :-) 29508 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:31am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of > those in search of a place to be born. > Nice quote. Which sutta is it from? Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate realities depend on other things to arise. - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition. - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises based on contact - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence condition (among others). - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika). Metta, Rob M :-) 29509 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 0:36am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > The passage in my previous message is from > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.63 > Puttamansa Sutta > A Son's Flesh > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-063.html > Thanks, Rob M :-) 29510 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry and All, > Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma > Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.ht Okay, now its official, Ven. Karunadasa is now my guru!! ;-)) I would travel to Thailand or anywhere to meet and study with this bhikkhu!! The main points which I think are important: 1.Dhammas are not `things' with self-same characteristics which persist over time (and the Abhidhamma doesn't present them as such. Blame the Sarvastivadins for that one!). 2.Ultimate Truth and Conventional Truth are both valid and true and one is not superior to the other. 3.Beings are not `concept-ONLY', they do exist as the SUM TOTAL of the five clinging aggregates. I recommend that everyone read this artile. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Metta, James 29511 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Rob: Therefore to the partially blind eye (such as mine), things can arise which are conventionally described as "accidents". James: This is of course what I mean. The dictionary doesn't have a Buddhist slant, there are no accidents-only kamma, but I do believe in the value of serendipity if one pays careful attention to life's events and acts on those events from the heart. Rob: There are vows without "vowers"; actions without actors; doing without "doers". Vowing, acting and doing are all conditions, either through natural decisive support mode of conditioning or asynchronous kamma mode of conditioning. James: This is fine; no disagreements from me. Honestly, I don't think you or I really know what we are talking about when we make such statements…but it sure is effective to shut other people up!! ;- )) Rob: My "Free Will" post will expand on this further. James: I will take a look and maybe respond later. Officially, I don't believe in `free will', all decisions are made in the context of conditions. Conversely, I don't believe in `no control' either. I guess what I believe in can be described as `influence'. One cannot make wisdom occur spontaneously, but one can set up the conditions to `influence' it to occur. I liken it to growing a plant: one cannot force a seed to grow into a plant, at will, but one can set up the proper conditions to make it grow: good soil, water, sunlight, fertilizer, etc. Wisdom is the same way. This is why the Buddha said that proper companions are the whole of the holy life, because they are the right conditions. But a person can choose who to associate with and who not to associate with…that isn't beyond control. Rob: Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws of physics. James: Huh?? Now there is an ant on the ball! Is the ball still a person or is the ant now a person? You are mixing your metaphors and confusing me! ;-)) Metta, James Ps. What do you make of: Manomayiddhi: the ability to use the mind to influence events. ?? ;-)) 29512 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:38am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 05 ) Dear Dhamm Friends, When the meditator is dealing with feeling of different kinds, he is very attentive and fully conscious to any feeling and the practice is not that easy as in this writing but if being thoroughly taught and well trained it is a florishing possibility in Dhamma practice. The meditator has been practising for a long time and his concentration is not the same as it was because of his diligent effort in the practice and the concentration becomes more and more stabilized and well concentrated to the degree that any other unnecessary things cannot disturb him. With unperturbable concentration, the meditator is striving his meditation practice on feeling. He knows that he knows a feeling whenever it arises and he also knows its falling away whenever it disappears. Feeling are arising and falling away and this phenomena is quite apparent to him and to his mind-eye or wisdom. He knows when a pleasurable sense arises and he notes that it is a pleasurable sense and there is a feeling of pleasure. He also knows where the pleasurable sense arises and notes that the pleasure arises at that particular door as its source and also notes that the feeling passes away at the same sense-door. He well knows whenever a feeling arises and wherever it arises and he also knows whenever it vanishes and wherever it vanishes. The practitioner is also making a mental note on that he knows when a sense with unpleasant feeling arises as its arising and also notices when it vanishes. He has a good mental note on where the sense with unpleasant feeling arises and where it vanishes. He notes ' sense with unpleasant feeling arises' at this particular sense-door and when it vanishes he notes ' the sense with unpleasant feeling falls away' at that sense-door. The meditator is striving his practising of contemplating on feeling. There are feelings that are not pleasant or not unpleasant and he notices them as well in his noting mind. He makes a mental note when a sense with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling arises and also notes when it vanishes. He is conscious to that sense with neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling where it arises and where it vanishes that is at a particular sense-door. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling whenever it arises and vanishes and wherever it arises and vanishes. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo naing JourneyToNibbana htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 29513 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Rob " Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise. > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When at my first Abhidhamma readings, I´ve always asked myself the question: "IS Rupa matter ? Either as a separate external existence, out of our sense-doors, or a Dhamma itself ( Dhamma = Mano + Rupa as object of mind)inside our brains,May we take Rupa as meaning matter ?" Later on, with more readings an the chatting here at DSG with you, Nina, Mike and others, I´ve reached the conclusion above mentioned, that if Rupa aggregates are arisen by Kamma, Citta, Temperature and Nutrition, so inside a certain extension on these reasonings, Rupa and Matter could be taken as having out an equally foot. ------------------------------------------------------------------ " - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > based on contact > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > condition (among others). > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika)." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Right to the bone, Rob! I didn´t forgot my promise to you to give alms for charity under our names... my family for many years used to do it for certain charity organization (I won´t mention its name anyway...), but when I talked with my grandma about do it for such organization, she replied "Not that Wankers!!!" Don´t worry, Rob... I will do it for another one! I´ve read also your VERY GOOD essay about free will ... I have got some comments about it I intend to post here later on! Mettaya, Ícaro 29514 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:13am Subject: Re: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Dhamm Friends, He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. > I wanted to let you know that I am enjoying your series very much! And consider it to be of great benefit. You combine Pali and English in such a way as to make both intelligible and worthwhile. I wanted to share another writing, by Ajahn Lee, along the same lines of what you write about the importance of knowing the breath: "When your concentration has strength, it gives rise to discernment: the ability to see stress, its cause, its disbanding, and the Path to its disbanding, all clearly within the breath. We can explain this as follows: The in-and-out breath is stress -- the in-breath the stress of arising, the out-breath the stress of passing away. Not being aware of the breath as it goes in and out, not knowing the characteristics of the breath: This is the cause of stress. Knowing when the breath is coming in, knowing when it's going out, knowing its characteristics clearly -- i.e., keeping your views in line with the truth of the breath: This is Right View, part of the Noble Path. Knowing which ways of breathing are uncomfortable, knowing how to vary the breath; knowing, "That way of breathing is uncomfortable; we'll have to breathe like this in order to feel at ease": This is Right Consideration. The mental factors that think about and properly evaluate all aspects of the breath are Right Speech. Knowing various ways of improving the breath; breathing, for example, in long and out long, in short and out short, in short and out long, in long and out short, until you come across the breath that's most comfortable for you: This is Right Action. Knowing how to use the breath to purify the blood, how to let this purified blood nourish the heart muscles, how to adjust the breath so that it eases the body and soothes the mind, how to breathe so that you feel full and refreshed in body and mind: This is Right Livelihood. Trying to adjust the breath so that it comforts the body and mind, and to keep trying as long as you aren't fully at ease: This is Right Effort. Being mindful of the in- and-out breath at all times, knowing the various aspects of the breath -- the up-flowing breath, the down-flowing breath, the breath in the stomach, the breath in the intestines, the breath flowing along the muscles and out to every pore -- keeping track of these things with every in-and-out breath: This is Right Mindfulness. A mind intent only on matters of the breath, not pulling any other objects in to interfere, until the breath is refined, giving rise to fixed absorption and then liberating insight: This is Right Concentration. When all of these aspects of the Noble Path -- virtue, concentration, and discernment -- are brought together fully mature within the heart, you gain insight into all aspects of the breath, knowing that "Breathing this way gives rise to good mental states; breathing that way gives rise to bad mental states." You let go of the factors - - i.e., the breath in all its aspects -- that fashion the body, the factors that fashion speech, the factors that fashion the mind, whether good or bad, letting them be as they truly are, in line with their own inherent nature: This is the disbanding of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html Metta, James 29515 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:37am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post it again > as it was relevant to some current threads. I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" (you could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit those too ;-). Metta, James 29516 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Hi All, > > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post > it again > > as it was relevant to some current threads. > > I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe > some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" (you > could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit > those too ;-). > > Metta, James Oops typo...ancedotes is supposed to read 'anecdotes ('ancedotes' sounds kinda like antacids! ;-)) . 29517 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobertK, RobertK: What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). Michael: Those are different things. One thing is truth, another is language. Language is always a matter of convention anyway. Conventional truth in the commentaries actually has to do with truths not with language, truth in the commentaries are the khandhas. When the suttas refer to language conventions used in the world they point that language can refer to truths or not. And the truth in the suttas is not referred to as the khandhas. Examples of how language is viewed in the suttas can be found in the Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN 139) and in the Madhura Sutta (MN 84). RobertK: What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). Michael: Yes, and in the examples you gave the Buddha is referring to anatta, so he is saying that in truth and reality khandhas are not the self, but can you infer from this that khandhas are ultimate realities? I don’t see how. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29518 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:55am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, > I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in > which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, > etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self > or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually > there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm "Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be what belongs to my self? " "Yes, venerable sir." "Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be my self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity' . . . would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?" "What else could it be, venerable sir? It would be an utterly and completely foolish teaching." Regards, Swee Boon 29519 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:21am Subject: The Arahat Thus Gone Is Untraceable. Hi Group, http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmaa and with Pajaapati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say:] 'The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.' Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now. A deceased arahat is untraceable. Not even beings with the highest jhanic attainment could trace a deceased arahat. Even a living arahat could not trace a deceased arahat; if there were any, we would have suttas describing how the Buddha communicated with Sariputta and Mogollana right after their deaths; or Kassappa communicating with the deceased Buddha. Thus, anyone who says that he/she met or communicated with the Buddha while in meditation is in error. Regards, Swee Boon 29520 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:26am Subject: RE: [dsg] concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, Larry: The question is, do these views accurately represent the concept/reality distinction, and, are they found in any suttas? Michael: I don’t think the concept/reality distinction is found in the suttas. My basis for this conclusion is the Kaccayanagotta Sutta where the Buddha says that worldlings view the world based on an existence/non-existence dichotomy. The Buddha views the world as dependent origination. If the world is made up of conditioned and compounded phenomena it is impossible to have any sort of ultimate reality, and if there is no ultimate reality there is no concept either. So, this distinction between ultimate/conventional is just pure mental fabrication. Larry: I don't know of a sutta that talks about individually arising realities but there is a lot of discussion on breaking down an object of desire into parts which are seen as undesirable because of impermanence, foulness, etc. Michael: I see the breaking down into parts just as a practical device, or a skilful mean, to dispel the idea of a single, compact truly existing entity. I don’t see the breaking up into parts as pointing to some underlying substratum of reality. Larry: Furthermore, concept is said to be unconditioned, presumably because of being nonexistent. Except for the notoriously nonexistent carriage I don't know of any other discussions on nonexistence, but there is discussion of a reality being empty of a particular characteristic, in other words being without that characteristic. Michael: I don’t subscribe to that view. Concept as a mental formation is certainly conditioned. The carriage is assumed to be non-existent because the underlying parts are assumed to be existent, now if the underlying parts are also viewed as compounded phenomena then it doesn’t make sense to make this distinction between the parts and the whole, because the whole will be just a composition of parts and the parts will be just a composition of other parts, and so on. The reason why the Buddha focused on the khandhas is because the khandhas are the object of clinging, and the khandhas can be experienced by human beings. And this is expressed in the Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15). Larry: So, on the whole, I would say the concept/reality distinction isn't found in the suttas, but elements of it are found, i.e., 5 khandhas and nibbana as basic elements of reality, mental formations, analysis, experiential mindfulness, and emptiness and error. Michael: The elements are there but they are inferred incorrectly. Larry: One other point, it seems that analysis is for the purpose of disenchantment. Abhidhamma is extensive analysis and whether or not it serves that purpose is an individual matter, imo. Michael: Fully agree, the Abhidhamma can be a skilful mean, but viewing paramatha/paññatti is not a skilful mean. But I also agree that it is up to each individual. Metta Michael 29521 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Robert (and Victor) - In a message dated 1/31/04 1:18:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > I think Rob. Eddison probably used the PTS edition . In Bhikkhu > Bodhi's edition the same verse is translated "since a self and what > belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and > established........would it not be an utterly and completely foolish > teaching" p232, first paragraph. > RobertK > ======================== Ahh, yes. I did see that, and I realized that it was close. However (and unfortunately, in my opinion), to say that "... a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established ..." is not to explicitly deny the existence of me and mine - it falls short of that in two ways: 1) to "not be established" is weaker than to be nonexistent, unless one is an ontological pragmatist/evidentialist, and 2) the statement only asserts that self and what belongs to self are not *apprehended* as true and established, which again is a pragmatic/evidentiary matter, as opposed to a matter of experience-independent "truth". Now, as far as I'm concerned, this is really quite good enough. I agree with those who say that the Buddha was, ontologically, a pragmatist/evidentialist. He rarely is reported as saying that something does not exist, but rather that it is not evident or not seen. However, for those who require the explicit words, and Victor comes to mind, this terminology doesn't suffice. (I wonder what the list's Pali experts have to say about this.) 