29800

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

 	
Hi Larry,

> All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering 
or
> desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have 
such
> problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or
> imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then 
they are
> no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems" 
doesn't
> do the trick. You have to really investigate. 

I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and 
suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and 
suffering (as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there 
have never been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem 
to imply. If ever the conditions arise and I discover something 
interesting, I'll let you know. ;-)

But perhaps your suggestion to "careful search" and "really 
investigate" means what it does conventionally. Do you think insight 
can be reached by such means?

Metta,
Sukin
	
29801

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc

 	
Larry

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon,
...
> L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that
> is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness.
> However, I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional.

Well, there is volition, in the form of the mental factor of that
name, accompanying every moment of consciousness, so in that sense of
the word it cannot be said that 'ultimately there is no need for
volition', although, yes, it can be said that all wholesome
consciousness is volitional.

In the sense of volition as a kind of *deliberate intention that
precedes a given mind-state*, however, I do not read the teachings as
saying that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. That would
mean that without the deliberate intention to 'have kusala' there
could not be wholesome consciousness. I think it is clear that
kusala can arise without this kind of self-prompting (see especially
the passage on prompted and unprompted mental states from CMA that
you gave in a post recently). It is also confirmed by our own
experience in life, don't you find?

As regards the kind of self-prompting that can condition kusala,
however, I do not think this includes undertaking some form of
'practice' with the intention of calming the mind or observing
dhammas. First, this is nowhere stated or inferred in the texts, as
far as I can see, and secondly, based on my own experience, it would
be more likely to be a form of attachment: attachment to wanting
more kusala/understanding, or to somehow be other than we are. (Of
course, for one in whom such kind of kusala has already been
developed to a high level, the situation may be different.)

It could however, include reflecting on the true dhamma read/heard
where such reflection is motivated by a sense of urgency, the kind of
thing I understand to be referred to in the sutta in this thread when
it talks about *listening to, attending to, and applying one's
(whole) mind to* the dhamma.

Jon


	
29802

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:02pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon

 	
Victor

--- yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon,
...
> I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your 
> point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if I 
> can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you.

Sorry if I missed your point, and yes, by all means let's contintue
the discussion.

I think we have agreed that there is no direct reference in the
suttas to 'paramattha' and 'samutti' truths/speech.

To my understanding, however, the world as seen by the ariyan is a
different world to the one seen by the worldling, and the terms
paramattha and samutti are used in the commentaries to describe this
difference.

The term samutti is also used to describe the frame of reference of
speech of all persons, both enlightened and unelightened, although
when used by the ariyan it is used without any misunderstanding of
the ultimate truths (unlike in the case of the wordling).

I think that summarises how I see it.

Jon


	
29803

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness?

 	
Hi Howard & Larry,

You’re having a useful discussion. Just butting in on passing...

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: 
> H: "It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance
> as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot
> mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware."
> 
L: > I think the consciousness link refers to resultant consciousness and
it
> continues as before for an arahant as a result of previous volition.
> Otherwise, what would condition it?
...
Ignorance can be said to be the direct or indirect condition for all
sankhara dhammas (conditioned realities), including those of the arahant.
Without ignorance there would have been no birth in the first place. Like
Larry says, consciousness (i.e seeing, hearing and so on, aka all cittas)
continue on as they do now, regardless of the degree of wisdom
accumulated, while there are still conditions during the present
life-time. We have to be careful with the word ‘awareness’ I think,
because for many people it is used as a translation of sati which only
accompanies beautiful moments of consciousness (vi~n~nana.

In the Sammaadi.t.thi Sutta, it defines ignorance as the not knowing or
fully understanding the Four Noble Truths. 

“When a noble disciple has thus understood ignorance, the origin of
ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the
cessation of ignorance....he here and now makes an end of suffering. In
that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at
this true Dhamma.

“And what is ignorance.......? Not knowing about suffering, not knowing
about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of
suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering
- this is called ignorance.”

The commentary gives a lot more detail on this. It also indicates in terms
of various conditions how ignorance conditions formations and so on. For
example, it says “...With the arising of ignorance (avijjaasamudayaa): but
here ignorance should be understood as a condition for the wholesome by
way of decisive support and for the unwholesome by way of conascence as
well.” In other words, ignorance from yesterday, from last life, from
aeons ago can act as a decisive support condition for not only subsequent
ignorance, attachment and other kilesa (unwholesome states), but also for
birth and wholesome states(or kiriya states in the case of an arahant) as
well. It also acts as ‘conascent condition’ for present unwholesome states
arising with it.

Here’s a quote from Vibh-a (Dispeller of Delusion), Structure of
Conditions, 642 on ignorance which I find helpful:

“....Clear comprehension is understanding. It understands rightly the
Dhamma of the four truths with each meaning and each reason. But ignorance
when it arises does not allow it to understand that quality, thus it is
non-clear-comprehension (asampaja~n~na). Delusion (moha) is by deluding. 
Bewilderment (pamoha) is by bewildering. Confusion (sammoha) is by way of
confusing. “It finds what should not be found” (avindiya.m vindati) is
ignorance (avijjaa). “It engulfs, causes to sink in the process [of
existence]” is the flood of ignorance (avijjogha). “It yokes to the
process [of existence]” is the yoke of ignorance (avijjaayoga). Because
of arising again and again through not being abandoned, it is the inherent
tendency to ignorance (avijjaanusaya). “Like robbers that beset travellers
on the road, it besets profitable consciousness, seizes it, plunders it”
is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana).....”
*****
Metta,

Sarah

p.s James & KenO, also under ignorance, just before this passage above,
applicable to all of us for most of the day,I’d think:

“....’It [ignorance] has nothing that is clarified, and it is itself
action done without reflecting’ is non-clarification (appaccakkha-kamma).
Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. Folly
(baalya) is due to the state of a fool.”
======


29804

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Larry

> Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read
> "idea" as "concept":

The sutta you quote below is from the Salaayatan-samyutta ('Six
sense-bases' samyutta) of SN.

To my understanding, dhammayatana, here translated as 'ideas', does
not include concepts. (This has been discussed extensively before --
see under 'ayatana' in UP. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' is
incorrect on this point.)

Jon

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor,
...
> "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



	

 	 

	
29805

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:02pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sotaapanno

 	
Michael

I don't think the sutta reference is to the phala citta. I agree it
is easy to assume so, given the mention of 'fruition', but the
commentary to the sutta seems to indicate otherwise -- see footnote
1298 to para 6 of the sutta (in which the order of the various
persons is reversed to that in para 5 quoted in your post) which
indicates that the results of the giving to the various classes of
person is in *ascending order of magnitude*. Thus the 'one
practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition' must refer
to a person who has not yet attained sotapattimagga citta.

This is I think the same point as made by Sarah in an earlier reply
to you.

Jon

--- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> wrote: > Hello All,
...
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, ...to a paccekabuddha ...to an arahant
disciple of the Tathagata ...to one who has entered upon the way to
the realization of the fruit of arahantship ...to a non-returner
...to one who has entered upon the way to the realization of the
fruit of non-returner ...to a once-returner ...to one who has entered
upon the way to the realization of the fruit of once-return ...to a
stream-enterer ...to one who has entered upon the way to the
realization of the fruit of stream-entry.
<snip>

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.


	
29806

From: Charles Thompson <dhammasaro@h...> 
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:08pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kenneth Ong 
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"


Hi James

> James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false 
> assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite 
> with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements
> > during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. 
The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements,
> didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics,
and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. 

k: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. 
- Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million
jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide
you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth (was it 80,000 aeons
- couldn't remember it very well)


Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is
> a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration 
> specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on 
> numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? 
> Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is 
> getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this
> obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) 

k: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient
with me. 

> James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I
> am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are
> going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward
step-by-step. 

k: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker
than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has
anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion
is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various
buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is
constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by
studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace)
bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta


Ken O


















	
29807

From: Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala <beyugala@k...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:00am
Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for consciousness

 	
Dear Howard and Larry,
I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just how ignorance
leads to sankhara, which Nyanatiloka's dictionary calls 'kammic formations'.
You have asked how sankhara then leads to consciousness, the 3rd link in the
chain of dependent origination.

If my understanding is correct, it is through ignorance that kammic
formations, vipaka (result of kammic action), cause consciousness (cittas)
to arise. At the moment of the arising of a sense door process, 3 elements
have to "meet" so that the process can follow through and objects (aramana)
can be perceived, remembered and act as a condition (sampayutta paccaya?)
for javana cittas (those that produce kammic action) to arise, thus keeping
the cycle of samsara moving. The 3 elements are: an object "outside" (1st
element) that is perceived at a sense "base" (ayatana) (2nd element) at
which cittas (consciousness) (3rd element) arise because of conditions
(anantara paccaya?).

The study of abhidhamma is a great aid in helping one to see (on the
intellectual level, anyway) how phenomena interrelate and how everything
really is the rise and fall of various phenomena because of conditions, and
not self.

I hope that helped (it did for me and brought up a few questions of my own
which I need to ask Than Achaan Sujin).

metta,
Betty

________________________________________________________
	
29808

From: gazita2002 <gazita2002@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:27am
Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness?

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Hi Howard & Larry,
> 
> You're having a useful discussion. Just butting in on passing...
> 

Dear Sarah,
Well I am delighted that you 'butted in' with this, IMO, 
wonderful piece of information on ignorance.


> Here's a quote from Vibh-a (Dispeller of Delusion), Structure of
> Conditions, 642 on ignorance which I find helpful:
> 
> "....Clear comprehension is understanding. It understands rightly 
the
> Dhamma of the four truths with each meaning and each reason. But 
ignorance
> when it arises does not allow it to understand that quality, thus 
it is
> non-clear-comprehension (asampaja~n~na). Delusion (moha) is by 
deluding. 
> Bewilderment (pamoha) is by bewildering. Confusion (sammoha) is by 
way of
> confusing. "It finds what should not be found" (avindiya.m 
vindati) is
> ignorance (avijjaa).

'it finds what should not be found' - that's great - how many 
reams of useless bits of information have we chased after just in 
this life......

"It engulfs, causes to sink in the process [of
> existence]" is the flood of ignorance (avijjogha). "It yokes to the
> process [of existence]" is the yoke of ignorance (avijjaayoga). 
Because
> of arising again and again through not being abandoned, it is the 
inherent
> tendency to ignorance (avijjaanusaya). "Like robbers that beset 
travellers
> on the road, it besets profitable consciousness, seizes it, 
plunders it"
> is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana)....."
> *****
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah
> 
> p.s James & KenO, also under ignorance, just before this passage 
above,
> applicable to all of us for most of the day,I'd think:
> 
> "....'It [ignorance] has nothing that is clarified, and it is itself
> action done without reflecting' is non-clarification (appaccakkha-
kamma).
> Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. 
Folly
> (baalya) is due to the state of a fool."

Interesting that an English expression for a stupid person 
is 'dummy' or 'dumbo'. I want to read more of this, can you 
give me possible web sites, please Sarah.
Did you have a pleasant holiday, and did you have a beneficial 
time in Bkk wiht T.A Sujin?