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) 29522 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate realities is not explicity included as part of the original Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at a later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition, it is not the word of the Buddha. Michael: Yes, I know that. I always said that my problem is with some of the commentaries, not with the Abhidhamma as such. Metta Michael 29523 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:42am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Howard, For the complete Alagagaddupama Suttam, why not see this page? http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6774/mn22.htm "Bhikkhus, if there were a self, would there be what belongs to a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Or if there what belongs to a self, would there be a self?" "Yes, venerable sir." "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongings to a self, in reality and truth, cannot be found, this fixed view, about the world and the self: 'That is the world, this is my self; I will be in the future, permanent, not changing, an eternal thing; that is me, I am that, that is my self.' - isn't it a completely foolish notion?" "What else could it be, venerable sir, it is a completely foolish notion." Regards, Swee Boon 29524 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:48am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, RobM: I see a being as a collection of five aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate realities depend on other things to arise Michael: In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something that exist based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some kind of essence. Is that what you mean? Metta Michael 29525 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken (and Rob) - In a message dated 1/30/04 2:20:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: "So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object. If you are seeing, then satipatthana might take the rupa, visible object, as its object, or, if seeing is accompanied by dosa, then satipatthana might take dosa as its object (or any other dhamma that has arisen)." =========================== Ken, you write "So my point is, the Buddha did not teach a method whereby a monk can contrive the right circumstances for satipatthana. It arises at any time, in any place, during normal, daily life and it takes any dhamma as its object." This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma (volition/action). Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of wisdom? Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where the Buddha suggested that. 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) 29526 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Thanks, Swee Boon! With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/31/04 10:00:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >I'm interested in this because it would seem to be a rare case in > >which the Buddha, in a sutta, not only says that form, feelings, > >etc are not self, but explicitly that there exists neither self > >or what pertains to self. Such an explicit statement, if actually > >there, is relevant to the "no self" versus "not self" debate. > > http://www.buddhadust.org/dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/snake_simile.htm > > "Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be what belongs to my self? > " > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be my self?" > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended > as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, 'This > is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent, > everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as > eternity' . . . would it not be an utterly and completely foolish > teaching?" > "What else could it be, venerable sir? It would be an utterly and > completely foolish teaching." > /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) 29527 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert, I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me. Color isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formed into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily as objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless. Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many moments (perhaps millions) all bunched together without a discernible "edge" of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formation exploding into my living room. I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept without language. Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself, an object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Dear Larry, > It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is > present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- > nama. > Then there is thinking about what was seen. > It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. > Robertk > > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't > too > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is > the > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly as > it > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about this. > > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in > Vism., I > > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say > about it. > > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > > commentators. > > > > Larry 29528 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/31/04 10:45:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > For the complete Alagagaddupama Suttam, why not see this page? > > http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6774/mn22.htm > > "Bhikkhus, if there were a self, would there be what belongs to a > self?" > > "Yes, venerable sir." > > "Or if there what belongs to a self, would there be a self?" > > "Yes, venerable sir." > > "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongings to a self, in > reality and truth, cannot be found, this fixed view, about the world > and the self: 'That is the world, this is my self; I will be in the > future, permanent, not changing, an eternal thing; that is me, I am > that, that is my self.' - isn't it a completely foolish notion?" > > "What else could it be, venerable sir, it is a completely foolish > notion." > > Regards, > Swee Boon > ========================== Again, I thank you. I do have the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation. Now,this version differs slightly, but it also "suffers" from the same problem of terminology. The statement "But, bhikkhus, since a self or that which belongs to a self, in reality and truth, cannot be found ..." is a pragmatic/evidentiary one, because of having "cannot be found" instead of "does not exist", and will, thus, be unconvincing to some that the Buddha asserted a "no self" position. 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) 29529 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:02pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Interested in your comment on Ven. Karunadasa's article, "The Dhamma > Theory - Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma". > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm Hi Rob, I thought it was a good comprehensive article. I disagreed with a few points and I'm sure the officially designated "abhidhammikas" would disagree with others. I especially liked the term "voharabheda": "a breach of convention resulting in a breakdown of meaningful communication". In other words, "why aren't you agreeing to my conventions???" Also, I'm not so sure abhidhamma accepts the 2 truths as being equally true, especially when discussing supramundane realities. Larry 29530 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:16pm Subject: Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? Larry 29531 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Okay, now its official, Ven. Karunadasa is now my guru!! ;-)) I would > travel to Thailand or anywhere to meet and study with this bhikkhu!! You might want to hold off on buying the airplane ticket... Ven. Karunadasa's major work is "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" (I think that it was his PhD thesis) and I know how much you love the subject of Rupa :-) If you are still interested, a few months ago, I met a Western monk who had studied under Ven. Karunadasa... I thought he said that it was in Sydney, but I believe that the Venerable is Sri Lankan. Metta, Rob M :-) 29532 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Larry, That is what the Buddha meant when he said that there is no beginning discernible in samsara. Metta Michael >From: "Larry" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:16:37 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point >however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is >interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the >interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, >otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? > >Larry > > > 29533 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:46pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob, Rob: You might want to hold off on buying the airplane ticket... Ven. Karunadasa's major work is "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" (I think that it was his PhD thesis) and I know how much you love the subject of Rupa :-) James: Well, I have distaste for DSG Rupa but I could probably handle Buddhist Rupa as presented by Ven. Karunadasa just fine!! ;-)). Rob: If you are still interested, a few months ago, I met a Western monk who had studied under Ven. Karunadasa... I thought he said that it was in Sydney, but I believe that the Venerable is Sri Lankan. James: Thanks for the information! I have now contacted a Sri Lankan monk I know who is a publisher with the BPS to hopefully give me information on how to contact Ven. Karunadasa. The fact that a Western monk studied under him is encouraging news indeed! I will see what happens. Thanks again! :-) Metta, James 29534 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/31/04 4:18:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your analysis. I mostly agreed. One sticking point > however, which you didn't explicitly discuss, if everything is > interdependent and there is no underlying reality, the > interdependence has to be an interdependence of *something*, > otherwise you get an infinite regress. How do you avoid that? > > Larry > ============================= This sounds like the search for an anchor! But there is no anchor - nothing to hold onto - nothing that can be pinned down or held in place. So, the only thing to do is ... let go! And that is where freedom is, in the letting go. 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) 29535 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:11pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael & Howard, Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? Larry 29536 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, In a post to Andrew and me, you were explaining your understanding of concepts: ---------------- Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, just as are feelings, intentions, emotions,etc, ------------------------------ (!!!) By "paramatthic" do you mean they are paramattha dhammas? -------------------------------- H: > but they have sankharic constructive operations among the phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the thought being the object. ------------------------------ So, you are saying; a certain type of paramattha dhamma is being experienced and, you are saying, the function of this paramattha dhamma is to point to something that isn't there. That is not the Abhidhamma model is it? According to the Abhidhamma, when citta has a concept as object, there is no actual object: citta is hallucinating (or, to put it more kindly; thinking, or imagining, there is an object). It is experiencing something that doesn't exist; it is not experiencing something that does exist and that appears to be something else. -------------------------------- H: > It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. ----------------------------------- Wait a minute, Howard; this is the same old `thought-dhamma' you trotted out twelve months ago! :-) I really couldn't see the need for it then, and I still can't. What authority is there for adding a new dhamma into the equation? What purpose is served by doing so? Kind regards, Ken H 29537 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:47pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Thanks for your dissertation on free will. Unfortunately, most of my comments are on the bits I don't entirely agree with (so I'm going to sound negative -- again). Suffice it to say that I do like the rest of it. :-) ------------------ RM: > When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. ---------------------- Back in the 1960's people like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Das thought LSD could fix the same hardwiring problem. However, they agreed that the meditation practices of their Indian gurus did the same thing without drugs. I say, why bother with meditation? If it is a simple matter of re-wiring, then take the drugs and have done with it! I might add that right understanding can never be accomplished by either method. ------------------------ RM: > Belief in freewill is a belief in self ------------------------ I agree; and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At least anatta is real.) ---------------- RM: > Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". -------------------- I think the practice you proceed to describe is purely conventional (not ultimately real). As a boy, I was a keen surfer but I was not as `naturally good at it' as some other kids were. After considerable practice, in the intervening forty years (almost), I am reasonably good (although my knees aren't quite up to it). But what has changed in ultimate reality? What qualities have been accumulated through this practice? I suspect that, the next time I am born as a human being, I will be just as lacking in natural surfing ability as I was this time around. ----------- RM: > That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. ------------ I would have thought it was of this `present' action (or choice). Am I being pedantic? ---------------- . . . RM: > Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta in the mind. ------------------ You bet it does! And I wish it were as simple as you make it sound. But where is the self, the free will, that can say, "Let there be metta?" When I sit down and `radiate metta,' there is pleasant feeling (usually) and lots of conceit, but is there any metta? No – because my actions are motivated by subtle wrong view (of a controlling self) and by attachment and by other, unwholesome, worldling-like, notions. As you say, this can create a habit; but I would say, not a good habit. ---------------- RM: > Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. --------------- By `vipassana meditation,' you don't mean satipatthana do you? You mean a practice that leads up to satipatthana. I would say; when there is a moment of kusala consciousness that hears Dhamma, considers Dhamma or speaks Dhamma then there is a practice that leads up to satipatthana (the practice of Dhamma). If we could decree, "Let there be vipassana practice," then there would be free will: there would be a `supervising self' and the world would be totally different from the way the Buddha described it. (And the way you described it; except for the bits I disagreed with:-) ) Kind regards, Ken H 29538 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Rob: Imagine the perspective of an ant living on that ball as it rolls > down the pile of gravel. From the ant's perspective, the motion of > his world seems to be without meaning. In reality, from the ant's > perspective, the motion of his world is an unknowable. The ant may > create the concept of a God controlling the motion of his world. In > reality, the motion of his world works according to impersonal laws > of physics. > > James: Huh?? Now there is an ant on the ball! Is the ball still a > person or is the ant now a person? You are mixing your metaphors and > confusing me! ;-)) ===== Sorry for mixing metaphors! Whichever works for you is okay! ===== > What do you make of: Manomayiddhi: the ability to use the mind > to influence events. ?? ;-)) Don't know anything about it. Sounds interesting... Metta, Rob M :-) 29539 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:27pm Subject: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear All Today is our last day in Bangkok. Sarah and I are having a quiet morning, recovering from the abundances (but not excesses) of good company and discussion. Yesterday (Saturday) we caught up with another long-lost friend from early Bangkok days, Peter (Swan) and his wife Marasee. Peter was very interested in dhamma many years ago. He joined us and others at breakfast. It would be nice to see him back at the discussions or on the list here sometime. Yesterday afternoon's discussion was about the importance of right understanding and detachment from the outset (rather than as something to be aimed for), including at times of dana and sila. Sarah and I have very much enjoyed the discussion on the list while we have been away. In fact, so good is it that Sarah thinks we should go away more often! Our thanks to everyone (and keep it up!). Jon 29540 From: robmoult Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:39pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Icaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > " Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even > ultimate > > realities depend on other things to arise. > > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > When at my first Abhidhamma readings, I´ve always asked myself the > question: "IS Rupa matter ? Either as a separate external existence, > out of our sense-doors, or a Dhamma itself ( Dhamma = Mano + Rupa as > object of mind)inside our brains,May we take Rupa as meaning matter ?" > Later on, with more readings an the chatting here at DSG with you, > Nina, Mike and others, I´ve reached the conclusion above mentioned, > that if Rupa aggregates are arisen by Kamma, Citta, Temperature and > Nutrition, so inside a certain extension on these reasonings, Rupa > and Matter could be taken as having out an equally foot. ===== Rupa tends to be a somewhat controversial topic on DSG :-) We've now got ongoing threads on three other controversial topics; ultimate realities, free will and the value of meditation. Not sure that we are ready to start another topic :-) :-) ===== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > " - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > > based on contact > > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > > condition (among others). > > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, > consciousness > > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika)." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > Right to the bone, Rob! > I didn´t forgot my promise to you to give alms for charity under > our names... my family for many years used to do it for certain > charity organization (I won´t mention its name anyway...), but when I > talked with my grandma about do it for such organization, she > replied "Not that Wankers!!!" > Don´t worry, Rob... I will do it for another one! ===== Which charity does not matter to me. Perhaps you could ask your grandma to recommend one (then we get the added bonus of making her happy). ===== > I´ve read also your VERY GOOD essay about free will ... I have got > some comments about it I intend to post here later on! ===== Looking forward to them! Metta, Rob M :-) 29541 From: Andrew Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 8:44pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Dear RobM and KenH Thanks for your essay, Rob, and KenH for his comments. I personally don't think that any any work on Free Will is complete until it deals with the 3 mundane viratis defined by Nyanatiloka as "not simply ... the non-occurrence of the evil things in question, but the deliberate abstaining therefrom, whenever occasion arises ..." To people new to the Dhamma, these words carry a heavy connotation of choice and free will, both of which I agree are illusory. I often fall into the way of thinking that - okay, choice born of free will doesn't exist; conditionality rules. But there can be an intentional injection of a condition or conditions into the equation (by, for example, deliberate abstention from Wrong Livelihood) and this will influence what arises - although in a way that is completely unpredictable by the worldling. On the Abhidhamma view, it seems to me that a moment of mundane virati is likely to be surrounded by many moments of akusala (conceit etc) as I congratulate "myself" for having "chosen well" and "done the right thing" and maybe even expecting good things to flow therefrom and looking out for them and so on ad nauseum. Perhaps this is why it is often said that Right Understanding comes first? Things flow naturally from that. I hope these comments have been of assistance. Best wishes Andrew KenH: I agree; and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be > like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world > we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At > least anatta is real.) A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would the world be like if there were a self? 29542 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/31/04 8:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Michael &Howard, > > Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite > regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If > you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that > something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? > Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality > to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no > illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? > > Larry > ========================= I wasn't talking about beginningless time. I was talking about complete emptiness and ungroundedness, and that, as far as I'm concerned, *is* what "reality" is. I do *not* say that "reality is made of something". Anyway, I think that we can think and philosophize forever without getting even the slightest glimpse of what is actually what. I don't think it does us any good to "figure out" intellectually what is supposedly real. We have to *see* it, directly. Then we'll know - though we won't be able to talk about it adequately to anyone who hasn't also seen it directly. And illusion isn't a matter of saying the wrong things or accepting wrong positions - it is a fundamental miss-seeing of the way things are, a fundamental distortion of perception, and short of arahanthood, we are all under the sway of illusion. 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) 29543 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/31/04 9:37:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > In a post to Andrew and me, you were explaining your understanding > of concepts: > ---------------- > > Thus, concepts/ideas/thoughts are paramatthic, mind-door objects, > just as are feelings, intentions, emotions,etc, > ------------------------------ > > (!!!) By "paramatthic" do you mean they are paramattha dhammas? > > -------------------------------- > H: >but they have sankharic constructive operations among the > phenomena conditioning their arising, and, most importantly, when it > is a thought that is mind-object, there *seems* to be something else > *pointed to* by that thought that is the object instead of the > thought being the object. > ------------------------------ > > So, you are saying; a certain type of paramattha dhamma is being > experienced and, you are saying, the function of this paramattha > dhamma is to point to something that isn't there. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Basically, yes. Our ideas are elements of experience that seem to point to actually existent things, but, in fact, do not. When we seem to see a tree, the experience actually is of the occurrence a specific idea-event arisen in the mind and constructed from the general idea of "tree" and a number of visual perceptions by sankharic operations, and not of an actual tree, but it *seems* that we see a tree. It is actually the idea-event that is the phenomenon experienced, but it doesn't seem so. -------------------------------------------------------- > > That is not the Abhidhamma model is it? According to the > Abhidhamma, when citta has a concept as object, there is no actual > object: citta is hallucinating (or, to put it more kindly; thinking, > or imagining, there is an object). > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Since when is objectless consciousness countenanced by Abhidhamma? There is no experience that is not the experience of something. -------------------------------------------------- It is experiencing something > > that doesn't exist; it is not experiencing something that does exist > and that appears to be something else. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. There is no experiencing of something that does not exist. If "it" does not exist, there is no experiencing it. -------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > H: >It is the thought that is mind-door object, but it *seems*, > instead, that there is a specific tree that is eye-door object. > ----------------------------------- > > Wait a minute, Howard; this is the same old `thought-dhamma' you > trotted out twelve months ago! :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hah! An argument in favor of eternalism? ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- > > I really couldn't see the need for it then, and I still can't. > What authority is there for adding a new dhamma into the equation? > What purpose is served by doing so? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Larry, you may believe that we don't experience ideas, but I find such a position silly. We experience ideas all the time. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================ 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) 29544 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/1/04 12:29:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > Howard: > Larry, you may believe that we don't experience ideas, but I find such > a position silly. We experience ideas all the time. > ========================= Whoops! Sorry about that, Ken!! ;-)) With metta, Howard (er, I *think* I mean 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) 29545 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Howard: "I wasn't talking about beginningless time. I was talking about complete emptiness and ungroundedness, and that, as far as I'm concerned, *is* what "reality" is. I do *not* say that "reality is made of something"." Hi Howard, Sorry for misrepresenting you. You are quite right. You were talking about nothing to hold on to; I was talking about an infinite regress, and Michael was talking about beginningless time. So what does "complete emptiness" mean? If reality is not "made of something" is it unconditioned? Larry 29546 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:13pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Rob M, I do not know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being is a collection of the five aggregates or anything other than it. I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. How did I misinterpreted the Satta Sutta, if I did interpret it in the first place? On the other hand, you felt that the discourse could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a collection of the five aggregates. Let me ask you the following: 1. In the Satta Sutta, did the Buddha say that a being is made up of the five aggregates? 2. Did the Buddha say in the discourse that a being is a concept, referring to a collection of five aggregates? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > The Buddha did not teach that the five aggregates are the > components > > of a being. Regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being', > > you might want to refer to > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > > Satta Sutta > > A Being > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > > be 'a being (satta).' > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > > perception... fabrications... > > > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > > being.' > > > > > > Note that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the > five > > aggregate. > > > > The idea that you are composed of the five aggregates, that you are > > this composition is the very self-identity view to be abandoned. > > I read the Sutta a few times at Access to Insight and still felt that > it could be interpreted that a being is a concept referring to a > collection of five aggregates. Nevertheless, the quotation, "when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta)" did seem a little strange. > > I then referred to Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (hard cover only, not > available on line) of the Samyutta Nikaya and found the following > footnote against this quotation: > > This reply hinges upon a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent as > Skt Sattva, "a being" and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt > sakta), "attached". > > In other words, I suggest that you may have misinterpreted this > Sutta. Do you know of any examples where the Buddha says that a being > is anything other than a collection of the five aggregates? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 29547 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M, I suggest you give up that interpretation. It is a result of your self-identity view that you are a collection of five aggregagates. Abandon that self-identity view. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > For those who assert that there is no being, whether in "ultimate > > sense" or not, you might want to consider if the Buddha ever made > > that assertion, and how that assertion is in accord to the Dhamma > > that the Buddha taught as in the following passage: > > > > > > At Savatthi... "There are these four nutriments for the maintenance > > of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in > > search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or > > refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, > > and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the > > maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support > of > > those in search of a place to be born. > > > > Nice quote. Which sutta is it from? > > Here is my interpretation. I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise. > - Rupa aggregate: according to the Abhidhamma, the rupa aggregate > arises based on kamma (intellectual intention), citta > (consciousness), temperature (not mentioned above) and nutrition. > - Feeling aggregate: according to paticcasamuppada, feeling arises > based on contact > - Perception aggregate: according to the paccaya, contact supports > all cetasikas (including sanna) through nutriment condition. > Perception is also dependent on consciousness through conascence > condition (among others). > - Sankhara aggregate: same as perception > - Vinnana aggregate: according to the paticcasamuppada, consciousness > arises dependent on kammic formation, which according to Abhidhamma > analysis is intellectual intention (cetana cetasika). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 29548 From: Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 1:02:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry for misrepresenting you. You are quite right. You were talking > about nothing to hold on to; I was talking about an infinite regress, > and Michael was talking about beginningless time. So what does "complete > emptiness" mean? If reality is not "made of something" is it > unconditioned? > > Larry > =========================== Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what reality might "be". I don't think it is even expressible. My words "complete emptiness and ungroundedness" are a completely inadequate pointing at something I've had at best the slightest glimpse of "through the corner of my eye", and I may well be mistaken in thinking that I really even had a glimpse! The Buddha never talked about what "reality" is, and he saw it fully and perfectly. Aren't we a bit silly to attempt to come up with conventional designations of what is beyond convention, and which we have never truly experienced? 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) 29549 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Larry, Before trying to separate anything; what is present? These dhammas can be discerned (so the texts say)- but not by someone - by panna. Panna arises and passes away just as quickly as seeing - and so panna can come in and discern what is nama and what is rupa. Thinking about dhammas cannot remove doubt - but thinking (the process) can be known as it occurs. RobK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'm not following you here. This all looks like concept to me. Color > isn't just one color; it's millions of colors, all mentally formed > into discrete groups. Nama isn't just consciousness; there is a > committee of cetasikas working behind the scenes, not necessarily as > objects of consciousness, but making a contribution nevertheless. > Even the euphemism of "the present moment" is actually many moments > (perhaps millions) all bunched together without a discernible "edge" > of birth and death. This is one gigantic mental formation exploding > into my living room. > > I agree language isn't necessary. That was my point: concept without > language. > > Incidentally, one problem I didn't discuss: if we analytically > separate the color from the cetasikas, is this color, by itself, an > object of desire? If not, what happened to the upadanakkhandhas? > > Larry > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Dear Larry, > > It becomes clearer by seeing it in the present moment. What is > > present right at this instant? There is color - rupa, and seeing- > > nama. > > Then there is thinking about what was seen. > > It is so direct to comprehend this and then all our doubts become > > resolved. No need for language or thinking in words to have this > > occur. So I think no new ground here, larry. > > Robertk > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > Thanks for all this info on pannatti. Very interesting. I wasn't > > too > > > clear on my point in the original post. What I'm interested in is > > the > > > concept/reality distinction as a tool of analysis. Particularly > as > > it > > > involves mental formations. It seems that most of the time mental > > > formations are not language based, but I could be wrong about > this. > > > Anyway, this is what I consider to be "new ground". > > > > > > As regards the scarcity of discussion on this distinction in > > Vism., I > > > meant to say that Buddhaghosa himself didn't have much to say > > about it. > > > However, as you say, there was a little more discussion by later > > > commentators. > > > > > > Larry 29550 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:49am Subject: Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear Jon and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dear All > Sarah and I have very much enjoyed the discussion on the list while > we have been away. In fact, so good is it that Sarah thinks we > should go away more often! Our thanks to everyone (and keep it up!). > > Jon Yes, I also believe it has been a very worthwhile discussion (at least for me). However, I think your being gone is just a coincidence! ;-)) There are also worthwhile discussions when you are here. Anyway, thanks for the updates on your trip. They have been interesting and very considerate of you. Have a safe journey home! Metta, James 29551 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:56am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, You wrote: ------------------------------- H: > This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma (volition/action). --------------------------------- There is no control over dhammas. As the sutta says, if dhammas were self, it would be possible to say, let my body be thus; let my feelings . . . perception . . volitions . . . consciousness be thus. But there is no self and so there is no control over dhammas. --------------------------------- H: > Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of wisdom? -------------------------------- Attempts at control would be deliberate rejections of the Buddha's teaching, would they not? There can be no mental cultivation with wrong view. --------------------------------- H: > Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? --------------------------------- No. According to the texts, there has to be studying, thinking, discussing AND directly understanding what has been learnt (that is, directly understanding that namas and rupas are anicca, dukkha and anatta). ------------------------------- H: > If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where the Buddha suggested that. ------------------- N/a :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29552 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Rob M, Your concluding paragraph reads: ------------------------- I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. -------------------------- I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I hope that doesn't sound rude.) -------------------------- RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, breath, cemetary, etc.). ------------------------- This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a concept). ------------------------ RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. -------------- Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. -------------- RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); ------------------------- Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; except that the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29553 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:31am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Dear Ken and Rob, I'm tending to agree with Ken on this one, but don't think I could elaborate if asked, maybe just tired from a busy day in ED. And I am confused by your final statement Ken..... In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Your concluding paragraph reads: > ------------------------- > I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or > Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too > much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. > -------------------------- > > I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have > some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree > that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I > hope that doesn't sound rude.) > > -------------------------- > RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, > breath, cemetary, etc.). > ------------------------- > > This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology > confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of > a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right > thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. > It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any > other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but > even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a > concept). > > ------------------------ > RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way > of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. > -------------- > > Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be > beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably > informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. > > -------------- > RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, > dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, > vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); > ------------------------- > > Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those > terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) > azita: I understand them to be the same too, or a least similar, but I don't understand what you mean by '...the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness...'. I might be totally wrong here, but I understand that satipatthana only arises when wisdom has developed to the degree that knows nama from rupa. Now I don't know how to describe vipassana! > Kind regards, > Ken H patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29554 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:34am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, Victor: I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. James: Yes and no. Actually, he said that a being is made up of the five `clinging' aggregates. The aggregates just on their own, or even together, don't make a being; however, when there is clinging to the five aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and consciousness, then there is a being: "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html The important thing to consider is that desire, passion, delight, and craving for the five aggregates is makes a being. Therefore, it is the craving mind that makes a being, not the aggregates themselves. The craving mind is what pulls the aggregates together. In this sutta, the Buddha even draws the analogy of a `being' being like a sand castle built by children. When they delight in it and play in it, the being is present. When they grow tired of it and no longer delight in it, and smash it, the being is gone. Of course this supposes an interesting metaphysical question as to who the `children' are supposed to represent, but I don't think that is important to consider too deeply. Maybe this metaphor shouldn't be taken that literally. I think it is important to realize that the five aggregates are not really `parts' of a being, but simply a method of analysis created by the Buddha for the purpose of release. The five aggregates are an ever-constant process and they cannot be separated from each other, therefore they are not `parts'. (I know there is that `chariot' metaphor, with its parts, but I don't believe it is to be taken literally…if it was, the Buddha would have used such a description, but he didn't). The important thing is to understand that it is the clinging mind that creates a being and thus creates suffering. Metta, James 29555 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 4:50am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken, Rob, Azita, and All, Just a quick explanation of meditation terms: Satipatthana is an umbrella term, meaning Foundations of Mindfulness, which includes the more specific methods of Vipassana, Anapanasati, and Sati. Samatha is an umbrella term, meaning calmness, which includes the more specific method of Jhana. Samatha (Calmness) alone cannot lead to insight wisdom but Satipatthana (Foundations of Mindfulness) without calmness as a conditioning factor CAN be either too weak or mentally disturbing to lead to insight wisdom. Just to define some Pali terms related to meditation: vipassana: Clear intuitive insight into physical and mental phenomena as they arise and disappear, seeing them for what they actually are -- in and of themselves -- in terms of the three characteristics (see ti-lakkhana) and in terms of stress, its origin, its disbanding, and the way leading to its disbanding (see ariya-sacca). jhana (Skt. dhyana): Mental absorption. A state of strong concentration focused on a single physical sensation (resulting in rupa jhana) or mental notion (resulting in arupa jhana). Development of jhana arises from the temporary suspension of the five hindrances (see nivarana) through the development of five mental factors: vitakka (directed thought), vicara (evaluation), piti (rapture), sukha (pleasure), and ekaggatarammana (singleness of preoccupation). satipatthana: Foundation of mindfulness; frame of reference -- body, feelings, mind, and mental events, viewed in and of themselves as they occur. anapanasati: Mindfulness of breathing. A meditation practice in which one maintains one's attention and mindfulness on the sensations of breathing. samadhi: Concentration; the practice of centering the mind in a single sensation or preoccupation. sati: Mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention. In some contexts, the word sati when used alone covers alertness (sampajañña) as well. vitakka: Directed thought. In meditation, vitakka is the mental factor by which one's attention is applied to the chosen meditation object. Vitakka and its companion factor vicara reach full maturity upon the development of the first level of jhana. piti: Rapture; bliss; delight. In meditation, a pleasurable quality in the mind that reaches full maturity upon the development of the second level of jhana. sukha: Pleasure; ease; satisfaction. In meditation, a mental quality that reaches full maturity upon the development of the third level of jhana. ekaggatarammana: Singleness of preoccupation; "one-pointedness." In meditation, the mental quality that allows one's attention to remain collected and focused on the chosen meditation object. Ekaggatarammana reaches full maturity upon the development of the fourth level of jhana. bhavana: Mental cultivation or development; meditation. The third of the three grounds for meritorious action. cankama: Walking meditation, usually in the form of walking back and forth along a prescribed path. nimitta: Mental sign, image, or vision that may arise in meditation. Uggaha nimitta refers to any image that arises spontaneously in the course of meditation. Paribhaga nimitta refers to an image that has been subjected to mental manipulation. nivarana: Hindrances to concentration -- sensual desire, ill will, sloth & drowsiness, restlessness & anxiety, and uncertainty. abhiñña: Intuitive powers that come from the practice of concentration: the ability to display psychic powers, clairvoyance, clairaudience, the ability to know the thoughts of others, recollection of past lifetimes, and the knowledge which does away with mental effluents. arammana: Preoccupation; mental object. tapas: The purifying "heat" of meditative practice. samvega: The oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of life as it's normally lived; a chastening sense of one's own complacency and foolishness in having let oneself live so blindly; and an anxious sense of urgency in trying to find a way out of the meaningless cycle. vipassanupakkilesa: Corruption of insight; intense experiences that can happen in the course of meditation and can lead one to believe that one has completed the path. The standard list includes ten: light, psychic knowledge, rapture, serenity, pleasure, extreme conviction, excessive effort, obsession, indifference, and contentment. asubha: Unattractiveness, loathsomeness, foulness. The Buddha recommends contemplation of this aspect of the body as an antidote to lust and complacency. kayagata-sati: Mindfulness immersed in the body. This is a blanket term covering several meditation themes: keeping the breath in mind; being mindful of the body's posture; being mindful of one's activities; analyzing the body into its parts; analyzing the body into its physical properties (see dhatu); contemplating the fact that the body is inevitably subject to death and disintegration. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html Metta, James 29556 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M > I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by > the Buddha. k: ???? You are the first person I know who practise Abdhidhamma and said that it is not taught by the Buddha, could you tell me who other than Buddha who can teach the 24 paccaya. Let me inform you, even Ven Sariputa also cannot do that without Buddha teaching him. kind regards Ken O 29557 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:03am Subject: Re: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 04 ) Dear James, Thanks for your response to my post. Yes. When I read the message you re-stated I feel the writing style is a bit similar but not the content. I have already responded it at dhamma-list. And you replied that again. I do not have any more thing to say on the matter. we all are our master. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing > wrote: > > Dear Dhamm Friends, > He is sitting and concentrating on his breath. It touches. > There is a feeling that arises with cold incoming breath touching at > his nostrils. And he notes that feeling arises. There is a feeling > that arises along with touching of warm outgoing breath air and he > notes that feeling. He also notes that there are gaps in between > breaths and he notices that he is noting that gap while equanimous > feeling arises and sometimes joyous feeling arises. > > > > > I wanted to let you know that I am enjoying your series very much! > And consider it to be of great benefit. You combine Pali and English > in such a way as to make both intelligible and worthwhile. I wanted > to share another writing, by Ajahn Lee, along the same lines of what > you write about the importance of knowing the breath: > > "When your concentration has strength, it gives rise to discernment: > the ability to see stress, its cause, its disbanding, and the Path to > its disbanding, all clearly within the breath. We can explain this as > follows: The in-and-out breath is stress -- the in-breath the stress > of arising, the out-breath the stress of passing away. Not being > aware of the breath as it goes in and out, not knowing the > characteristics of the breath: This is the cause of stress. Knowing > when the breath is coming in, knowing when it's going out, knowing > its characteristics clearly -- i.e., keeping your views in line with > the truth of the breath: This is Right View, part of the Noble Path. > Knowing which ways of breathing are uncomfortable, knowing how to > vary the breath; knowing, "That way of breathing is uncomfortable; > we'll have to breathe like this in order to feel at ease": This is > Right Consideration. The mental factors that think about and properly > evaluate all aspects of the breath are Right Speech. Knowing various > ways of improving the breath; breathing, for example, in long and out > long, in short and out short, in short and out long, in long and out > short, until you come across the breath that's most comfortable for > you: This is Right Action. Knowing how to use the breath to purify > the blood, how to let this purified blood nourish the heart muscles, > how to adjust the breath so that it eases the body and soothes the > mind, how to breathe so that you feel full and refreshed in body and > mind: This is Right Livelihood. Trying to adjust the breath so that > it comforts the body and mind, and to keep trying as long as you > aren't fully at ease: This is Right Effort. Being mindful of the in- > and-out breath at all times, knowing the various aspects of the > breath -- the up-flowing breath, the down-flowing breath, the breath > in the stomach, the breath in the intestines, the breath flowing > along the muscles and out to every pore -- keeping track of these > things with every in-and-out breath: This is Right Mindfulness. A > mind intent only on matters of the breath, not pulling any other > objects in to interfere, until the breath is refined, giving rise to > fixed absorption and then liberating insight: This is Right > Concentration. > When all of these aspects of the Noble Path -- virtue, concentration, > and discernment -- are brought together fully mature within the > heart, you gain insight into all aspects of the breath, knowing > that "Breathing this way gives rise to good mental states; breathing > that way gives rise to bad mental states." You let go of the factors - > - i.e., the breath in all its aspects -- that fashion the body, the > factors that fashion speech, the factors that fashion the mind, > whether good or bad, letting them be as they truly are, in line with > their own inherent nature: This is the disbanding of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html > > Metta, James 29558 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:13am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael > Michael: > Dictionary.com defines ‘inherent’ as: > Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. > Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or > connected; > naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable. K: I prefer the essential consitituent or characterisitics :). It is up to you to choose also. No one can stop you from doing that neither is there anyone has the power to choose ;-) Till I am back in Singapore, we will have the discussion again on this issue Best wishes Ken O 29559 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi RobM Did you read the visudd about preparation of Samatha meditation, there should be right conditions, one must be of restraint (do not have the details yet as the book is not with me presently), there must be a good monastary (avioding 16 or 18 faults of a monastary) etc.. One can reach jhana anytime but what kind of jhana are we talking about, is it about those that is used by brahims where Buddha learn from in the first place or those who Buddha taught that jhanas must accompany by panna. One cannot develop panna, by thinking that by there is a conept of I or self must do this or that - bc that lead to an attachment to a self. Can one say let my thoughts be thus and let my thoughts not be thus - if you can - I will learn from you instead. When an object is an earth kasina - it what meant as undersing the reality of earth as paramattha dhamma and from there reaching insight and not talking earth as an concept. When one able to understand earth as paramatha dhamma, the panna is highly developed and not one that is still attached to concepts. best wishes Ken O 29560 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 7:36am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael No that is not a good comparision, you are talking about origination and one that is about khandhas. There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism. best wishes Ken O --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Larry, > > That is what the Buddha meant when he said that there is no > beginning > discernible in samsara. > > Metta > Michael > > 29561 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - I was going to let this post remain without further comment. But I've thought better of that, on the chance that you might wish to clarify or add to what you say below. I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong view without giving evidence for same, and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a straw-man. When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. My questions, in their bare form can be restated as follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent of kamma? 