Patience, courage and good cheer,
Azita

@yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
	
29809

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

 	
Hi Larry

I remember there are three levels of panna (I dont remember the
details). The truth of suffering are to me two levels. One of them
the thinking level where our suffering which that we experience is a
snow ball effect of millions of paramattha cittas. The other level,
is the real level, the paramattha level. I dont think I have explain
it very well. Maybe one day I will have a better example.

See the world as namas and rupas - to me it is very intersting. I
give some examples which i think very enlightening, angry words are
just sound rupas. Angry expression by others are just visible rupas.
Angry feelings in our mind are just namas. You can even go into a
further level, visible rupas cannot be seen without visible cittas
etc. Let me be repeat myself, these still are also "thinking level"
and not real level of paramattha level. But this thinking level will
develop to paramattha level.


Ken O






> 
> You are saying the truth of suffering is a concept in two ways.
> First,
> it is a concept isofar as it is a theory we don't understand.
> Second, it
> is a concept insofar as what we do understand as suffering in our
> everyday life is itself only a conceptual construct. Is there any
> real
> suffering anywhere here? How do you know?
> 
> Larry 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 





	
29810

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:19am
Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness?

 	
Hi Azita,

I’m glad you found the passages helpful too.

--- gazita2002 <gazita2002@y...> wrote:
> > Stupidity (dummejjha) is due to the state of one who is stupid. 
> Folly
> > (baalya) is due to the state of a fool."
> 
> Interesting that an English expression for a stupid person 
> is 'dummy' or 'dumbo'. 
....
;-) Yes, I smiled too. Not sure if there is a link.
....

>I want to read more of this, can you 
> give me possible web sites, please Sarah.
.....
I typed the passages out from the Abhidhamma commentary text, Dispeller of
Delusion, ~Naa.namoli’s transl, PTS. There are several pages just on
‘ignorance’ which are most helpful.It’s not on the web. Some of it may be
in the Vism as well, I forget now.

I gave another set of quotes on ignorance from the same source in this
post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24477

Some useful detail is also given in The Sammaditthi Sutta and the
commentary at the end, both under ‘ignorance’. This is on line:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel377.html

(Larry, did you read the sections on the 4 Nutriments and nutritive
essence?)
.....
> Did you have a pleasant holiday, and did you have a beneficial 
> time in Bkk wiht T.A Sujin?
....
Excellent to both Qs.....;-) After a week of freezing rain in H.K., those
sunny days seem a long time ago already. Did you see my post when I got
back about it and the meeting with many friends at the Foundation and at
meals*? 

Metta,

Sarah
* Besides the DSGers you knew were going, also possible lurkers - Vince,
Nancy, Peter Swan, Nina V, Pinna - see pix in album
=============

	
29811

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:26am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi James and (Jeffrey)

There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman
of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. 
On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one
can get enlighted without panna.

With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A
Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) impartially
(upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. 
Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in
connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge
(paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to
Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha
found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without
the least trace of any discriminative knowledge.


Ken O






	
29812

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 1:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food)

 	
Hi Sarah

The CMA does not say anything about this smiling cittas. According
to Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma, it states Samma Sambuddha
smile with one of the two Sobhana Kiriya Cittas accompanied by wisdom
and pleasure.


Ken O





	
29813

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 3:32am
Subject: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food))

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah
> 
> The CMA does not say anything about this smiling cittas. According
> to Narada Thera in A Manual of Abhidhamma, it states Samma Sambuddha
> smile with one of the two Sobhana Kiriya Cittas accompanied by wisdom
> and pleasure.
....
Are you sure it says *only* with these?

CMA p44

#10 Rootless Functional Consciousness (ahetukakiriya cittaani)-3

includes smile-producing consciousness accompanied by joy as a rootless
functional type of consciousness.

Guide to #10
Smile-producing consciousness (hasituppaadacitta): this is a citta
peculiar to Arahants, including Buddhas and Paccekabuddhas who are also
types of Arahants.....According to the Abhidhamma, Arahants may smile with
one of five cittas - the four beautiful sense-sphere functional cittas
(1,#15)[i.e two with and two without panna, under sense-sphere functional
consciousnes (kaamaavacara-kiriyaacittaani) accompanied by joy] and the
rootless smile-producing consciousness mentioned here.

This rootless one is included as citta no 30 is U Silananda’s chart of
cittas I’m looking at in his ‘Aids to the study of
Abhidhammatthasa”ngaha’.

Also the commentary you have,p25 also gives a note on the kiriya citta:

“That which produces smiles is smile-producing; [it occurs] for those who
have destroye the taints and is caused by the mere condition of pleasure
when there is an object that is not gross; this consciousness is the
kiriya, unmotivated mind-consciousness element accompanied by happiness.”

The Atthasilini gives examples of what is meant by the smile arising at
the conclusion of knowledges (i.e dependent on, rather than necessarily
accompanying):

e.g. Atthasalini transl (PTS), Conclusion, p.387:

“The Tathagata smiled at the thought:- ‘in future Tantissara the silent
buddha will arise.’ That reflection is the function of the knowledge of
the future and of omniscience, at the conclusion of the practice of which
the laughter-producing consciousness arises.”

Let me know how we're doing here.

Metta,

Sarah
======


	
29814

From: icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:48am
Subject: Re: A few questions

 	
Dear Harry

Good to hear about you!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

> As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues 
> that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the 
> group can help me address these questions.
> 
> As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few 
> enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these 
> beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in 
> all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary 
> interpretation of the Buddha's words.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t Arahants 
in this world anymore. Coincidently their passing away was at the 
same epoch of the first Pali Canon texts, circa three hundred years 
after Buddha´s Parinibbana.
At my humble opinion, it´s due of the fact that now the Pali texts 
are the faithful repository of true Buddha´s teachings. But there is 
an other side of this coin: at the Visuddhimagga and many other texts 
are mentioned cases of Bhikkhus that reached up Arahantship by means 
of insights very similar to popular "Zen" stories ( That famous "Zen 
insights" were put in pratice by Sinhalese people since the very dawn 
of Buddhism... there´s no originality in these issues anyway!)

---------------------------------------------------------------------


This could effectively put an 
> end to the confusion that exists between the many different 
> interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today.
> 
> I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written 
> shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the 
> Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of 
> years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's 
> words were put to paper?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The second hypothesis is more feasible. Mahayana texts that 
claimed on a true spiritual heritage at the days of Buddha´s 
dispensation sometimes differs at large of basic points of elementar 
Buddhism Doctrine. Theravada Buddhism keeps, at my viewpoint, 
a "corpus" of learning and teaching issues much more coherent than 
these Mahayana´s "True Story" texts...even with the handicap of being 
written much after the words spoken out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order 
of 
> them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any 
> inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts 
> within the process of being.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We get two sides of this matter: at one we have got the 
term "Niyama", Pali word of Sanskrit origin that means something 
like "Fixed order" ( The negatory prefix "Ni" plus the term Yama - 
Control - may encompass all terms alike "No Control", but with the 
distinctiveness of "ordered sequence"). At the other side we get the 
own Buddhistic teaching, saying that there is no guaranteed true at 
this world, all these being only "Signposts withing the process of 
being". Such differences (if any!)could be only conventional ones, 
since for Buddha the Ultimate Realities (the Nibbana, for example) 
are beyond concepts.

Take your pick!
> 
> Thanks, Harry


Mettaya, Ícaro
	
29815

From: ashkenn2k <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:12am
Subject: Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Sarah

The cruz is can Buddha smile without the smiling producing cittas. 
Since Arahants can smile either with the four sobhana kiriya cittas or
smiling producing citta. So if one say Buddha can smile with panna
should not be wrong since Arahants themselve can smile with panna (why
not Buddha then ;-)). furthermore my reading of the commentary to
Abhidhammata Sangaha has spelt it very clearly, Buddha only smile with
panna and not otherwise since Buddha wisdom is omniscent. My smile is
full of akusala though.



Cheers
Ken O
	
29816

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Eye Consciousness

 	
Hi Sarah,

Okay, I am still on this sense base kick! ;-)) When I put my mind to 
something I don't let it go until I find the answer! This is what I 
find from the Visuddhimagga which leads me to believe that Buddhism 
doesn't equate eye consciousness as actually arising in the eye 
itself:

"Having seen a form with his eye: when he has seen a form with the 
visual consciousness which is capable of seeing forms, and which in 
normal language is usually called the "eye," though it actually is 
its tool. For the Ancients have said: "The eye cannot see forms 
because it is without thought; thought cannot see forms because it is 
without eye. When the object knocks against the door (of sight) one 
sees with the thought which has eye-sensibility for its basis." In 
the expression "one sees with the eye," only accessory equipment is 
indicated, just as one may say, "one shoots with a bow" (and 
not "with an arrow"). Therefore, the meaning here is: "having seen 
form with visual consciousness."

How do you take this?

Metta, James
	
29817

From: ashkenn2k <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 5:41am
Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

 	
Hi Jeffrey

J> Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha
ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant
abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states
(jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was
indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. 

k: I read an article in the Abhidhamma.org <A Treatise on Paramis>. 
To become a Buddha one must practise at least <<As a minimum, four
incalculables (asankheyya) and a hundred thousand great aeons
(mahakappa); >> I think this would meant at least millions of lives. 


J> Maha-satipatthana Sutta, DN 22.22 
> "Now, if anyone would develop these Four Cornerstones of Awareness
(frames of reference, or foundations of mindfulness) in this way for
seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis
(Arahantship) right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of
clinging-sustenance -- non-return."

k: It is possible to be enlighted at right here and right now,
however the irony about the whole thing of Buddhism are we able to
without the correct conditions. How many Sariputta in this human
history. What Buddha say is a generalisation, some like Sariputta
just takes four stanzas while others like Ananda takes many years,
other still like me take (hmm better dont count, gosh its going to be
very lonnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg).


J> Awareness is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and
developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of
awareness is revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are
a series of concentration exercises that lead to the development of
awareness (Sati), which leads to absorption (jhana), which leads to
cessation (nibbana).

k: Do you think there is possiblility of awareness without cittas. I
remember Buddha said the forerunner is citta and not awareness. If
you read dependent origination carefully, citta is the cause of our
cognization of the objects through the six senses. Do you think then
it is possible without cognization? If you look at many suttas with
the six senses, it is guarding, abandoning, relinquishing, of the six
senses and that requires cognition of the six senses. I think you may
have mistaken cognition as thinking by normal human experience. 
Awarness even at our normal human experience is still thinking Not
even at paramattha level. 

k: I do not stop pple from doing what they think is right, I just
like you to consider those ancient text that we have presented. I do
not doubt your confidence in the Pali Cannon, however as a sincere
Dhamma friend, I like you to consider my point of view. I am also
glad that you have great confidence in 8NP. 

k: One last word, if you read the seven factors of Enlightment, panna
is also as equally impt. Your position is only concentration which is
only one factor, how about the rest of the six. I think sati should
not be mixed up with concentration, as I quoted earlier that in the
fifth jhanas it is both equanmity and sati. Please do consider 



Best wishes
Ken O
	
29818

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 6:03am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- ashkenn2k <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah
> 
> The cruz is can Buddha smile without the smiling producing cittas. 
> Since Arahants can smile either with the four sobhana kiriya cittas or
> smiling producing citta. So if one say Buddha can smile with panna
> should not be wrong since Arahants themselve can smile with panna (why
> not Buddha then ;-)). 
....
No disagreement in any texts so far ;-)
....
>furthermore my reading of the commentary to
> Abhidhammata Sangaha has spelt it very clearly, Buddha only smile with
> panna and not otherwise since Buddha wisdom is omniscent. 
....
I’ve just checked Narada’s Abhidammatha Sangaha and in his notes he
certainly agrees that in the Buddha’s case, the smile only arises with
‘the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure’. He
writes:

“26. Hasituppada is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by a
pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by which
one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary worldling
(puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of cittas rooted
in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the four kusala cittas,
accompanied by pleasure. 

Sotapannas, Sakadagamis, and Anagamis may smile with one of the two
akusala cittas, disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or
with one of the four kusala cittas. 

Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with one of the four sobhana kiriya
cittas or hasituppada. 

Samma Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas,
accompanied by wisdom and pleasure.”
*****
This is not from the Abhidammattha Sangaha itself and he doesn’t give
another Abhidhamma reference as far as I can see. Here he differentiates
between Samma Sambuddhas and Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas and this sounds
plausible. B.Bodhi’s note was concerning arahants in general. (They are
both notes to the same section). I thought (and maybe K.Sujin?) your
original argument in Bangkok was about smile producing cittas in all
arahants, not just the Buddha, but I may well be wrong, so we may have
been talking somewhat at cross purposes. I accept that I may not have been
listening carefully either.

I’m happy to accept Narada’s comment as correct for now. Next time, just
give me the reference or quote at the start;-) I’m also happy to accept
your conclusion about the commentary passages too in this light.
......
>My smile is
> full of akusala though.
....
Yes, but just occasionally it may be with metta or other wholesome
states..... better than frowning and looking angry too;-)

Metta and appreciation,

Sarah
p.s Can you tell us now why you brought up this topic or what it’s
importance was for you???
======


	
29819

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Sarah

We are dicussing about smiling cittas of Buddha and not Arahants. I
also forget how this issue came out, was it me?. 


Ken O







	
29820

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:11am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon

 	
Hi Jon,

No problem. Like I said earlier, it is ok if you missed my point.

This is how I see it:
The uninstructed worldlings either have no knowledge of the four 
noble truths or have no confidence/conviction in the Buddha, the 
Dhamma, and the Sangha. The stream-enterers, once-returners, non-
returners, and arahants have knowledge of the four noble truths, 
have perfect confidence/conviction in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and 
the Sangha. For stream-enterers, once-returners, and non-returners, 
their defilements are eliminated/destroyed in different degree. 
They will not stray from the path to the cessation of dukkha. The 
arahants are the ones who have reached the cessation of dukkha, 
their defilements completely uprooted. The world itself has it's 
own characteristics; namely, whatever comes to be in the world is 
impermanent, dukkha, not self. The noble ones see whatever comes to 
be in the world as it actually is: impermanent, dukkha, not self. 
The uninstructed worldlings don't.

Let me quote the following [expanded] discourse:

SN 22.15 What is Impermanent

<quote>
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent 
is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should 
be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, 
this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Feeling is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is 
suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really 
is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this 
is not my self.'

"Perception is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What 
is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it 
really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am 
not, this is not my self.'

"Volitional formations are impermanent. What are impermanent are 
suffering. What are suffering are nonself. What are nonself should 
be seen as they really are with correct wisdom thus: 'These are not 
mine, these I am not, these are not my self.'

"Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. 
What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it 
really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am 
not, this is not my self.'

"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences 
revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards 
perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion 
towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes 
dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it 
is liberated there comes the knowledge: 'It's liberated.' He 
understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what 
had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of 
being.'" [1]

Metta,
Victor

[1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 869.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott 
<jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> Victor
> 
> --- yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon,
> ...
> > I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your 
> > point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if 
I 
> > can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you.
> 
> Sorry if I missed your point, and yes, by all means let's contintue
> the discussion.
> 
> I think we have agreed that there is no direct reference in the
> suttas to 'paramattha' and 'samutti' truths/speech.
> 
> To my understanding, however, the world as seen by the ariyan is a
> different world to the one seen by the worldling, and the terms
> paramattha and samutti are used in the commentaries to describe 
this
> difference.
> 
> The term samutti is also used to describe the frame of reference of
> speech of all persons, both enlightened and unelightened, although
> when used by the ariyan it is used without any misunderstanding of
> the ultimate truths (unlike in the case of the wordling).
> 
> I think that summarises how I see it.
> 
> Jon
	
29821

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 9:46am
Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Ken O (and James),

Ken, I understand that James's point is not that there can be 
enlightenment without panna. It seems to me that you are pushing 
the idea that there can be enlightenment without panna as James's 
point. You ask James to prove you a sutta that says one can get 
enlightened without panna, while James, from what I read in his 
messages, never made such claim that one can get enlightened without 
panna. It occurs to me that you created an issue and attributed it 
to James, while that issue was never raised by James himself in the 
first place. 

As I read the discussions between you and James, the issue that you 
and James really disagree on is whether jhana is necessary for 
realizing nibbana. Regarding this issue, I would put forth the 
question for your consideration:

Is right concentration necessary for realizing nibbana?

Metta,
Victor

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi James and (Jeffrey)
> 
> There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman
> of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. 
> On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one
> can get enlighted without panna.
> 
> With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A
> Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) 
impartially
> (upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. 
> Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in
> connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge
> (paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to
> Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha
> found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without
> the least trace of any discriminative knowledge.
> 
> 
> Ken O

	
29822

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:17pm
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Victor (Ken O),

Victor: It occurs to me that you created an issue and attributed it
to James, while that issue was never raised by James himself in the
first place.

James: Thank you, Victor!! I am glad that I am not the only one to 
see this. I felt like I was being forced to argue points I didn't 
make so I just decided to give up. As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, 
developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't 
have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only 
the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal." 
Obviously I have not stated that Jhana without Panna is what the 
Buddha taught. I am glad that you have pointed this out. Thanks 
again.

Metta, James
	
29823

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 0:32pm
Subject: Mr. Karunadasa

 	
Hi Rob M.,

I got a response from the Sri Lankan monk I told you I was going to 
write to about Karunadasa:

> About Ven Karunadasa, Well I do not know of a Ven
> Karunadasa
> but I do know of a Mr Y Karunadasa who is a
> professor of Buddhist Studies.
> He is a very nice person and I can imagine that it
> is him 
> you want to contact as he is also familiar with
> Abhidhamma.
> 
> To my knowledge he is presently not in Sri Lanka.
> Please let me know if that is the person you need to
> contact, 
> and I shall try to find out where in the World he is
> at present.

To which I replied:

Hehehe…I feel embarrassed! Yes, Mr Y Karunadasa is
who I meant. In his articles I have been reading I
have been mistaking that `Y' for a `V' and thought it
was short for Venerable! LOL!! They never print "Mr.
Y. Karunadasa" just "Y. Karunadasa"; and in some fonts
the `Y' definitely looks like a `V'. Okay, since he
is just a college professor I don't have any desire to
meet with him now. I thought he was a bhikkhu, a
highly intelligent bhikkhu, and I wanted to meet and
study with him; possibly during the summer. But I
don't think that college professors take on
`disciples' and I wouldn't want to be a disciple to a
college professor anyway. A member in a Buddhist
Internet group told me that a Western Bhikkhu had
`studied under him'; but now I know that it was
probably in a university setting. Sorry to have
bothered you with that.

Metta, James
	
29824

From: Harry Mueller <mexico_harry@h...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 6:46am
Subject: Re: A few questions

 	
> There are a consensus between buddhists that there aren´t 
Arahants 
> in this world anymore. 

Thank you TG and Icaro for your answers to my questions.

I hope that I'm correct in assuming that the Pali Canon is believed 
to have been written some 200 to 400 years after the Buddha's 
Parinibbana although no extant proof of the actual date exists. The 
possibility exists, although slight, that the texts were written 
with the help of Ananda shortly after the passing of the Buddha.

I think you both suggest that the order of the aggregates is not 
necessarily fixed and may be open to interpretation. Icaro, your 
point that they are conditioned is well taken.

I was totally unaware that "There are a consensus between buddhists 
that there aren´t Arahants in this world anymore". I have never 
heard this before. If true, I guess that steam entry is also no 
longer possible and it makes me wonder what all those meditators are 
striving for (although I do recognize the benefits of applying the 
buddhist tenets to daily life)? This point requires a lot of 
research and examination for me. I would also really like to gain 
the insight of some of the other paticipants of this wonderful study 
group.

Thanks again for your help.

With metta, Harry
	
29825

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:07pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

 	
Sukin: "I thought you meant problem with *detecting* the desire and
suffering. Of course I do have great problem with desire and suffering
(as I understand it conceptually that is,). However there have never
been conditions to look as deeply to the level you seem to imply. If
ever the conditions arise and I discover something interesting, I'll let
you know. ;-)"

Hi Sukin,

What if we say on the level in which we live our ordinary life desire
itself is concept. In other words, the desire that we know and have a
problem with is itself a concept. Do we need extraordinary powers of
concentration and insight in order to realize that a concept is not real
and therefore not a problem? 

Larry
	
29826

From: <macdocaz1@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:05am
Subject: RE: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

 	
Hello Ken O, and thank-you ever so much for your contribution to this 
subject. However it seems you have neglected to provide your canonical support. 
But, no problem I will provide one for you.

In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined 
sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi does not mean 
'concentration' as it is too often translated, but it must mean 'absorption' (jhana).

DN 22.21
"And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an 
aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) 
qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from 
withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of 
tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained 
{concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of 
exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of 
ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones 
declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the 
abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier 
disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity 
of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right 
absorption."

You will find absorption (jhana/samadhi) is a natural outcome of a 
contemplative practice that is "sensitive" to charismatic manifestations, what the 
Buddha called "a pleasure not of the senses." The Buddha described 8 levels of 
absorption (jhana/samadhi), and they are all defined as right absorption 
(sama-samadhi).

The Buddha's discourse on right absorption (sama-samadhi) the absorption 
states (jhanas/samadhi)

Potthapada Sutta, DN 9
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html

Samadhanga Sutta, AN V28
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-028.html

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these 
URLs:

Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html
Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html
Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html

The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/

May you become enlightened in this very lifetime.

Jeff Brooks

In a message dated 2/8/04 9:52:15 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 09:26:57 +0000 (GMT)

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...>

Subject: Re: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"


Hi James and (Jeffrey)


There is no enlightement without panna. Jhanas is not the superman

of enlightement. Jhana aids enlightement but not the pivotal one. 

On one get enlighted without panna. Prove me a sutta that says one

can get enlighted without panna.


With regards to the work Upekkha -- (defined by Narada Thera in A

Manual of Abhidhamma) -- literally means seeing (ikkhati) impartially

(upa = yuttito). It is viewing an object with a balanced mind. 

Atthasalini states -- "This is impartiality (majjhattam) in

connection with the object and implies a discriminative knowledge

(paricchindanakam nanam)". This explanation applies strictly to

Upekkha found in the Sobhana cittas accompanied by wisdom. Upekkha

found in the akusalas and ahetukas is just neutral feeling without

the least trace of any discriminative knowledge.