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by-moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence of a path of practice.] I would be happy to read whatever more you would care to add on this topic. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/1/04 5:59:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: > ------------------------------- > H: >This seems to be saying that there are no actions to be taken > that will serve as conditions for the arising of insight. It seems > that you are saying that insight arises or not independent of kamma > (volition/action). > --------------------------------- > > There is no control over dhammas. As the sutta says, if dhammas > were self, it would be possible to say, let my body be thus; let my > feelings . . . perception . . volitions . . . consciousness be thus. > But there is no self and so there is no control over dhammas. > > --------------------------------- > H: >Is that your meaning, Ken, that attempts at cultivation of sila > and meditative cultivation, are, according to the teachings of the > Buddha, irrelevant and futile, and have no bearing on the arising of > wisdom? > > -------------------------------- > > Attempts at control would be deliberate rejections of the Buddha's > teaching, would they not? There can be no mental cultivation with > wrong view. > > --------------------------------- > H: >Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha > consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? > --------------------------------- > > No. According to the texts, there has to be studying, thinking, > discussing AND directly understanding what has been learnt (that is, > directly understanding that namas and rupas are anicca, dukkha and > anatta). > > ------------------------------- > H: >If your answer to this is "yes", and it is indeed your > contention that studying is the whole of the practice, I ask where > the Buddha suggested that. > ------------------- > > N/a > > :-) > Kind regards, > Ken H > /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) 29562 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:11am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi James, I would be interested to see a passage in the discourses in which the Buddha did say that a being is made up, composed of the five clinging aggregates, the five aggregates of clinging/sustenance (pancupadanakkhandha). As far as I understand what the Buddha said, when one is caught up, tied up in any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, one is said to be a being. You said that desire, passion, delight, and craving for the five aggregates is what makes a being, that it is the craving mind that makes a being. At end of the message you also said that it is the clinging mind that creates a being thus creates suffering. Perhaps you mean the following: From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-002.html As I understand the metaphor, the little sand castles stand for form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. The little boys and girls playing with little sand castles stand for the beings not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for the five aggregates. I think that seeing form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness as processes brings in some insight, as processes have the connotation of changes. I also think it is seeing the five aggregates from a broader perspective. As I see it, the five aggregates encompass the entire scope of experiences, events, phenomena, etc, such as birth, death, separation from the loved one, lamentation, distress... Let me know how you understand it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > Victor: I suggested you refer to the Satta Sutta regarding to what > extent is one said to be a 'being' and noted that the Buddha did not > say that a being is made up of the five aggregate. > > James: Yes and no. Actually, he said that a being is made up of the > five `clinging' aggregates. The aggregates just on their own, or > even together, don't make a being; however, when there is clinging to > the five aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, > and consciousness, then there is a being: > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > The important thing to consider is that desire, passion, delight, and > craving for the five aggregates is makes a being. Therefore, it is > the craving mind that makes a being, not the aggregates themselves. > > The craving mind is what pulls the aggregates together. In this > sutta, the Buddha even draws the analogy of a `being' being like a > sand castle built by children. When they delight in it and play in > it, the being is present. When they grow tired of it and no longer > delight in it, and smash it, the being is gone. Of course this > supposes an interesting metaphysical question as to who > the `children' are supposed to represent, but I don't think that is > important to consider too deeply. Maybe this metaphor shouldn't be > taken that literally. > > I think it is important to realize that the five aggregates are not > really `parts' of a being, but simply a method of analysis created by > the Buddha for the purpose of release. The five aggregates are an > ever-constant process and they cannot be separated from each other, > therefore they are not `parts'. (I know there is that `chariot' > metaphor, with its parts, but I don't believe it is to be taken > literally…if it was, the Buddha would have used such a description, > but he didn't). The important thing is to understand that it is the > clinging mind that creates a being and thus creates suffering. > > Metta, James 29563 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 3:22am Subject: Afterthought [Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James] Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 2/1/04 10:40:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I was going to let this post remain without further comment. But I've > thought better of that, on the chance that you might wish to clarify or add > to > what you say below. > ============================= An important addition: You are not under the *slightest* obligation to reply to any of my questions. It may seem a bit of an "assault" to give what might appear to be an interrogation. I don't intend my questions to you in that way, but I realize that it might well seem otherwise. In any case, you have every right in the world to simply say that you would rather not discuss this, or would rather not discuss it any further, or that you replied as you deemed appropriate and nothing further is needed. So, bottom line - we can leave this just as it is, or go forward with it, whatever you wish. After all, we are only discussing opinions, and not much stock need be put in them! ;-) 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) 29564 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:07am Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 06 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner has been walking in the mid of shower of feeling. Sometimes, there arises a wave of storm of feeling, after which there always is a reverberating remnant of their effects resulting in decremental feeling waves like at the periphery of circles of wave created by throwing a stone into a pond. He has been on the mood of continuous attentive noting on feeling. As feeling are arising like a shower of rain, he will not be able to note or count each and every single drop of rain, the whole process of which could be perfected by the Thera, The Elder, The Marshal of Law, the right wing of The Live Buddha, Venerable Sariputta, who was the wisest only second to The Buddha. Why do feeling come in shower? Because feeling arise with each and every single Citta and thus they continuously bombarding on mind. But all these feeling cannot simply be conscious all the time. They all are drawn under attention only in the process of mental impulse called Javanacittas series which comes in 7 successive Cittas without any interruption. In the whole mental process of Vithicittas, there are only 14 Vithicittas ( conscious mind ) as the Rupa or Arammana ( object ) which has lifespan of 17 mind moments has passed 3 moments in the name of Atita Bhavanga ( past unconscious mind ), Bhavangacalana ( shaking unconscious mind ), and Bhavaguppaccheda ( stopping unconscious mind ). So, on the remaining portion of the Arammana ( Rupa ) ,14 Vithi Cittas have to depend on. Among them the first 5 come with the names of Panca Dvara Avajjana Citta ( 5-sense-door-contemplating-mind ), Panca Vinnana Citta ( one of 5-sense-conscious mind ), Sampaticchana Citta ( receiving mind ), Santirana Citta ( investigating mind ), and Votthabbana Citta ( deciding mind ) which is Manodvara Avajjana Citta ( mind-sense-door-contemplating mind ). These 5 preliminary Cittas just before Javana Cittas are resultant consciousness or Vipaka Cittas with the exception of the first ( external door ) and the last ( internal door ), which are necessary for full understanding. These 2 door-mind are Kiriya Cittas, the action of which does not give any Kamma effect and their action are just done and there will be no potential Kamma. So, feeling will be fully understood in the process of Javana Cittas. Sometimes 2 Cittas follow Javana and they are called deep-feeling mind ( Tadaarammana Cittas ) which are Vipaka Cittas. These 2 are just resultant Cittas. The practitioner's mind sparks at Javana and there have been many sparks. Javanacittas in the block of 7 arise in the mid of Bhavangacittas. These Javana shower sometimes changes to apparent rain and on some occasion there is torrential rain of feeling like explicit fury or super greediness as can be seen in the poor who see a storehouse of gold coins. The practitioner will not mind just drizzling of feeling like inconspicuous early arising feeling. When the storm of feeling comes that is explicit fury or super greediness or whatever, he will feel with mental impulse. After repeatedly feeling when the origional object has been fallen away far behind then there follow decremental feeling waves and finally rest into stillness of Bhavanga Cittas which flow continuously. Leaving these microscopic view aside, the practitioner takes the object of feeling which is Vedana Cetasika that arises along with Cittas. He makes a mental note that this feeling arises here and this feeling vanishes there. His noting mind arise even in the mess of daily routine. May all beings be able to be mindful and concentrate on feeling. Htoo Naing 29565 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, KenO: I prefer the essential consitituent or characterisitics :) Michael: Do you realize that this definition implies an essence? And that an essence is something not subject to change? Or for you 'essential constituent' does not mean 'essential constituent' ? Metta Michael 29566 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Larry, > Before trying to separate anything; what is present? > These dhammas can be discerned (so the texts say)- but not by > someone - by panna. Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply. Just one tentative comment. I'm starting to think ekaggata cetasika (one-pointed mental factor) is what discerns dhammas at a more and more subtle level. I think panna might be an evaluation. Panna has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states (Vism. XIV 7) but concentration knows and sees correctly (Vism. XIV 7). I'm wondering if "penetrating" means "sees as it is, that is, undesirable/ungraspable". If we say desire is basically an evaluation, then possibly anti-desire (panna) is also an evaluation. Also, in the practice of concentration, dhammas are sifted at a very subtle level. Larry 29567 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Howard, Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose that's commendable, but it isn't much fun. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Honestly I'm not prepared to even attempt to express what reality > might "be". > > 29568 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello KenO, KenO: There is no sub khandhas and you still cannot prove otherwise and hence to me your theory of infinite regression is not valid in Thervada Buddhism. Michael: Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. Metta Michael 29569 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 9:59am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry. I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also subject to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that the beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I would call reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something intrinsic. Metta Michael >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:11:14 -0700 (MST) > >Hi Michael & Howard, > >Hmmm. I don't think beginningless time is the same as an infinite >regress. An infinite regress is illogical and ultimately nihilistic. If >you say reality is made of something then you have to say what that >something is. If reality isn't made of anything, how is it real? >Illusion is just the other side of the reality "coin". It takes reality >to make an illusion (or delusion). You could say there is no reality, no >illusion, nothing at all, minus-zero. Is that what you want to say? > >Larry > > > 29570 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 12:38:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Okay, so you have no views on the concept/reality issue. I suppose > that's commendable, but it isn't much fun. --------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) -------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================== Well, I guess it is an overstatement to say I have no views with regard to "reality". I do, but I don't think that views are worth all that much. But just say something (so that we can have some fun! ;-), I'll blather a bit: I think that there is a vastness to "reality". I think that it may be thought of as a "rather glorious" and vast web of intimately related, interconnected, interdependent, and inseparable phenomena-events, without ground. I think that there is nothing in "reality" that has separate, independent, or lasting existence, that there is nothing therein that can be pinned down or grasped in the slightest, that there is no core to be found anywhere, and, most particularly, that there are no knowing selves/subjects, but that knowing and known are inseparable. But, finally, I must add that "reality" is actually not at all what I have just said, because it's nature is beyond the capacity for language and thought to express. 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) 29571 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > Let me know how you understand it. > > Metta, > Victor I think I explained it enough, but I guess I will try again. Can you not see the forest for the trees or what? ;-)) Okay, it seems that you want a direct quote from the Buddha saying: Beings are composed of the five aggregates. Why? This is a metaphysical position and there would be no reason to make a statement like that. He only taught suffering and the path to liberation, that was it! However, by his own admission, there were a lot more things that he knew that he didn't teach…because they would not lead to liberation. Just because the Buddha didn't say it directly does that mean it isn't so? No. Use your own brain: here we have the five clinging aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Look at yourself, can you find all of those things there in that body with its perceptions, feelings, mental fabrications, and consciousness called "Victor"? I hope so, or you are dead! ;-)) Now, can you find those things in water, fire, air, or earth? No. Can you find those things in plants? No. So obviously those are the things which compose a being. However, they are not `parts', they are processes, and they cannot be separated. Metta, James 29572 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi again, Larry - I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite honestly, not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench to it, being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So, please take what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the grain of salt and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more! 