Ken O >>
	
29827

From: <macdocaz1@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:05am
Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

 	
Hello Ken O, and thank-you for your kind response. Please see my inline 
responses below:

In a message dated 2/8/04 9:52:15 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 13:41:50 -0000
From: "ashkenn2k" <ashkenn2k@y...>
Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

Hi Jeffrey

J> Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha
ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant
abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states
(jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was
indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. 

k: I read an article in the Abhidhamma.org . 
To become a Buddha one must practise at least <<As a minimum, four
incalculables (asankheyya) and a hundred thousand great aeons
(mahakappa); >> I think this would meant at least millions of lives. >>

%%%%%% Jeff:
That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the Nikayas and 
don't bother with Apocrypha.
%%%%%%

k: I do not stop pple from doing what they think is right, I just
like you to consider those ancient text that we have presented. I do
not doubt your confidence in the Pali Cannon, however as a sincere
Dhamma friend, I like you to consider my point of view. I am also
glad that you have great confidence in 8NP. 

k: One last word, if you read the seven factors of Enlightment, panna
is also as equally impt. Your position is only concentration which is
only one factor, how about the rest of the six. I think sati should
not be mixed up with concentration, as I quoted earlier that in the
fifth jhanas it is both equanmity and sati. Please do consider 

Best wishes
Ken O>>

%%%%%% Jeff:
I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment, or all 8 
folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often people think they can avoid 
8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the 
historic Buddha defined sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should 
assume samadhi does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but 
absorption (jhana).

DN 22.21
"And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an 
aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) 
qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from 
withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of 
tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained 
{concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of 
exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of 
ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones 
declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the 
abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier 
disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity 
of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right 
absorption."

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above sutta is available at this 
URLs:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html

The alternate translation that I used is available at this URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/

May you become enlightened in this very lifetime.

Jeff Brooks
	
29828

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc

 	
Hi Jon,

I was just looking through CMA and I now realize wholesome consciousness
is a lot more complicated than I had thought. However, I would say
"applying one's (whole) mind to the dhamma" is itself a prompt meant to
inspire self-prompted volitional action, in other words, discipline. On
the other hand, I agree insight "just happens".

I don't see any difference between journeying half way around the world
to listen to the dhamma and journeying to one's meditation cushion to
closely look at mind and body. One may or may not learn something from
either action, but both actions are wholesome and will have a cumulative
salutary effect.

Larry
----------------------
Jon: Larry 
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. 
  --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, 
... 
L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that 
is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness. However,
I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional. 

J: Well, there is volition, in the form of the mental factor of that
name, accompanying every moment of consciousness, so in that sense of
the word it cannot be said that 'ultimately there is no need for
volition', although, yes, it can be said that all wholesome
consciousness is volitional. 
In the sense of volition as a kind of *deliberate intention that
precedes a given mind-state*, however, I do not read the teachings as
saying that all wholesome consciousness is volitional. That would mean
that without the deliberate intention to 'have kusala' there could not
be wholesome consciousness. I think it is clear that kusala can arise
without this kind of self-prompting (see especially the passage on
prompted and unprompted mental states from CMA that you gave in a post
recently). It is also confirmed by our own experience in life, don't you
find? 
As regards the kind of self-prompting that can condition kusala,
however, I do not think this includes undertaking some form of
'practice' with the intention of calming the mind or observing dhammas.
First, this is nowhere stated or inferred in the texts, as far as I can
see, and secondly, based on my own experience, it would be more likely
to be a form of attachment: attachment to wanting more
kusala/understanding, or to somehow be other than we are. (Of course,
for one in whom such kind of kusala has already been developed to a high
level, the situation may be different.) 
It could however, include reflecting on the true dhamma read/heard where
such reflection is motivated by a sense of urgency, the kind of thing I
understand to be referred to in the sutta in this thread when it talks
about *listening to, attending to, and applying one's (whole) mind to*
the dhamma. 
Jon
	
29829

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Jon: Larry 

L: "Here's an example of concept as object of desire. In this case read
"idea" as "concept":" 

J: The sutta you quote below is from the Salaayatan-samyutta ('Six
sense-bases' samyutta) of SN. 
To my understanding, dhammayatana, here translated as 'ideas', does not
include concepts. (This has been discussed extensively before -- see
under 'ayatana' in UP. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' is incorrect
on this point.) 
Jon

Hi Jon,

Okay, I'm agreeable. I think Victor's question was something like "did
the Buddha ever say in the Suttas that concept is an object of desire?"
What would be your answer?

Since I can't really find either concept or desire in my experience I'm
tempted to say it's entirely academic. However, since I can't find
academia either, I guess I won't. 

Larry
	
29830

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Victor

I think you have misread me, I always insist that one need panna to
be enlighten whereas James thinks Jhana is the key to enlightement
and panna could be subordinated where I dispute. With or without
Jhana, one can still be enlighted with panna. 

Victor when you talk about right concentration, that is different
issue than jhanas, right concentration can be as defined in Samadhi
Sutta. Right concentration can also be defined as Jhanas, but we are
refering as "mini meditators" rather than a deliberate effort to
reach jhanas. Let me ask you a qn, could one say let my thought be
thus and my thought not be thus. Can we say thought, this is I, this
me or this is myself. Once this principle is understood, one effort
to develop jhana on purpose is furtile. Buddha cannot on one hand
teaching anatta and on the other hand tell pple hey you can control
thoughts to be liberated. It will not be congruent and will lead
pple doubting his teachings.

Furthermore, if one will to read the text carefully, jhanas will not
be possible if one is not of restraint in the six senses (which means
one must be in satipatthana). Without right understanding and right
mindfulness, there is no jhanas. I just like say that it is easy to
misconceive the jhanas we have are the correct jhanas. In fact they
may be just arupa or rupa jhanas - leading to extremely long lives.

Ken O







	
29831

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 8:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

 	
Hi Jeff


> %%%%%% Jeff:
> That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the
> Nikayas and don't bother with Apocrypha.
> %%%%%%

k: Do you think it is possible for pple who are enlighted to write
things that are false. Think about it before attribute Abhidhamma as
a bad spiritual fiction. 


> %%%%%% Jeff:
> I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment,
> or all 8 folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often
people think they can avoid 8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the
Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined
sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi
does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but 
absorption (jhana).

k: Even if it translated as jhana - your definition of jhanas is
still if I have not wrong - ecstasy or absorption. That is only the
feeling portion. You cannot on one hand keep advocation jhanas
(which is only one factor of enlightement) and when question about
the other six factors, you mention superficially, you did not mention
their roles and how they congruent with your view points. I like to
hear in your own words how does your definition of jhanas work with
mindfulness and how does your definitin of jhanas work with the other
six factors

k: I think it is easy to fall prey to the notion that eveything I
read should be this way or that way (even I do that). When ancient
text point differently, one get unhappy bc it is not congruent with
ones believe. I always said, who has the right understanding, those
written thousands of years ago or we are. Jeff I notice you like to
change the sutta (sati) text definitions and terms defintion to suit
your meaning, dont you think inevitablely you are attached to views,
to your own conceit. This is dangerous trend modern writers have. 
Believing they know better and also believeing by using kamala sutta
(or other sutta) they prove that traditions are wrong and they are
right. But I will not stop you from what you are doing, I sincerely
hope you consider the effect you have on others. 

Once again, I beg you to confine your own definiton and interest as
personal views and not changing any terms esp in the sati suttas to
suit your personal needs which could influence others. Your email
list of esctasy Buddhism have an effect on others, and that deeply
distrub me (even though I shouldn't since it is akusala). Even
though I cant do anything, the only thing I can do is beg you from
writing your own definiton. 



Sincerely concerned
Ken O




















	
29832

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:36pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Ken O,

Ken, I understand you insist that one needs panna to be 
enlightened. But like I said earlier, it occurs to me that you 
created an issue and attributed it to James, while that issue was 
never raised by James himself in the first place. And I see that 
you've done it again by saying "James thinks Jhana is the key to 
enlightement and panna could be subordinated." And how do you know 
what James thinks?

You said that with or without Jhana, one can still be enlighted with 
panna. Given that one can not be enlightened without 
wisdom/discernment/panna, the question is: 

Can one still be enlightened without jhana?

Regarding that question, this is how I see it:

As the Buddha taught the noble truth of the way of practice leading 
to the cessation of dukkha, samma samadhi is part of the Noble 
Eightfold Path. 

The Buddha defined samma samadhi in terms of the four jhanas. To 
develop samma samadhi is to develop at least the first four jhanas 
as taught by the Buddha. To develop at least the first four jhanas 
is to develop samma samadhi. And samma samadhi is developed when 
the four jhanas are developed, the skill to enter the four jhanas is 
mastered. Without the four jhanas developed, one is not of samma 
samadhi. Without samma samadhi, it is impossible for one to be 
enlightened. One cannot be enlightened without the four jhanas 
developed.

Samma samadhi alone does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. But 
without samma samadhi, the cessation of dukkha is impossible.

That is how I see it.

May all be happy and well.

Metta,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victor
> 
> I think you have misread me, I always insist that one need panna to
> be enlighten whereas James thinks Jhana is the key to enlightement
> and panna could be subordinated where I dispute. With or without
> Jhana, one can still be enlighted with panna. 
> 
> Victor when you talk about right concentration, that is different
> issue than jhanas, right concentration can be as defined in Samadhi
> Sutta. Right concentration can also be defined as Jhanas, but we 
are
> refering as "mini meditators" rather than a deliberate effort to
> reach jhanas. Let me ask you a qn, could one say let my thought be
> thus and my thought not be thus. Can we say thought, this is I, 
this
> me or this is myself. Once this principle is understood, one 
effort
> to develop jhana on purpose is furtile. Buddha cannot on one hand
> teaching anatta and on the other hand tell pple hey you can control
> thoughts to be liberated. It will not be congruent and will lead
> pple doubting his teachings.
> 
> Furthermore, if one will to read the text carefully, jhanas will 
not
> be possible if one is not of restraint in the six senses (which 
means
> one must be in satipatthana). Without right understanding and 
right
> mindfulness, there is no jhanas. I just like say that it is easy 
to
> misconceive the jhanas we have are the correct jhanas. In fact 
they
> may be just arupa or rupa jhanas - leading to extremely long lives.
> 
> Ken O
	
29833

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness

 	
Hi James,

--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
>This is what I 
> find from the Visuddhimagga which leads me to believe that Buddhism 
> doesn't equate eye consciousness as actually arising in the eye 
> itself:
....
S: I’m impressed by your attitude and I’m glad you’re still on ‘this sense
base kick!’;-)

Let me break it up and intersperse a few comments:
.....
Vism: > "Having seen a form with his eye: when he has seen a form with the

> visual consciousness which is capable of seeing forms, and which in 
> normal language is usually called the "eye," though it actually is 
> its tool. 
.....
S: It is the visual consciousness itself which sees forms or visible
objects. If there is awareness of visual (or eye consciousness or seeing
consciousness) or of forms (or visible objects), there is no idea of eye
or location. However, the eye, or rather the eye-base is the essential as
a ‘tool’ or a condition as base for seeing consciousness to arise and see
the visible object which has impacted on the eye-base.
.....
V: >For the Ancients have said: "The eye cannot see forms 
> because it is without thought; thought cannot see forms because it is 
> without eye. When the object knocks against the door (of sight) one 
> sees with the thought which has eye-sensibility for its basis." 
.....
S: For the visible object to be experienced or seen, there has to be
eye-base (the sensitive matter or rupa located in the eye) for eye
consciousness to perform its task of seeing. Without eye-sight or
eye-base, there is no seeing, such as when we are asleep.
.....
V: >In 
> the expression "one sees with the eye," only accessory equipment is 
> indicated, just as one may say, "one shoots with a bow" (and 
> not "with an arrow"). Therefore, the meaning here is: "having seen 
> form with visual consciousness."
.....
S: We say visual consciousness sees, but as Howard points out from time to
time, there is merely the visual consciousness or seeing (nama) and the
object which is seen (rupa). The eye-base (rupa) is the necessary piece of
‘equipment’ for the seeing of the object to take place. There cannot be
seeing with the ear-base, hear-base or other rupas as condition instead.