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) 29573 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that is all there is? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Larry. > > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms of > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena being the > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also subject > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that the > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I would call > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something > intrinsic. > > Metta > Michael 29574 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:13am Subject: Re: Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: here we have the five clinging > aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and > consciousness. Hi James and all, If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with the proliferation of concepts as well. Perception (sanna) is, I think (?), usually associated with the "birth" of concepts. Anyway, I know this ("mental fabrications") is a common translation, but it doesn't really make sense to me. Larry 29575 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Howard, I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Larry - > > I just reread my "opinion" on what "reality" is, and, quite honestly, > not only does it miss, it makes me nauseated! There is truly a stench to it, > being such an absurdly mediocre substitute for the real thing. So, please take > what I said with a grain of salt. No, better than that, keep the grain of salt > and throw the "opinion" out! The salt is worth more! > > With metta, > Howard 29576 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/1/04 2:18:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking > myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. > > Larry > ====================== Yes, a good walk sounds just wonderful! ;-) 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) 29577 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:10pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi James, Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The Buddha did not teach that. Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are welcome. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > Let me know how you understand it. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > I think I explained it enough, but I guess I will try again. Can you > not see the forest for the trees or what? ;-)) Okay, it seems that > you want a direct quote from the Buddha saying: Beings are composed > of the five aggregates. Why? This is a metaphysical position and > there would be no reason to make a statement like that. He only > taught suffering and the path to liberation, that was it! However, > by his own admission, there were a lot more things that he knew that > he didn't teach…because they would not lead to liberation. Just > because the Buddha didn't say it directly does that mean it isn't > so? No. Use your own brain: here we have the five clinging > aggregates: form, perception, feeling, mental fabrications, and > consciousness. Look at yourself, can you find all of those things > there in that body with its perceptions, feelings, mental > fabrications, and consciousness called "Victor"? I hope so, or you > are dead! ;-)) Now, can you find those things in water, fire, air, or > earth? No. Can you find those things in plants? No. So obviously > those are the things which compose a being. However, they are > not `parts', they are processes, and they cannot be separated. > > Metta, James 29578 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:12pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > PS: I have posted this article before, but decided to post > > it again > > > as it was relevant to some current threads. > > > > I like this article very much! Add a few more ancedotes and maybe > > some Canon quotes and submit it to "Tricycle" or "Shambhala Sun" > (you > > could probably spice up some of your Abhidhamma articles and submit > > those too ;-). > > Oops typo...ancedotes is supposed to read 'anecdotes ('ancedotes' > sounds kinda like antacids! ;-)) Before 2002, I used a variety of texts in my Abhidhamma class. In 2002, I provided handouts in each class. At the end of 2002, I consoldiated all of these handouts (this is my Class Notes file available in the download section of DSG). About 70% of the content of the class notes was my summary of other people's works. This became the class textbook for 2003. In 2004, I am not using these notes as my class textbook any more. I am writing my own mini-essays based on various subjects adding diagrams wherever possible and handing them out each week. In class, I use the mini-essays as a structure but insert my own experiences, etc. as "colour commentary". In December 2003, I plan to print my collection of mini-essays into a book. The minimum print run is 1000 copies, which is far more than I need for my class, so I will distribute the remainder for free. My "Free-Will" mini-essay was originally written as an article for a Buddhist Magazine, "Eastern Horizon". This magazine covers all three schools (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajarana) and I wanted to keep the piece less technical as it was for a more general readership. "The Internet Sutra" was another piece that I wrote for this magazine. It also has a lighter style than my normal mini-essays. My mini-essay on Anatta that I recently posted is closer to my "textbook style". James, I welcome your input. Having explained how I intend to use my mini-essays, I seek your advice as to how my writing style could be more effective. Metta, Rob M :-) 29579 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello RobM, > > RobM: > I see a being as a collection of five > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > realities depend on other things to arise > > Michael: > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something that exist > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some kind of > essence. Is that what you mean? Yup! Metta, Rob M :-) 29580 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:57pm Subject: Re: Anatta Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi James, Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The Buddha did not teach that. Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are welcome. Metta, Victor KKT: I cannot resist buzzing in here :-)) I have a question for you, Victor: (just for joke, please don't mind :-)) When you wrote: __Hi James, What is this 'James' you addressed to ? __A conglomeration of aggregates? __An encapsulation of aggregates? __The label of the composition of aggregates? __Or the aggregates, then which one? To close this joke, here is an excerpt from The Principles of Buddhist Psychology by David J. Kalupahana, p.22: Strange as it may seem, confusing as it may appear, the Buddha who spent a good part of his philosophical discourses on the negation of self (atta) should continue to use terms like 'I' (aham), 'mine' (mama), 'you' (tumhe), 'yours' (tumhakam) and, above all, the very term 'self' (atta). The encapsulation of aggregates named KKT :-)) 29581 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 0:57pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > RM: > When interviewed later, the > subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA > was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". > The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this > hardwiring through correct practice. > ---------------------- > > Back in the 1960's people like Timothy Leary and Baba Ram Das > thought LSD could fix the same hardwiring problem. However, they > agreed that the meditation practices of their Indian gurus did the > same thing without drugs. I say, why bother with meditation? If it > is a simple matter of re-wiring, then take the drugs and have done > with it! > > I might add that right understanding can never be accomplished by > either method. ===== I agree. The Franciscan nuns also were able to achieve the same states but but they described them as "talking with God". One must start with a mundane "right understanding". With this perspective, right thinking naturally flows. This is manifested through right speech / action / livelihood / effort. These practices lead to right mindfulness and right concentration. Right mindfulness and right concentration lead to experiences that support a supramundane form of "right understanding". This supramundane form of right understanding allows the other path-factors to arise naturally and consistently by weakening the latent blockages. (at least this is my understanding). ===== > RM: > Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated > repetition. > Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". > -------------------- > > I think the practice you proceed to describe is purely conventional > (not ultimately real). > > As a boy, I was a keen surfer but I was not as `naturally good at > it' as some other kids were. After considerable practice, in the > intervening forty years (almost), I am reasonably good (although my > knees aren't quite up to it). But what has changed in ultimate > reality? What qualities have been accumulated through this > practice? I suspect that, the next time I am born as a human being, > I will be just as lacking in natural surfing ability as I was this > time around. ===== I'm not so sure. I believe that because of your practice in this life, that you will be naturally drawn toward surfing in your next life. This is natural decisive support condition at work. However, there is nothing to say that your body in your next life will be more suited to surfing than your body was in this life. Because of expriences in their past life, my kids are drawn to music. They both have perfect pitch and started composing music at the age of 6. Their talent was a gift from their past lives, but their results in this life will depend on the self-discipline and goal- setting ability. A predeliction to self-discipline also comes from previous lives, but it needs to be nurtured and supported in this life to be effective. Many of the people on DSG, including myself, were born as Christians. What has drawn us to the Dhamma / Ahidhamma? I believe that we had been exposed to the Dhamma in a previous existence and therefore were attracted to it when we discovered it in this existence. Of course, had conditions supporting our contact with the Dhamma not arisen in this existence, many of us would still be Christians. ===== > > ----------- > > RM: > That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be > mindful of every action, of every choice. > ------------ > > I would have thought it was of this `present' action (or choice). Am > I being pedantic? ===== You are not being pedantic and I will insert the word "present". On the other hand, how can one be truly "mindful" of anything else other than the present? :-) ===== > > ---------------- > . . . > RM: > Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". > Sitting each morning and radiating metta, develops a habit of metta > in the mind. > ------------------ > > You bet it does! And I wish it were as simple as you make it sound. > But where is the self, the free will, that can say, "Let there be > metta?" > > When I sit down and `radiate metta,' there is pleasant feeling > (usually) and lots of conceit, but is there any metta? No – because > my actions are motivated by subtle wrong view (of a controlling > self) and by attachment and by other, unwholesome, worldling-like, > notions. > > As you say, this can create a habit; but I would say, not a good > habit. > > ---------------- > > RM: > Vipasanna meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they > truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. > --------------- > > By `vipassana meditation,' you don't mean satipatthana do you? You > mean a practice that leads up to satipatthana. I would say; when > there is a moment of kusala consciousness that hears Dhamma, > considers Dhamma or speaks Dhamma then there is a practice that > leads up to satipatthana (the practice of Dhamma). > > If we could decree, "Let there be vipassana practice," then there > would be free will: there would be a `supervising self' and the > world would be totally different from the way the Buddha described > it. (And the way you described it; except for the bits I disagreed > with:-) ) ===== Your last comments fall into the category of "value of meditation". This is one of those subjects that I need more time to reflect upon. However, in the interim, I will continue my meditation. Metta, Rob M :-) 29582 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 1:21pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob M, > > Your concluding paragraph reads: > ------------------------- > I have not yet had the time to carefully study the Abhidhamma or > Sutta theory behind the various types of meditation (you give me too > much credit). I hope to be able to do that analysis some day. > -------------------------- > > I didn't realise you hadn't studied this. I notice that you have > some fairly definite ideas on meditation but I would have to agree > that they don't coincide, exactly, with the Tipitaka versions. (I > hope that doesn't sound rude.) > > -------------------------- > RM: > I understand samatha meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to focus concentration on an object (kasina, > breath, cemetary, etc.). > ------------------------- > > This surprises me. Mind you, it could be me who has his terminology > confused. I understand satipatthana to be the direct experience of > a conditioned paramattha dhamma with right understanding, right > thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. > It can never have anything to do with kasinas, cemeteries or any > other concepts. (As you say, it can have breath as an object but > even then, only if breath is directly known as a rupa (not a > concept). > > ------------------------ > RM: > Even if samatha does not lead to jhana, then samatha is a way > of "taming the wild monkey" that is the mind. > -------------- > > Maybe so, but the only kind of samatha meditation that can be > beneficial on the Path is jhana. There is no mention (I am reliably > informed) of any lesser forms of samatha training in the Tipitaka. > > -------------- > RM: > I understand vipassana meditation as an exercise wherein > satipatthana is used to penetrate the true characteristics (anicca, > dukkha, anatta) of whatever object arises. If followed ardently, > vipassana meditation can lead to magga citta (sainthood); > ------------------------- > > Once again, this is not quite the way I am used to seeing those > terms. I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. I could be adding to the confusion here :-) ===== When conditions are more conducive, I definitely have to spend time exploring this subject in more detail. It is clear that some of my ideas (mainly parroting others, perhaps incorrectly understanding them) are distorted. I am going to approach this subject slowly and carefully. Until I have done my homework and have ideas that I can defend, I am going to try and keep my mouth shut (and my typing fingers still). For what it is worth, Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to Soma Thera's "The Way of Mindfulness - The Satipatthana Sutta and its Commentary" (recently serialized by Larry) includes the following: Most contemporary meditation teachers explain Satipatthana meditation as a method for generating insight (vipassana). While this is certainly a valid claim, we should also recognize that Satipatthana meditation also generates concentration (samadhi). Unlike the forms of meditation which cultivate concentration and insight sequentially, Satipatthana brings both these faculties into being together, though naturally, in the actual process of development, concentration will have to gain a certain degree of stability before insight can exercise its penetrating function. In Satipatthana, the act of attending to each occasion of experience as it occurs in the moment fixes the mind firmly on the object. The *continuous* attention to the object, even when the object itself is constantly changing, stabilizes the mind in concentration, while the observation of the object in terms of its qualities and characteristics brings into being the insight knowledges. Note: BB put the word "continuous" in italics Metta, Rob M :-) 29583 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Rob M > > > I agree that the Abhidhamma texts that we have were not taught by > > the Buddha. > > k: ???? You are the first person I know who practise Abdhidhamma and > said that it is not taught by the Buddha, could you tell me who other > than Buddha who can teach the 24 paccaya. Let me inform you, even > Ven Sariputa also cannot do that without Buddha teaching him. This statement was at the conclusion of a description of how the Buddha went to Tavitisma Heaven to teach the Abhidhamma, returning each day to give a summary to Sariputta, which Sariputta then filled in the details to give us the texts that we have today. The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today (Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's essay - The list of 89 cittas is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; this list does not explicitly appear in the original texts - The list of 52 cetasikas and their association with the cittas is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; for example, the first verse of the Dhammasangani lists 56 cetasikas associated with all good states of mind and concludes with "now these - or whatever other incorporeal, causually induced states there are on that occasion - these are the states that are good". The Abhidhammatthasangaha takes this list from the Dhammasangani, combines some and adds nine more cetasikas to come up with