Let me also give you the ~Naa.namoli translation for the same passage
because I think it’s a little easier to follow without the use of
‘thought’:

Vism 1, 53, ~Naa.namoli translation:

V2: “On seeing a visible object with the eye: on seeing a visible object
with the eye-consciousness that is capable of seeing visible objects and
has borrowed the name ‘eye’ from its instrument. But the Ancients
(poraa.naa)[S: ancient Sinhalese commentary which Buddhaghosa based his
work on] said: ‘The eye does not see a visible object because it has no
mind. The mind does not see because it has no eyes. But when there is
the impingement of door and object he sees by means of consciousness that
has eye-sensitivity as its physical basis. Now (an idiom) such as this is
called an ‘accessory locution’ (sasambhaarakathaa), like ‘He shot him with
his bow’, and so on. So the meaning here is this: ‘On seeing a visible
object with eye-consciousness.’”
*****
S: Larry was wondering why concepts were not analysed more and Andrew was
wondering about imagining there really was a self. You also raised the
question of dreams and why so little is said about them. The reason is
fairly simple as to why these concepts are not included for the main part
in the teachings, I think. Conceptualising and analysing concepts can only
lead to more proliferations of concepts and won’t take us closer to
understanding the truths or realities which are to be known, such as
seeing and visible object. 

Only by directly being aware and knowing the characteristics of these
actual dhammas, firstly by asking the right questions as you are here and
conceptually straightening our views, can ignorance and the chasing after
useless concepts ever be seen for what it is.

In the ~Naa.namoli translation, a footnote is given to a quote from the
commentary to the Vism. (The Paaramatthama~njuusaa) on this same passage
you’ve raised. I’ll quote part of it:

V2: ‘ “On seeing a visible object with the eye”: if the eye were to see
the visible object, then (organs) belonging to other kinds of
consciousness would see too; but that is not so. Why? Because the eye has
no thought (acetanattaa). And then, were consciousness itself to see a
visible object, it would see it even behind a wall because of being
independent of sense resistance (appat.tighabhaavato); but that is not so
either because there is no seeing in all kinds of consciousness. And
herein, it is consciousness dependent on the eye that sees, not just any
kind. And that does not arise with respect to what is enclosed by walls,
etc, where light is excluded. But where there is no exclusion of light
[S:e.g. not when the eyes are closed], as in the case of a crystal or a
mass of cloud, there it does arise even with respect to what is enclosed
by them. So it is as a basis of consciousness that the eye sees.

‘ “When there is the impingement of door and object”: what is intended
is: when a visible datum as object has come into the eye’s focus. “One
sees”: one looks (oloketi); for when the consciousness that has
eye-sensitivity as its material support is disclosing (obhaasente) by
means of the special quality of its support a visible datum as object that
is assisted by light (aaloka), then it is said that a person possessed of
that sees the visible datum. And here the illuminating is the revealing
of the visible datum according to its individual essence, in other words,
the apprehending of it experientially (paccakkhato)”
*****
S: In other words, seeing, visible object and other namas and rupas rise
and fall and perform their functions as they’ve always done. Gradually
awareness and understanding can develop to know them as they are --
conditioned dhammas arising according to specific factors -- as anatta.

Hence we read in the Chachakka Sutta, M 148, as you quoted:

“Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises....” and so on. 
As it goes on to say, ‘the eye is not
self.....forms........eye-consciousness....eye-contact is not self’ and so
on for feeling, craving and so on. Understanding all these realities is
the way that ignorance and craving will eventually be attenuated and then
eradicated.

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted
with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with
eye-consciousness, ...eye-contact....feeling.....craving........

“Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispasion [his
mind] is liberated....”
....
J: > How do you take this?
.....
S: Let me know if you take it any differently. Hope we’re making contact
this time and you understand why I said it all comes back to ‘eye
consciousness and forms’ now.

Apologies in advance if I haven’t clarified the quote enough. I’d be glad 
to follow up if you think it could be useful to discuss further. 

Metta,

Sarah
=======


29834

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A few questions

 	
Hi Harry,

I’m glad to see you’ve settled in so well and you’re asking good
questions. I think you’re the first active member from Mexico;-)

If you’d like to share anything more about your background, we’d be glad
to hear and a pic in the DSG photo album is always appreciated (but not
compulsory!).

I agreed with all the good comments TG (from Calif) and Icaro (from
Brazil) gave you, but you asked to hear from others too, so here’s a
little more from Hong Kong;-)

(Icaro, hope the stolen cables have been replaced, we need your input;-) )

--- Harry Mueller <mexico_harry@h...> wrote: > > There are a
consensus between buddhists that there aren´t 
> Arahants 
> > in this world anymore. 
....
In my view, it is not so much about a ‘consensus between Buddhists’ as
what we read in the Pali texts themselves with regard to the timing of the
deline of the Teachings. I don’t think there is any evidence to the
contrary, as I see it.
If you look under ‘Sasana, decline of’ under this link, I think you’ll
find more, or I can repost it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts
.....
> Thank you TG and Icaro for your answers to my questions.
> 
> I hope that I'm correct in assuming that the Pali Canon is believed 
> to have been written some 200 to 400 years after the Buddha's 
> Parinibbana although no extant proof of the actual date exists. The 
> possibility exists, although slight, that the texts were written 
> with the help of Ananda shortly after the passing of the Buddha.
....
I think you’ll find a pretty accurate summary of the councils at this
link:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/councils.html
Here's an extract on the 4th Council when the texts were written down:

“THE FOURTH COUNCIL

The Fourth Council was held in Tambapanni (Sri Lanka) in 29 B.C.
under the patronage of King Vattagamani. The main reason for its
convening was the realization that it was now not possible for the
majority of monks to retain the entire Tipitaka in their memories
as had been the case formerly for the Venerable Mahinda and those
who followed him soon after. Therefore, as the art of writing had,
by this time developed substantially it was thought expedient and
necessary to have the entire body of the Buddha's teaching written
down. King Vattagamani supported the monk's idea and a council was
held specifically to reduce the Tipitaka in its entirety to
writing. Therefore, so that the genuine Dhamma might be lastingly
preserved, the Venerable Maharakkhita and five hundred monks
recited the words of the Buddha and then wrote them down on palm
leaves. This remarkable project took place in a cave called, the
Aloka lena, situated in the cleft of an ancient landslip near what
is now Matale. Thus the aim of the Council was achieved and the
preservation in writing of the authentic Dhamma was ensured.”<end quote>
.....
Plenty is written about these early councils and the arahants who
participated in them in the ancient commentaries. I have no reason to
doubt the accuracy of the recordings or of the memorised texts which were
written down at this council. Large numbers of bhikkhus had faithfully
recited and memorised the texts in order that they should be perfectly
preserved.
....
> I think you both suggest that the order of the aggregates is not 
> necessarily fixed and may be open to interpretation. Icaro, your 
> point that they are conditioned is well taken.
....
They are usually given in the order TG mentioned. What do we cling to most
of the day? Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, bodily sensations, i.e rupas,
feelings of all kinds, thoughts and memories and marked data, all other
mental states and consciousness or experiencing of data.
....
> I was totally unaware that "There are a consensus between buddhists 
> that there aren´t Arahants in this world anymore". I have never 
> heard this before. If true, I guess that steam entry is also no 
> longer possible and it makes me wonder what all those meditators are 
> striving for (although I do recognize the benefits of applying the 
> buddhist tenets to daily life)? 
....
According to the timing of the decline of the sasana given in the texts,
stream entry would still be possible, but I think that when we begin to
see how much ignorance has been accumulated and how little is known about
namas and rupas, perhaps it doesn’t really matter. In other words, insight
has to begin and as you suggest, there are tangible benefits from
‘applying buddhis tenets in daily life’. It always comes back to this
present moment, rather than any concern about others, with usually the
wrong idea of ‘someone’. Stream entry merely signifies particular kinds of
consciousness, no self involved.
.....
>This point requires a lot of 
> research and examination for me. I would also really like to gain 
> the insight of some of the other paticipants of this wonderful study 
> group.
....
It’s always good to have keen new members and it encourages the rest of
us. Pls share your ‘research and examination’ and let us know more about
what is behind your questions. We’ll look forward to any more as well.

Metta,

Sarah
p.s You may find these links useful as well for searching the archives or
for Pali terms:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/
=====


	

 	 

	
29835

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Victor

that is true, I cant read pple mind. Apparently that is the
impression given whenever James discuss about jhana is the superpower
and the need to mediate to reach that level, which I disagree.

> Can one still be enlightened without jhana?

k: YES: by dry insight ;-) (maybe I am wrong about the definition
of dry insight - good to be corrected ;-).

k: No one is disagreeing with the Buddha, we are disagreeing the
interpretation of how one look at developing jhanas. U have not
answer my question : Can one say I want my thought to be thus and
not to be thus? If can then there is a possibility of one control
one thought to be thus, then the thought should not be anatta, should
be atta. Think about this, then the answer on how one can develop
jhana would be known.


Ken O








	
29836

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:20am
Subject: [dsg] Re: need help.../James

 	
Hi Howard (and James),

It was a few days ago, but you were saying:
------------------------------
H: > All that the conventional understanding will do - but this is 
important - is make one clearly aware that things are not "just 
fine", to point one in the direction of seeking a way out
from suffering, and to serve to make one realize the urgency of the 
matter.
---------------------------------------------------

In this case, when you say `conventional understanding,' I think you 
are referring to a conceptual understanding of the conventional 
world. -- As distinct from a conventional understanding of nama and 
rupa. 

So, can a conceptual understanding of things, `make one clearly 
aware that they are not "just fine" -- and point one in the 
direction of seeking a way out from suffering?' I suspect not. 
Concepts can occur with kusala and akusala consciousness, but 
concepts, themselves, have no characteristics. So, in the ultimate 
sense, conceptual things can never be "just fine" or "not just 
fine." 

We had been talking about a conventional understanding that human 
bodies (especially diseased ones) were loathsome (dukkha). This 
sort of understanding will not `point us in the direction of the way 
out': It is rupa that is dukkha, not the human body. Similarly, the 
Middle Way provides an escape from conditioned existence (the five 
khandhas) not from illusory conceptual existence. 

------------------------
<snip>
H: > understanding must not be an encyclopedic, intellectual 
knowledge, which is near worthless, but a direct seeing of things as 
they are, resulting from establishing the proper conditions.
--------------------------

`Direct seeing' is not my strong point. When theorising, I often 
use terms (like kusala, akusala, lobha, alobha), without being 
mindful of their meaning. I agree that this is unproductive 
thinking.