its own list. - The cognitive process which lists the 17 cittas in a sense-door process, etc. is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha and is not laid out in the original texts. Here is a quote from Nyanatiloka's "Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines": "citta-vithi, as well as all terms for the various functions within the processes of consciousness, such as avajjana-citta, sampaticchana, santirana, votthapana, javana, tadarammana, bhavanga, cuti: none of these terms is found in the Sutta Canon. except javana, in Pts.M. Even in the Ahh. Canon (e.g. Patth) only javana and bhavanga are twice or thrice briefly mentioned. The stages, however, must have been more or less known." There are many other instances, but these four examples make the point that what is generally accepted as "Abhidhamma" today should not be treated as the word of the Buddha. To me, the implications of this are: - One should not get too hung up on the technical aspects of the Abhidhamma (i.e. the Buddha never said that rupa last for exactly seventeen thought moments) - If in doubt, the Suttas always take precedence Metta, Rob M :-) 29584 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:20pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Rob: My "Free-Will" mini-essay was originally written as an article for a Buddhist Magazine, "Eastern Horizon". This magazine covers all three schools (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajarana) and I wanted to keep the piece less technical as it was for a more general readership. James: I thought it seemed like a magazine article; that is why I made the comment I made. With some spicing up it could probably work for a more mainstream Buddhist publication. I'm not familiar with `Eastern Horizon', but really, the audience doesn't matter a great deal. Write from the heart and the audience will respond, regardless of their Buddhist school affiliation. Rob: "The Internet Sutra" was another piece that I wrote for this magazine. It also has a lighter style than my normal mini-essays. James: I don't recall this piece. Perhaps you can send it to me off- list? Rob: My mini-essay on Anatta that I recently posted is closer to my "textbook style". James: Okay, then by `textbook style' you mean pretty bare-bones with little commentary. Rob: James, I welcome your input. Having explained how I intend to use my mini-essays, I seek your advice as to how my writing style could be more effective. James: For the purposes of your class your writing style is just fine. However, your mini-essays will be by necessity very `teacher- oriented' rather than `student-oriented' since you provide almost all of the filler and background information in class. This is fine if you want to limit your essays to `in-class' use only. If you want to make them appeal to a more general audience, then you would have to make some changes. You can contact me off-list about this as we are probably starting to get off-topic. I am not an expert in this regard but many people seem to be attracted to my writing style and writing sense. Metta, James 29585 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:25pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are > welcome. > > Metta, > Victor I really don't have anymore comments...or this could be never-ending. Metta, James 29586 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hello RobM, Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it cannot arise dependently. Metta Michael >From: "robmoult" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:15:27 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello RobM, > > > > RobM: > > I see a being as a collection of five > > aggregages; the aggregates are ultimate realities, but even ultimate > > realities depend on other things to arise > > > > Michael: > > In my understanding 'ultimate realities' point towards something >that exist > > based on its own power, that has something intrinsic in it, some >kind of > > essence. Is that what you mean? > >Yup! > >Metta, >Rob M :-) > > > 29587 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 2:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind of metaphysical occult connection between both. Metta Michael >From: "Larry" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 19:00:53 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >This sounds like beginningless time to me, which I have no problem >with. What I don't really understand is what is a condition if that >is all there is? > >Larry > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello Larry. > > > > I cannot say there is an infinite regress but if you think in terms >of > > conditionality, and as I mentioned in another post, of phenomena >being the > > coming together of a bunch of conditions, and those conditions also >subject > > to another bunch of conditions, and so on, then I would say that >the > > beginning of that whole process is indetermined. That is what I >would call > > reality. Illusion is seeing phenomena as 'real' i.e. with something > > intrinsic. > > > > Metta > > Michael > > > > 29588 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 5:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear Robm In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today (Dhammasangani, > Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the > Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The > Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the > Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the > Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. > > What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the > Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: > - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute > realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's essay Dear Robm Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he deceives an audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once." RobertK 29589 From: wen Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:30am Subject: need help... dear all, i'm a new member in here, and i really need help for clarification about how to do the meditation of asubha-bhavana with properly, i already have the objects in the form of photos, i really hope there'll be some precious advices from all of you thank you, 29590 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Re: Anatta Hi KTT, I was addressing to James, like I am addressing to you now, as a human being. It was a message from a human being to a fellow human being. As I see it, the Buddha's teaching is not about negating self, but negating the five aggregates as self, namely: form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness is not self. In other words, form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi James, > > Since you said that the Buddha said a being is made up, composed of > the five `clinging' aggregates, I was interested in seeing a passage > in the discourse in which he did say so. As I see it, the idea that > a being is made up, composed of the five aggregates, or for that > matter, clinging-aggregates is a metaphysical position, springing > from the self-identity view "I am this composition of five clinging- > aggregates"/"The five clinging-aggregates makes what I am." The > Buddha did not teach that. > > Whatever it is, this composition of the five clinging-aggregates, may > they be parts or processes, is inconstant, dukkha/unsatisfactory, not > self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment > thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." > > Your comments regarding this message and my previous message are > welcome. > > Metta, > Victor > > > > > KKT: I cannot resist > buzzing in here :-)) > > I have a question for you, Victor: > (just for joke, please don't mind :-)) > > When you wrote: > > __Hi James, > > What is this 'James' > you addressed to ? > > __A conglomeration of aggregates? > __An encapsulation of aggregates? > __The label of the composition of aggregates? > __Or the aggregates, then which one? > > To close this joke, > here is an excerpt from > The Principles of Buddhist Psychology > by David J. Kalupahana, p.22: > > Strange as it may seem, confusing as it may appear, > the Buddha who spent a good part of his philosophical > discourses on the negation of self (atta) should continue > to use terms like 'I' (aham), 'mine' (mama), 'you' (tumhe), > 'yours' (tumhakam) and, above all, the very term 'self' (atta). > > > The encapsulation of > aggregates named KKT :-)) 29591 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob K, I find the quote you provided does not help to explain how the Abhidhamma Pitaka contains the original words of the Buddha, or the content of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught. By providing this quote, are you implying that Rob M was damaging the Conquerer's Wheel, impoverishing the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence, deceiving an audience anxious to learn, obstructsing (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness, and making all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Robm In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today > (Dhammasangani, > > Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike > the > > Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The > > Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by > the > > Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the > > Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. > > > > What most people accept as "Abhidhamma" today is based on the > > Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. For example: > > - The explicit distinction between conventional and absolute > > realities is from the Abhidhammatthasangaha; see Y. Karunadasa's > essay > Dear Robm > Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past > post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of > omniscient > Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). > "He who excludes > the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel > of > Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the > Omniscience of > the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge > of > Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he > deceives > an audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble > Paths of > Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at > once." > > > RobertK 29592 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hi Wen, Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. What kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? Have you studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this particular practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. Below is a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta dealing with repulsiveness. Larry http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html 29593 From: Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:56pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael, Let's let this one percolate for a while. Larry ------------------------ M: Hello Larry, I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind of metaphysical occult connection between both. Metta Michael 29594 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:01pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Azita, ------------------- A: > I am confused by your final statement Ken..... K: >> I understand that satipatthana and vipassana are synonyms; > except that the former term is not used for supramundane > consciousness. > > > azita: I understand them to be the same too, or a least similar, but I don't understand what you mean by '...the former term is not used for supramundane consciousness...'. I might be totally wrong here, but I understand that satipatthana only arises when wisdom has developed to the degree that knows nama from rupa. Now I don't know how to describe vipassana! -------------------- I'm sure you're right with the first one. I can dimly remember that Jon and Larry (?) sorted this terminology out. Both satipatthana and vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. That's my recollection; corrections welcome. Kind regards, Ken H PS I have just seen that RobM has added more on this -- haven't read it yet though. 29595 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism Hello James and thank-you for providing me with a quote from a contemporay who obviously understand jhana. Best regards, Jeff Brooks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > I can see that this dialogue isn't getting very far. Let me quote > some passages from Ajahn Lee, a monk who was a master at Jhana > meditation: > > "When people criticize you, saying that you're in a blind state of > jhana, it's still better than having no jhana to be in. And if they > say that you're like a baby chick that hasn't come out of its egg, > that's okay, too. When a baby chick is still in the egg, no hawk can > swoop down on it and catch it. When it comes out of the egg is when > it becomes prey." > > "They may say that you're sitting in "stump" concentration, but > don't pay them any mind, because stumps can have their uses. > Sometimes they grow new branches, with tender leaves you can eat. But > if the stump catches fire and burns to a crisp, that's no good at > all." > > "Momentary concentration is like a house roofed with thatch; its > posts are made out of softwood. Momentary concentration isn't jhana. > Threshold concentration is like a house made out of hardwood with a > tile roof. Fixed penetration is like an immovable concrete building. > This is where we become "one" in a single preoccupation on the single > or direct path (ekayana-magga). It's like sitting alone in a chair or > lying alone on a bed, without anyone trying to come and take up our > space, or like being alone in a room without anyone else coming in to > disturb us. When we're alone in a room, we can be at our ease. We can > even take off our clothes if we like. We can behave with good manners > or bad, and no one will complain. This is why a mind with jhana as > its dwelling can be at its ease. It has a deep well so that it can > get plenty of water -- to the point where it can drop directed > thought and evaluation, leaving nothing but pleasure: This is where > feeling becomes your frame of reference (vedananupassana- > satipatthana). The body feels full. All four properties -- earth, > water, fire, and wind -- feel full. When the mind feels full in this > way, nothing is lacking. That's rapture. You don't want any more of > the four properties. When the mind soaks for a long time in this > sense of rapture, it's like something you've soaked in water for a > long time: The water is bound to permeate it to a point of > saturation. This sense of rapture is the second level of jhana. When > the sense of rapture begins to move, you don't feel at ease, in the > same way as when a boat begins to sway you want to get back on land. > So once rapture fills the body, you let go of it, leaving nothing but > pleasure and singleness of preoccupation. When the mind has soaked > itself in pleasure to a point of saturation, it lets go, leaving an > empty sense of equanimity. When the mind is really empty, it feels > spacious and light. The more it soaks in equanimity, the more still > it gets, giving rise to an inner sense of light. When the light is > really intense you arrive at Right Mindfulness." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/skillof.html#skills > > Metta, James 29596 From: Jeffrey S. Brooks Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 8:58pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hello Christine, I have read the Majjhima Nikaya that Bhikkhu Bodhi translated. While I value my copy of that volume, as well as my other volumes of the Nikayas, I however find no evidence to support a belief that he or any of the translators had any more than a superficial understanding of the English language of cognition and gnosis. And, it is also clear they had absolutely no understanding of absorption (jhana). Best regards, Jeff Brooks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Jeffrey, and all, > > Thank you for explaining that you meant no offense. Email is a > difficult medium, and misunderstandings can happen easily. I > apologise for the challenging tone of my last post. The oldest record > of the Buddha's teaching is in Pali, not english, or burmese, or > thai. So the Dhamma (as preserved in the Tipitaka - the Three > baskets) doesn't need 'interpretation'. It needs accurate > translation and faithful rendering to keep the meanings of the > Teachings pristine, and exactly as the Buddha taught. > Perhaps you may feel more comforable with the words of a New Yorker > born to a Jewish family in 1944, who lived all his life in Brooklyn, > went to a public elementary school, junior high school and college > in Brooklyn; received a BA degree in philosophy in 1966 and then went > to Claremont Graduate School in California; completed his doctorate > (PhD) in 1972; has been a Mahayana monk and is a Theravada Bhikkhu, > is well versed in Pali, was the President of the Buddhist Publication > Society for many years, has addressed the United Nations and is > esteemed as the translator of many important suttas from the Pali as > well as the Samyutta Nikaya, parts of the Anguttara Nikaya, and is a > joint translator of the Majjhima Nikaya with Bhikkhu Nanamoli. He is > Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > The Majjhima Nikaya Introduction p.38 ff > Regarding Insight (vipassanaa) Bhikkhu Bodhi states: > "The methods of meditation taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon > fall into two broad systems. One is the development of serenity > (samatha), which aims at concentration (samaadhi); the other is the > development of insight (vipassanaa) which aims at understanding or > wisdom (pa~n~naa). In the Buddha's system of mental training the > role of serenity is subordinated to that of insight because the > latter is the crucial instrument needed to uproot ithe ignorance at > the bottom of samsaaric bondage. > > **The attainments possible through serenity meditation were known > to Indian contemplatives