I'm not saying it would be better to try to `direct' consciousness 
towards any given dhammas (they're too quick for that). – but their 
meaning should be kept in mind.

---------------------------
H: > And this requires putting into practice the Buddha's program of 
cultivation of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na, and that is done on a 
basis of conventional understanding.
-------------------------------

If you mean an ordinary, worldly understanding, I would say it is 
next to useless: realities aren't 'done,' they arise according to 
conditions.

As a general rule, the people who talk a lot about righteousness -- 
make high-sounding promises (paving the road with good intentions) --
are not the big achievers in dana, sila and bhavana. You need to 
have accumulated some right understanding before you can be good at 
those things. 

-----------------
<snip>
KH : >> That concept is of something other than ultimate reality -- 
it is not what the Buddha taught. > >

H: > Well, a perusing of the suttas will clearly show that the 
Buddha taught both.
----------------

I'm not so sure. We were talking about the concept of a human 
being -- a being that sees, hears and feels at the same time. The 
Buddha taught no such thing.

------------------
<snip>
KH: >> there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: As mere, 
mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and go 
according to conditions. There is no control. >>

H: > Some comments on this last paragraph, Ken:
1) Merely saying or believing that there literally is no "James" is 
of little value. Experiencing no-self is something else. >
--------------------------------

If, after considering the Dhamma, the thought arises; "there is no 
James, just nama and rupa," then there might be some kusala cittas 
involved – and they would be of great value.

--------------------------------
H:> 2) Yes, different kinds of understanding come and go according 
to conditions. What is the point?
------------------------------

I take it you are asking; `what is the point I was trying to make?' 
Well, I had been telling James, "Get off the bandwagon!" – but if I 
can remember that there is no James, only conditioned dhammas, 
(including ditthi in this case), then I will be less likely to be 
affected by lobha or dosa, whatever 'James' does.

-------------
H: > 3) If 'control' means "My wish is my command," then I agree – 
no control. But there *can* be effective influence, and were there 
not, then Buddhism wouldn't be worth even a nanosecond of anyone's 
time.
------------------------

I gather you are making a point about `direct experience' (as 
above): You are saying that "no control" should not be taken too 
literally or academically: When there is direct experience of 
satipatthana, some kind of effective influence will be seen. 

I don't think so. I imagine that, when there is direct experience 
[of impersonal, conditioned phenomena rolling on] there will be no 
sign, whatsoever, of any effective influence.

Kind regards,
Ken H
	
29837

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:26am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Companionship

 	
Hi Christine,

Your post on ‘companionship’ to Dave and all was a good one with lots of
helpful and compassionate practical advice. I’m sure we can refer to it
often for all those who feel they are isolated islands unto themselves;-)

You also wrote the following on your return from Bangkok:
.....
C: >I did have the skeleton of a post in my (lost) jottings - wondering 
what the Buddha 'really meant' by detachment. Defining 
attachment/detachment/non-attachment, passive internal 
compassion/active external compassion, and (lets throw in) anatta, 
mana, and restorative justice as well - triggered by Sarah's remarks 
at the airport about my predilection for strong reactions about 
seeing victims in stories (i.e. Vesantara Jataka, Angulimala, ill Soi 
dogs, chickens buried alive, patients referred to me in crisis etc.), 
and her question about what the deeper meaning of this predilection 
is. [Fortunately, I didn't reply with the old but true Australianism 
of 'b-gg--ed if I know'] <
....
S: ;-)I’d be glad to read any further comments or considerations you may
have. No sign of the lost notes? <sigh> 

Again, it comes back to the present moment, I think. At a moment of
understanding, there is detachment already. Why doesn’t understanding
develop faster? Because of attachment which makes it impossible to see
dhammas as they are. The truth about wholesome dhammas -- whether they be
wisdom, metta, compassion or others -- is that they cannot be judged by
the ‘active external’ appearance. When we see someone’s smile, do we know
if it’s a smile of attachment or metta? Do we know about our own smiles?
When someone is ordered to kill or bury their chickens, can we have any
idea of all the various mental states involved? What would your definition
of ‘active external’ compassion be? Would a Buddha’s sitting quietly
reviewing the ignorant worldlings qualify? 

I think it helps a lot to understand our accumulations -- good and bad --
for what they are. As understanding grows, it doesn’t mean the
accumulations change. It just means we get to know the tendencies better,
with more detachment and more insight into what anatta means. Sometimes we
might think that it’s the involvement and the emotional sharing of an
experience that help us to be more compassionate, but as I found last week
when I heard about the family death, the distress and emotional
involvement revolving around *myself* and *my* own feelings and the
embellished stories in the mind, just make it harder to have compassion
which can only be accompanied by detachment and not attachment.
....
C: >How can beginners in the Dhamma, enmeshed in the world and 
relationships, be detached 'from the beginning'? Isn't this like 
expecting us not to have a 'sense of self' from the beginning? As 
Vince said "I'm not enlightened yet, you know." Don't these things 
come along the way a bit - maybe with attaining Stream Entry - and 
would it be possible for beginners?<
....
S: ‘From the beginning’ means for a moment. There can always be a
‘beginning’ now and then another one. Just occasionally, there can be a
glimmer of understanding as awareness of ‘seeing’ or ‘visible object’ or
‘another reality’ arises and performs its task of being aware. This is the
beginning and if it doesn’t start, it can’t grow. If we wait for stream
entry, there will never be a beginning.

So here’s an extract from a sutta from Marasamyutta which I find helpful
to reflect on often and which I know you’ll have appreciated:
*****
SN4:9 Life Span (1)

“Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in
verse:

“Long is the life span of human beings,
The good man should not disdain it.
One should live like a milk-sucking baby:
Death has not made its arrival.*”

[The Blessed One:]
“Short is the life span of human beings,
The good man should disdain it,
One should live like one with head aflame:
There is no avoiding Death’s arrival.”
*****
footnote to Mara’s verse.
*279 Spk paraphrases: “The good man should live like a baby who, after
drinking milk, might lie down on a blanket and fall asleep, unconcerned
whether life is long or short.”

I look forward to any further comments you have, Chris.

Metta,

Sarah
p.s James and Christine, the Godhika sutta (4:23) is particularly
interesting and relevant. Do you or anyone else have any comments or
introductory words to give to it? tia.
=======================================


	
29838

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 0:51am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta

 	
Hi Icaro,

--- icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> wrote: 

I: > A lot of problems here to deal on!
> Monday I ought to travel on assignment of my office... and robbers 
> had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: so, I won't have 
> Internet at home for a while!!!
....
S: I’m sure the robbers didn’t realize how long we’ve been waiting to hear
from you....hope the new cables don’t get robbed too;-(

Anyway, as long as we don’t let the robbers seize what little
wholesomeness there is in a day, it could be worse. I typed this from the
Vibh-a yesterday on ignorance:

“Like robbers that beset travellers on the road, it besets profitable
consciousness, seizes it, plunders it”
is the besetting of ignorance (avijjaapariyu.t.thaana).....”

I also thought of the many discussions on the luminous thread and
commentary elaborations about defiling.
....

I: > But, as Good Rob Moult wrote at his essay, the only burden at our 
> mind it's realy the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure that 
> manages our comprehension of external world. When you relieve its 
> pressure on brains, a deeper stracta of consciousness buddeth forth.
....
S: Very poetically put, Icaro;-)
.... 
I: > If you do it without the recurse of hammering on your skull with 
> clubs and warhammers, so it won't hurt anyway thinking about it!
....
Not quite so poetic, but I think we get the point;-)No self to do anything
anyway.
....
I: > Noah Chomsky was the first scholar to point out the necessity of 
> build up a general grammar for English and other languages, as done 
> at the classical Arnault & Lancelot's "Grammarie du Port-Royal"!
....
S: I’m familiar with Chomsky on linguistics, but fail to see the
connection with anatta above;-) 
....
I: > How are you
> > doing with Buddhaghosa? 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wonderful!!!
> I've read the first chapter of Visuddhimagga in English. Many 
> doubts and obscurities on Buddhaghosa's treatment of Pali Language 
> and Buddhistic Doctrine had been clarified:
> 
> - Yes!!! That's the Answer!
> - But... What's the question ???
> - Stay Tuned for more Visuddhimagga chapters!!!
....
S: That’s good. Hope you can also jump to ch X1V, 61 as Larry is rounding
up participants for the next session and your practical insights will help
bring it alive, I’m sure;-) More subtle rupas...
....
> "We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga
> > again in a week or two."
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
I: > When the Phone Company fix the stolen cables for new ones, I will 
> get back internet at home!!
....
S: Hope the Brazilian robbers leave the cables alone then too....

Metta,

Sarah
p.s Nina will be glad to see your active participation when she returns.
You keep us all smiling, even if it’s with attachment;-)
=====


	
29839

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah
> 
> We are dicussing about smiling cittas of Buddha and not Arahants. I
> also forget how this issue came out, was it me?. 
....
Well, as it's a tricky, subtle and obtuse point from the Abhidhamma,
there's a good chance it was you;-) Seriously, I think you may have raised
a question about panna with all sobhana cittas in the Buddha/arahants and
either you or K.Sujin may have mentioned these, but I'm not sure. It would
be good to also find a reference in the Abhidhamma pitaka itself, but I've
not found one yet.

Also, the Buddha's omniscience doesn't mean 'all the time', but just when
he applies his mind to knowing anything, so-to-speak, so I'm not sure that
is necessarily the reason for the difference, but it could be. Way beyond
me.

I thought your several posts to Larry on satipatthana were very good and
I'm enjoying your other threads too.

Metta,

Sarah
======



	
29840

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Ken,

Ken: Apparently that is the impression given whenever James discuss 
about jhana is the superpower and the need to mediate to reach that 
level, which I disagree.

James: LOL! Ken, just what are you talking about? You are painting 
me out to be someone I am not. Have you not noticed me studying the 
SN systematically from cover to cover in this group? Do you know how 
many books I have read on Buddhism? More than I can remember! Now, 
just because I say that it is important to meditate you are claiming 
that I am some kind of meditation-obsessed freak!! ;-)) And because I 
am not drooling over the Abhidhamma I must not have any panna. It 
seems that you find me to be a threat of some sort but I really don't 
care what you think about me. However, I do think this thread is 
getting far too personal and we need to get back to the dhamma and 
stop making personal evaluations.

Ken: YES: by dry insight ;-) (maybe I am wrong about the definition
of dry insight - good to be corrected ;-).

James: I have already stated that `dry insight' is a possibility for 
attaining liberation. It is very rare however; even rare among those 
rare enough to achieve enlightenment, so I wouldn't put too much hope 
in that. The Buddha didn't achieve enlightenment by `dry insight', 
and he started with more panna than anyone, so I think that should 
tell you something. `Dry Insight' is an aberration; it isn't the 
automatic course for those with established panna.

Metta, James
	
29841

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness

 	
Hi Sarah,

Sarah: Apologies in advance if I haven't clarified the quote enough. 
I'd be glad to follow up if you think it could be useful to discuss 
further.

James: No, I think you have quoted quite enough material! ;-)). I 
just wanted to see if you would say that eye consciousness actually 
arises in the eye ball itself, and you didn't. You danced around the 
issue quite a bit, tried to dazzle and snowball with a preponderance 
of quoted material, but you didn't say it directly. Therefore if the 
Abhidhamma states that the sense base consciousness actually arises 
in the sense organs themselves, it is quite wrong about that. That 
is all I wanted to make clear. (I don't really care to pursue 
dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a 
subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't 
comprehend it fully or don't wish to.)