long before the advent of the Buddha. The > Buddha himself mastered the two highest stages under his early > teachers but found that they only led to higher planes of rebirth, > not to genuine enlightenment. (MN 26.15-16)** > > However, because the unification of mind induced by the practice > of concentration contributes to clear understanding, the Buddha > incorporated the techniques of serenity meditation and the resulting > levels of absorption into his own system, treating them as a > foundation and preparation for insight and as a "pleasant abiding > here and now".... > > "Whereas in serenity meditation the meditator attempts to focus > upon a single uniform object abstracted from actual experience, in > insight meditation the endeavour is made to contemplate, from a > position of detached observation the ever-shifting flux of experience > itself in order to penetrate through to the essential nature of > bodily and mental phenomena. The Buddha teaches that the craving and > clinging that hold us in bondage are sustained by a network > of "conceivings" (ma~n~nita) - deluded views, conceits, and > suppositions that the mind fabricates by an internal process of > mental commentary of "proliferation" (papa~nca) and then projects out > upon the world, taking them to possess objective validity. The task > of insight meditation is to sever our attachments by enabling us to > pierce through this net of conceptual projections in order to see > things as they really are. > To see things as they really are means to see them in terms of the > three characteristics - as impermanent, as painful or suffering, and > as not self. Since the three characteristics are closely > interlinked, any one of them can be made the main portal for entering > the domain of insight, but the Buddha's usual approach is to show all > three together - impermanence implying suffering and the two in > conjunction implying the absence of self. When the noble disciple > sees all the factors of being as stamped with these three marks, he > no longer identifies with them, no longer appropriates them by taking > them to be mine, I or self. Seeing thus, he becomes disenchanted > with all formations. When he becomes disenchanted, his lust and > attachment fade away and his mind is liberated from the taints. > Instructions for the development of insight in the Majjhima > Nikaaya, though concise, are many and diverse. The single most > important lesson on the practice conducing to insight is the > Satipatthaana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness > (MN10; also found in the Diigha Nikaaya with an amplified section on > the Four Noble Truths). The sutta sets forth a comprehensive system > called satipatthaana designed to train the mind to see with > micropscopic precision the true nature of the body, feelings, states > of mind, and mental objects. The system is sometimes taken to be the > paradigm for the practice of "bare insight" - the direct > contemplation of mental and bodily phenomena without a prior > foundation of jhaana - and, while several exercises described inthe > sutta canalso lead to the jhaanas, the arousing of insight is clearly > the intent of the method. > Other suttas in the Majjhima Nikaaya describe approaches to > developing insight that either elaborate upon the satipatthaana > contemplations or reach them from a different starting oint. Thus MN > 118 shows how the practice of mindfulness of breathing fulfils all > four foundations of mindfulness, not the first alone as shown in MN > 10. Several suttas - MN 28, MN 62, MN 140 - present more detailed > instructions on the contemplation of the elements. MN 37, MN 74 and > MN 140 contain illuminating passages on the contemplation of > feeling. In some suttas the Buddha uses the five aggregates as the > groundwork for insight contemplation (e.g. MN 22, MN 109); in some, > the six sense bases (e.g. MN 137, MN 148, MN 149); in some, the two > combined (MN 147). MN112 has sections dealing with insight based on > the five aggregates, the six elements, and the six sense bases, and > as resulting from the gradual training. MN 52 and MN 64 show that > insight can also be aroused with the jhaanas, the immaterial > attainments, and the divine abodes as its objects; the disciple > enters any of these states and contemplates its constituent factors > as subject to the three characteristics." > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29597 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 10:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Howard, ----------------------- H: > I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. ------------------------------- If we were all accomplished Abhidhamma scholars, we could communicate in the same language: As we are, it is hard to be on the same wavelength. For me, it is hard enough to stay on my own wavelength -- the mind changes so quickly. My Abhidhamma understanding extends about as far as "Right understanding comes first." That means right understanding comes before, not after, right effort. The right effort that is pertinent to the Middle Way, is a cetasika; it arises with (in the same conscious moment as) -- and depends upon -- the cetasika, `right understanding.' We both know this but you seem more determined, than I am, to pinpoint the conventional ramifications: You want to know if this means we do something or if it means we don't do something. I don't think there is a right answer to that. If pressed, I can only say, "Because there is no self, there can be no control over dhammas" or words to that effect. There are countless ways of wording the same answer and it's all good `practice.' :-) ----------------------------- H: > Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong view without giving evidence for same, ----------------------------- Given that the Buddha taught anatta (not-self), any belief in self is a deliberate (volitional) rejection of that teaching. That is the definition of miccha-ditthi (wrong view). In subtle ways, we have wrong view every minute of the waking day. Trying to summon-up right mindfulness is a form of wrong view (because there is no self who can summon-up anything). Giving-up on right mindfulness is another form of wrong view (because it implies it cannot be conditioned). I find it handy to remember that even wrong view is a suitable object for right view. --------------------- H: > and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a straw-man. ------------ Everything, that is not the Middle Way, comes down to self-view in one form or another. -------------------- H: > When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. ---------------------------------- Before the Buddha taught any of these things, he taught that all dhammas (conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta. So there is no self who can follow, or not follow, his teaching. That means everything he said has to be understood in a way that is out of the ordinary. For example it has to be understood as `description,' not as `prescription.'. What better way could there be? Wouldn't you feel disappointed, Howard, if the way out of samsara was in the least bit ordinary? I would. I am very glad to have learnt that the way out is not, at all, along the lines of; "Sit with your legs crossed. This way! No, not like that; like this. OK, now put the left hand in the palm of the right hand . . . thumbs like so . . . Now breathe in! . . No, no, no; like this!" Count me out! Not interested! ------------------------- H: > My questions, in their bare form can be restated as follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent of kamma? ------------------------ Kamma (cetana) is a universal cetasika and so it must arise with insight. Cetasikas are mutually dependent in various ways and so, yes, I suppose cetana is one of the conditions. In any case, the right volition would not entail any sense of, "Let there be insight!" ------------------------- 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by- moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? ------------------------- If these are conventional designations for certain moments of kusala consciousness then, of course, they are conducive to the development of panna. Otherwise, yes they are futile. For example, if I practice `attachment to living beings' under the illusion that it is metta, that is still a step in the wrong direction. ------------------------ 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence of a path of practice.] ---------------------------- I don't accept the question. Firstly: understanding is as much a volitional activity (sankhara-khandha) as is anything else. Secondly: it is only according to our conventional view of reality that one can `decide' to study and think over. In the same, conventional way, one *can* decide to understand. (One can also decide to fly to the moon.) Ultimately, reading and writing cannot be willed. There is the illusion of willing, but that's as far as it goes. In that way, I see direct understanding (satipatthana) as a part of Dhamma practice in the same way as are `hearing, considering and discussing.' In answer to your follow-up post: This is no trouble at all -- thanks for the extra questions. As I have just said (rather wittily, I thought) it's all good `practice.' Kind regards, Ken H 29598 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi James & All, (esp. those we met in Bangkok and those of you that kept DSG running so well;-), --- buddhatrue wrote: > Yes, I also believe it has been a very worthwhile discussion (at > least for me). However, I think your being gone is just a > coincidence! ;-)) There are also worthwhile discussions when you are > here. Anyway, thanks for the updates on your trip. They have been > interesting and very considerate of you. Have a safe journey home! ... Thx James;-) It’s been great reading and it’s even better to be back and able to check in from home (‘just attachment’, I hear KenO saying:-)). It’s a good sign when there are such worthwhile discussions whether or not a few of the most frequent posters and mods are around or not. I do sincerely hope our return doesn’t send anyone back to lurkerland.....(RobM, Ken H, Michael, Victor, Swee Boon, KKT and anyone else - just pretend we’re away surfing all the time;-). James, we printed our your kind comments to Nina for her and were particularly happy to see you quoting from the Visuddhimagga and Abhidammatha Sangaha and now from a Pali glossary;-) You really will have to join us all in Bkk sometime. (Hope, I wasn't dreaming). Jon gave very brief updates and I’m sure we’re all waiting for the full version which only CHRISTINE could do justice to. For me personally, it was wonderful to see quite a number of very old dhamma friends (around 10 that we’ve known from the 70s), medium old dhamma friends and more recent ones who we’ve got to know from here. Friends from all over the world and many we’d have liked to have spent more time with and several said the same, but that’s always the way of attachment.(‘Just get to the Dhamma’, KenO will be telling me!!) When Chris mentioned Ven Yanatharo was to be in town at the same time for Robert Ed’s ordination, we encouraged her to invite them to the discussions too. Only Ven Y arrived, but there we all were armed with dhamma discussion ‘ammunition’. VenY arrived with his direct questions that others consider, but only he might ask A.Sujin, directly, in his loud and clear voice and with a big twinkle in his eye - Qs relating to ones he’d heard about her and the Foundation, about her views on the Sangha, her levels of attainment and so on;-) She’s an expert in answering questions with questions, but it was all in the best of humour. A lot was also heard and considered about the Vinaya and difficulties of the monk’s life today by Ven Y. It was pointed out that any life has difficulties;-) I appreciated Ven Y’s questions about rebirth and self, spirit, soul. We gave answers about why we might have confidence in rebirth and most related to the present moment. I mentioned that while there was no understanding of conditions now, there was bound to be uncertainty about the next moment, next life and an idea of self and so on. I could tell Ven Y found most the answers unconvincing, but when we checked the list that evening, James had given the perfect answer with a quote from the Paccaya Sutta also indicating that without an understanding of conditions there will always be a wondering about ‘what was I in the past....’, ‘what will I be in the future.....’ and so on. Thanks, James. I printed it out to give Ven Y the next day, but we didn’t see him again. Perhaps he’ll add his own impressions or answers he heard on this ‘funny little group’ as he chose to call DSG;-) KenO came armed with a copy of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha and a very fast tongue and mind - too fast for the rest of us to keep up with at times. His first question related to the arising of the group of primary rupas - I’m not sure he got the answer he was looking for or whether anyone really understood the question (KenO - ‘You know, Howard’s qu’). A.Sujin began testing him throughout the day on his Abhidhamma knowledge..... he was pretty wise and well-prepared for this and gave all the right answers;-) His good humour (just like on list), asides and keen interest were key reasons as to why the discussions were so meaty and yet enjoyable and fun too;-). I’m still not sure why he thinks it’s so dangerous to travel in the same car as any of us and would rather hike down Charoen Nakorn Road (long, busy and polluted) or why he’s convinced it’s a waste of time for me to offer any pleasantries such as ‘how’s your tea?’ or welcomes to new members, (KenO: ‘if it’s not dhamma it’s akusala), but then as I say, we were all a bit slow for him and I’m sure he would have liked to fast forward us all or to zap as he can do on list. ‘that’s a waste of time’ - zap!). Christine arrived with a bag of texts as well, including B.Bodhi’s AN anthology and of course she managed to bring Angulimala, Vessantara and a few of her favourites (!) into various discussions too. She’s becoming quite one of the ‘oldies’ and was even heard giving and finding translations for Pali terms during discussions;-) We met at the airport yesterday and had a final few words on victims at work and in the suttas - no conclusions but I think we all learnt more about our accumulations.Certainly (thanks KenO again), I learnt more about my frivolous ones;-) ...and Jon was armed with the Visuddhimagga, Betty (I think) with the Nyantiloka dictionary (most useful at these discussions), Nina and I with plenty of Abhidhamma qus from DSG, ready for any lulls or pauses. We thanked Larry, Howard, RobM and others for many of these further points and considerations. I know Nina will be writing more, so I can unpack now;-). Indeed, Nina was waiting for us on our arrival to refine and check my book of qus, Azita;-) As Jon said, our old friend Vince arrived with all the meditation and samatha qus and honestly, at times, K.Sujin couldn’t get a word in either. It was never boring and the lunches and brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up (Ok, KenO - dhamma and lobha). Many thanks to all who joined us in Bkk and especially to Betty and Sukin for coordinating us all so well while we were there. We still don't know what happened to Chuck from Texas, but Pinna, an old friend and lurking member from Texas was with us. Even greater thanks to all those who have been contributing here in our absence in such good form and humour and thereby enabling us to really take a good break knowing we were leaving the list in your good finger-tips. With metta, Sarah p.s KenO - I’ll get into some straight dhamma soon - well, maybe after a welcome or two to new members,that is;-) Have a good trip back to Sing. (oops, there I go again;-)) And remember to send a fax or letter to BPS re your Samyutta Nikaya order!! ====== 29599 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > Good to see you again. When you are sitting do you think there is no > such reality as this sitting, or do you think the reality of this > sitting is tangible data, or do you just experience tangible data, or > do you look at the experience of tangible data? If you look at the > experience of tangible data, what happens? If you are asking what my experience is in daily life, then I must say that it is no different from any uninstructed worldling :-). That is, I get mentally lost, or else I am attracted or repelled by what goes through the other five doorways. But I have had also the following experiences. [With the background knowledge about conditionality, I believe whatever citta arises to experience any object, whether sense or mind, there is never a reason to feel that it should have been otherwise.] So if the thought "there is no such reality as this sitting" or "this sitting is tangible data" arose, it is a case of it having been conditioned partly by previous knowledge of Abhidhamma. But I wouldn't *believe in* thinking such a way. I do not see any possibility of talking my way to understanding. The very utterance of these words could be from wrong view. It is better that I see the value of this moment without being caught in mental proliferation no matter if the content of proliferation be the Abhidhamma language. But even this if arisen, can be understood and no need ever to wish otherwise and always good to have patience. If there is "just experience tangible data", I am sure that it will be followed by much lobha and papanca ;-). So for every kusala you can expect a thousand akusala arising as consequence. But even if it happens, this is what it is supposed to be. I do sometimes "look at the experience of tangible data", but increasingly I detect `self' at play behind this. And with this, sometimes there is discouragement about the fact that *there is absolutely nothing "I" can do to make sati arise*, however there can at other times be `patience, courage and good cheer'. And often I think about Azita. :-) I believe the deliberate looking at experience is fueled not only by lobha but also by wrong view, such that encouraging the kind of practice would be increasing both. Hope my answer helps. Metta, Sukin.