Metta, James
	
29842

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
Dear Htoo,

Thank you for all the sharing of your series.

As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such as in
your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on paramatha
vs pannatti, it’s very helpful.

However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to suggest an
idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels of insight
achieved after such control and watching, without any firm foundation of
understanding by those who may follow your instructions. 

For example in this subject heading and in the following:

--- Htoo Naing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 
> The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana
> ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now
> he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is
> contemplating on mind and mind phenomena.
....
What is this ‘Dhamma practioner’ or ‘meditator’ in actuality? Is
concentration really the key to ‘seeing all phenomena whenever they
arise’. Can even a sotapanna’s wisdom see ‘all phenomena whenever they
arise’, let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before that? If
there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a very big
impediment to the development of detachment and insight.

You have another series called ‘Sensing feeling where it arises and where
it vanishes’. Again, in what you write there is the suggestion of
watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and generally
‘doing’ satipatthana. I’d like to suggest that these interpretations all
suggest an idea of self which is not supported by the texts or
commentaries and that following such a method with this view will not lead
to even the first stage of clearly understanding and differentiating nama
and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are anatta, let alone higher insights
and any understanding of impermanence. 

You suggest in another post:
H: ‘To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and
whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it and so
on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind.’

I’d be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea of
following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any
understanding of impermanence. As KenH said before, the teachings are very
deep and profound. It doesn’t take any particular knowledge of them to
‘watch and follow’ with an idea of self that can control them. 

There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these
series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts which
I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one agrees;-)

I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further comments. I
also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in any way. That
certainly isn’t intended. As you know, I greatly appreciate your sharing
and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good intentions with these other
threads as well.

Metta,

Sarah
=======


	
29843

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:12am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi James

k: Dont worry, there is nothing personnel. We are just refering,
and come to think about it, I find myself stupid, we are both trying
to think how you think, I apologise for that.

> James: LOL! Ken, just what are you talking about? You are
> painting me out to be someone I am not. Have you not noticed me
studying the SN systematically from cover to cover in this group? 
Do you know how many books I have read on Buddhism? More than I can
remember! Now, just because I say that it is important to meditate
you are claiming that I am some kind of meditation-obsessed freak!!
;-)) 

k: Sorry if I got you wrong but you seems to me, you seem to be
obsessed with it. First impression last very long (lobha) :-0. 

J: And because I am not drooling over the Abhidhamma I must not
have any panna. 

k: Nope I never said that ;-). In fact in the earlier email I said
that you have just define panna yourself. That shows you have lots
of panna.

J: It seems that you find me to be a threat of some sort but I
really don't care what you think about me. 

K: I dont find you a threat, do you have six eyes, ten hands, four
storey tall etc... I just find you interesting and also at times
amusing and frank (I like pple being frank).


J: It is very rare however; even rare among
> those rare enough to achieve enlightenment, so I wouldn't put too
much hope in that. The Buddha didn't achieve enlightenment by `dry
insight', and he started with more panna than anyone, so I think that
should tell you something. 

k: Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by Victor
can we be enlighted without panna. Hmm Buddha achieve enlightement
by panna and not by jhanas. Jhana is only an instrument not the
pivotal element. Without panna there will be no jhanas for
enlightment but there can be jhana (arupa and rupa jhanas) without
panna.


Ken O





	
29844

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness

 	
Oh James,

--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 
> James: No, I think you have quoted quite enough material! ;-)). I 
> just wanted to see if you would say that eye consciousness actually 
> arises in the eye ball itself, and you didn't. 
....
No, because we’re talking about various namas and rupas. A nama doesn’t
arise *in* a rupa but is dependent on various rupas to arise, in this case
the visible object and eye-base. Details of the eye-base were given before
in the Vism series.
....
>You danced around the 
> issue quite a bit, tried to dazzle and snowball with a preponderance 
> of quoted material, but you didn't say it directly. 
....
I had and have no interest in dancing, dazzling or snowballing at
all;-)LOL You asked for clarification on a passage in the Vism and I did
my best, that’s all. No problem;-)
....
> Therefore if the 
> Abhidhamma states that the sense base consciousness actually arises 
> in the sense organs themselves, it is quite wrong about that. That 
> is all I wanted to make clear. 
....
The Abhidhamma merely confirms and elaborates on what we read in the
suttas.
....
(I don't really care to pursue 
> dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a 
> subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't 
> comprehend it fully or don't wish to.)
....
Like Ken O has written a couple of times, I believe it’s important to get
one’s facts right and not to just elaborate on what might seem to be one’s
personal experience without any support from the texts. There’s plenty
enough wrong view and fantasy around on the net without adding to it
unnecessarily. I hope this is one little corner where we can actually look
at experience in the light of the Buddha’s teachings.

Thanks for reading and the feed-back - I was fully expecting the punch-bag
response;-) If you want to pursue it or not anytime, either way's OK too.
I know it's not easy.

Off to Tai-chi....

Metta,

Sarah
========


	
29845

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:38am
Subject: Re: Eye Consciousness

 	
Oh Sarah,

Sarah: I hope this is one little corner where we can actually look at 
experience in the light of the Buddha's teachings.

James: Oh, I completely agree!! It's just that the Abhidhamma isn't 
the Buddha's teachings. 

Sarah: Thanks for reading and the feed-back - I was fully expecting 
the punch-bag response;-) If you want to pursue it or not anytime, 
either way's OK too. I know it's not easy.

James: Punch-bag response?? Oh Sarah, you should know what my `punch-
bag' responses are like by now…I could turn this group into a 
hornet's nest if I wanted to (and I have! ;-). I was just being 
frank (As Ken O. notes about me). 

Really, Ken O. characterizes me as a meditation-obsessed freak, you 
characterize me as some kind of bully, and Ken H. keeps talking the 
True Nature of `James'! LOL! I do wish that the members of this 
group would stop thinking about me, pondering about me, and debating 
about me…it is quite silly. Let's focus on the dhamma and try to 
stop getting so personal.

Metta, James
	
29846

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

 	
Michael,

I am not an abhidhammika ;-)), but would nonetheless like to give a
response to your request for feedback.

--- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> wrote: > Hello Larry,
...
M: 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. 

J: First, a minor correction. We have not been talking about some
(amorphous) thing called 'ultimate reality', but about realties
(dhammas) that exist or are real in the ultimate sense. 

Now, these dhammas are what are experiencing and are being
experienced at the present moment. They each have a distinctive
characteristic. I think 'own and unique' would be to some extent a
tautology in this context, since the sabhava is the characteristic
*borne by* a particular dhamma and which thereby distinguishes it
from any different kind of dhamma, although it is true that dhammas
also have characteristics (such as the ti-lakkhana) that it shares in
common with all other dhammas, i.e., are not unique to it.

M: 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. 

J: There is no question of the khandhas being that which
conventional things (like a being) can be reduced into. Khandhas are
what in the highest sense of the word there is; 'being' is what
there is perceived to be. But khandhas do not become known by
'deconstructing' the being. It's really the other way around -- the
illusory nature of being becomes apparent by starting to learn about
khandhas.

The idea khandhas being a being-in-disassembled-form is something you
have mentioned before and I think is the basis for your idea that
dhammas can be 'further reduced'. As I say, the idea that dhammas
are the components of something bigger is not how dhammas are
described in the texts.

I hope you find these comments useful.

Jon


	
29847

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:28am
Subject: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Ken,

Ken, to James you said that

<quote>
Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by Victor 
can we be enlighted without panna.
</quote>

I did not ask the question "Can we be enlightened without panna?".

I asked the question:

<quote>
Can one still be enlightened without jhana?
</quote>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29832

And to that question you answered:

<quote>
YES: by dry insight 
</quote>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29835

Metta,
Victor

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi James
[snip]
> 
> k: Dont get me wrong, I am just answering the question ask by 
Victor
> can we be enlighted without panna. Hmm Buddha achieve enlightement
> by panna and not by jhanas. Jhana is only an instrument not the
> pivotal element. Without panna there will be no jhanas for
> enlightment but there can be jhana (arupa and rupa jhanas) without
> panna.
> 
> 
> Ken O
	
29848

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:32am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Victor


k: Oops sorry. Thousand apologies the word "panna" should be
replaced by jhana.


Ken O





	
29849

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:37am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Sarah

> Also, the Buddha's omniscience doesn't mean 'all the time', but
> just when he applies his mind to knowing anything, so-to-speak, so
I'm not sure that is necessarily the reason for the difference, but
it could be. Way beyond me.

Yes you are right, Buddha is only Omniscience when he "advert" his
mind to wisdom. (was said in King Mahinda Questions - forgot the
spelling).

Ken O





	
29850

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi James (and Jeff),

James: Thank you, Victor!! I am glad that I am not the only one to 
see this. I felt like I was being forced to argue points I didn't 
make so I just decided to give up.

Victor: Not a problem, James! It is hard to have a reasonable 
discussion with someone when he or she attributes what you did not 
say to you.

James: As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, developing Jhana isn't 
everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and 
Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level 
and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal."

Victor: I would not judge Jeff as such. I find insightful points to 
reflect on from his messages.

James: Obviously I have not stated that Jhana without Panna is what 
the Buddha taught. I am glad that you have pointed this out. Thanks 
again.

Victor: Quite welcome! I look forward to reading your messages in 
the DSG.

> Metta, James

Metta,
Victor
	
29851

From: icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:26am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta

 	
Dear Sarah:

"...hope the new cables don't get robbed too;-("

----------------------------------------------------------------------

No problem! The only hindrance I get at my PC now is the Linux!!! 
That Bird just decided to misfunction without appeal... Damn! Damn! 
Damn! Throw that Penguin outboard and back to the WIN98 again!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ....
> S: Very poetically put, Icaro;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"There comes a day 
That Will be True Poetry
Everything I should say"


(Paulo Leminsky, Brazillian Poet)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
" Not quite so poetic, but I think we get the point;-)No self to do 
anything
> anyway."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clubbers make me Sich...but since you get rid of your illusory ego 
for a moment, a new pattern of thought arises out without fault.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
> S: I'm familiar with Chomsky on linguistics, but fail to see the
> connection with anatta above;-)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes!
Chomsky, Roland Barthes and others always pointed out the rule of 
language in every aspect of your lives, even at the true realm of our 
estimated ego. From this issue to the conscience of anatta there are -
at least that's my opinion! - a few single steps! 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ....
> S: That's good. Hope you can also jump to ch X1V, 61 as Larry is 
rounding
> up participants for the next session and your practical insights 
will help
> bring it alive, I'm sure;-) More subtle rupas...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah... I just looked at Larry's photo at the Photos Section.
Gosh!!! I am brazillian and, even with white complexion the Sun 
makes up its work... but Larry is a piece of white marble!!!!
"Branquelo" is the portuguese slang for him!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------


>> ....
> S: Hope the Brazilian robbers leave the cables alone then too....

---------------------------------------------------------------------

They sometimes put their gruby hands on Subway cables 
too...shocking!
But now it's all O.K.... Vism XIV, here I go!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

" p.s Nina will be glad to see your active participation when she 
returns.
> You keep us all smiling, even if it's with attachment;-)"

------------------------------------------------------------------

:-)))))))))))


Mettaya, Ícaro
	
29852

From: Harry Mueller <mexico_harry@h...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 7:36am
Subject: [dsg] Re: A few questions

 	
> Hi Harry,
> 
> I'm glad to see you've settled in so well and you're asking good
> questions. I think you're the first active member from Mexico;-)
> 
> If you'd like to share anything more about your background, we'd 
be glad
> to hear and a pic in the DSG photo album is always appreciated 
(but not
> compulsory!).

Hello Sarah, thank you for your thoughtful input to my questions.

I'm going to take a bit of time to examine the information that you 
put forward but in the meantime I'll provide a little info on myself.

My moniker of mexico_harry came about because of a SPAM filled 
mailbox, the need for a new one and an unplanned trip to Mexico last 
winter. I should probably get a new one but this is only a secondary 
email address.

I actually live in Manitoba, Canada, am retired, have attended a 
number of Vipassana meditation retreats as taught by S.N.Goenka and 
am currently trying to abide by the 5 precepts while engaging in 2 
hours of meditation daily. I'm not always successful :)

I don't have many pictures of myself, or rather this ongoing process 
that I erroneously call 'myself' :), but I'll see if I can find a 
recent image to put up on the photo site.

Metta, Harry
	
29853

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:11am
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi Victor,

James: As I wrote in post 27960, "Now, developing Jhana isn't
everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and
Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level
and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal."

Victor: I would not judge Jeff as such. I find insightful points to
reflect on from his messages.

James: Well, I don't mean it in a bad way; I am just stating it as I 
see it. I feel that I can because Jeff purposefully puts himself and 
his experiences out there on the Internet for others to comment on 
and learn from. I find useful points to his messages also and he has 
been pivotal in my decision to stop vipassana meditation and strive 
for jhana instead.

However, he does write in his web site "Ecstatic Buddhism" this 
description as to how he has achieved the four jhanas:

Jeff: "When a yogi's calmness is established then that person should 
become aware of sensations that are not of the typical variety. They 
are often subtle. These sensations are called (jhana-nimitta), and 
they are the signs of the approach of jhana. If calm abiding has 
arisen and jhana-nimitta (weird sensations) have arrived, then we can 
say the yogi is now in the first jhana. When the jhana-nimitta arise 
then the yogi must suspend the concentration technique and shift the 
awareness to the jhana-nimitta (weird sensations). If one can observe 
these "weird sensations" long enough while maintaining calm abiding 
one will slip into the second jhana. Once one is established in 
observing jhana-nimitta and is able to sustain it for a reasonable 
period (1 hour) then the yogi will no doubt drift into a deeper phase 
that is accompanied by "stronger" jhana nimitta, this is the third 
jhana. If the yogi can sustain the calm abiding for more than an 
hour, then one is likely to drift into an even deeper more lucid 
stage of jhana-nimitta. How one
is aware of this deeper stage of jhana-nimitta is there will be no 
pain in the legs or back from sitting. The mind will be very still 
and the
jhana-nimitta will be almost to the level of effacing the material 
reality. If the yogi feels he or she could sit there indefinitely, as 
if for hours or days even, then one knows the fourth jhana has 
arisen."

James: According to what the Buddha taught about the jhanas and 
auxiliary information I have been reading from the Vism., this is not 
the true description for the four jhanas. This is a description of a 
deeper and deeper emersion going up to the second jhana only. The 
third jhana is characterized by a disappearance of rapture (jhana-
nimmitta) to be replaced by happiness and also the factors of 
equanimity, mindfulness and discernment. And the fourth jhana has 
neither pain nor pleasure and a purity of mindfulness due to one-
pointed concentration. If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the 
rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to 
purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation 
object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have 
a genuine arahant in our midst!

And I have to hand it to Jeff for going this far. Jhana meditation 
isn't easy (as I am now discovering…sitting for an hour and a half in 
each sitting! Jeepers! ;-)) but he has been very dedicated to the 
practice. And he has at least reached the second jhana whereas I 
have yet to reach the first (but give me some time ;-). 

Metta, James
	
29854

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 8:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
Dear Sarah,

I replied this post. But it lost due to the net. I will try it later.

Htoo Naing

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Htoo,
> 
> Thank you for all the sharing of your series.
> 
> As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such 
as in
> your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on 
paramatha
> vs pannatti, it's very helpful.
> 
> However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to 
suggest an
> idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels of insight
> achieved after such control and watching, without any firm 
foundation of
> understanding by those who may follow your instructions. 
> 
> For example in this subject heading and in the following:
> 
> --- Htoo Naing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 
> > The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising 
Mahasatipatthana
> > ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good 
concentration. Now
> > he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now 
he is
> > contemplating on mind and mind phenomena.
> ....
> What is this `Dhamma practioner' or `meditator' in actuality? Is
> concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever they
> arise'. Can even a sotapanna's wisdom see `all phenomena whenever 
they
> arise', let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before 
that? If
> there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a 
very big
> impediment to the development of detachment and insight.
> 
> You have another series called `Sensing feeling where it arises and 
where
> it vanishes'. Again, in what you write there is the suggestion of
> watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and 
generally
> `doing' satipatthana. I'd like to suggest that these 
interpretations all
> suggest an idea of self which is not supported by the texts or
> commentaries and that following such a method with this view will 
not lead
> to even the first stage of clearly understanding and 
differentiating nama
> and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are anatta, let alone higher 
insights
> and any understanding of impermanence. 
> 
> You suggest in another post:
> H: `To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and
> whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it 
and so
> on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind.'
> 
> I'd be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea of
> following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any
> understanding of impermanence. As KenH said before, the teachings 
are very
> deep and profound. It doesn't take any particular knowledge of them 
to
> `watch and follow' with an idea of self that can control them. 
> 
> There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these
> series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts 
which
> I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one agrees;-)
> 
> I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further 
comments. I
> also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in any way. 
That
> certainly isn't intended. As you know, I greatly appreciate your 
sharing
> and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good intentions with these 
other
> threads as well.
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah
> =======

	
29855

From: icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 9:13am
Subject: A Long Long Way ...

 	
I am departing now for Brazil's Northeast at Bureau's service. 
There will be a long travel by plane...
But looking at the DSG Meeting Photos I get the sincere wish to be 
at the Next Meeting with you all!
On my next Vacancies...who knows?
Bangkok, here I go!

Mettaya, ( and with a prayer) Ícaro
	
29856

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 9:44am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Htoo,

Sarah:

As KenH wrote before, when you write about Abhidhamma details, such 
as in your series on cetasikas or rupas or on sanna or especially on 
paramatha vs pannatti, it's very helpful.

However, as I see it, these series on satipatthana all seem to 
suggest an idea of self, an idea of control, an idea of high levels 
of insight achieved after such control and watching, without any firm 
foundation of understanding by those who may follow your 
instructions. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

I am not teaching. I am not instructing. I am just discussing even 
though my posts are numbered. I had to number to collect and group my 
thoughts.

I do not have to teach anyone as there is Tipitaka. CDs are availe 
and there also are online material. What I intend is to discuss.

As all Dhamma are Anatta, there is no control.

When Paramattha and Pannatta cannot be separated, problems arise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

> For example in this subject heading and in the following:
> 
> --- Htoo Naing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 
> > The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising 
Mahasatipatthana
> > ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good 
concentration. Now
> > he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now 
he is
> > contemplating on mind and mind phenomena.
> ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

What is this `Dhamma practioner' or `meditator' in
actuality?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Dhamma practitioners, Dhammafarers, Dhamma learners, Meditators, 
Samsara travellers. I use 'the' as a group who are practising.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

Is concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever
they
arise'. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Can you see clearly when the water is cloudy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Can even a sotapanna's wisdom see `all phenomena whenever they
arise', let alone at beginning stages of vipassana nana or before 
that? 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

I do not think. I just hint how to concentrate. If concentration 
becomes steady that is if the mind is well concentrated, most events 
will be known and concentrated mind will also be recognized at that 
time when nearly most events are recognized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

If there is such a wish and intention, it seems to me it would be a 
very big impediment to the development of detachment and insight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Exactly. A good concentration is one of impediment to development of 
Panna. But the map has not been checked. It is at an early 
preparatory phase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

You have another series called `Sensing feeling where it arises
and 
where it vanishes'. Again, in what you write there is the
suggestion 
of watching, selecting special objects, controlling the mind and 
generally `doing' satipatthana. I'd like to suggest that
these 
interpretations all suggest an idea of self which is not supported by 
the texts or commentaries and that following such a method with this 
view will not lead to even the first stage of clearly understanding 
and differentiating nama and rupa, conditioned dhammas which are 
anatta, let alone higher insights and any understanding of 
impermanence. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Watching, looking, chasing, contemplating, considering, noting, 
noticing, cognizing, recognizing, taking, marking, observing, 
surveying, etc etc are just words.

When Paramattha have been seen, no one will find self. I never 
suggest Atta.

Vipassana. Vi - distinguishing, differentiating, particularly, 
especially, differently. Passa - to look, note, watch. It is just 
representation of Mahasatipatthana.

The word ' watching ' is just stimulation.

Sati is a Nama Dhamma. It arises only when there conditions to arise. 
No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with 
Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

You suggest in another post:
H: `To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go
and
whenever it moves. When it moves,the original place was void of it 
and so on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the
mind.'

I'd be glad to see any textual reference which supports this idea
of
following and watching the mind movement as indicative of any
understanding of impermanence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: These are my expression based on experience. Textual reference 
is there but wording would talk. I am discussing. I am not 
regurgitating. I am not doing copying and pasteing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

As KenH said before, the teachings are very deep and profound. It 
doesn't take any particular knowledge of them to
`watch and follow' with an idea of self that can control them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I have said above. The meaning is in Mahasatipatthana. Yes. All 
are Anatta. No control. There is no 'me', no 'I', no 'you', 
no 'Sarah'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

There are many others here who will fully agree and appreciate these
series of yours but be less enthusiastic about the Abhidhamma posts 
which I like. This is the nature of a discussion group. No one 
agrees;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

The act of healing can be taught by memorizing features of diseases, 
their differentiating points, methods of treating and so on. Those 
who are taught in this way can treat patients.

The study of diseases in detail including microscopic view, 
dissection of dead bodies who died with diseases, biopsies etc will 
make the healers, treating doctors much much more efficient in 
treating patients.

Suttas are like the first method of teaching. Abhidhamma is like 
dissection and looking under microscope. All should be studied. 
Suttas are intended for particular person, group or groups of people 
etc. Anything in Suttas are in a way or other can be seen in 
Abhidhamma.

For me, I like both.

Dhamma is Dhamma. Even though some facts are agreed by a group of 
people, they may or may not be right. But right things are always 
right. So, I said, ' Dhamma is Dhamma.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

I appreciate your kind sharing and look forward to any further 
comments. I also apologise if these comments sound disrespectful in 
any way. That certainly isn't intended. As you know, I greatly 
appreciate your sharing and confidence in Abhidhamma and your good 
intentions with these other threads as well.

Metta,

Sarah
=======
Htoo:

You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you 
replied kindly to me. 

I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good 
moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well 
support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember Dhammaarammana, 
Dhammaayatana and your discussion.

Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to see.

With Unlimited Metta,

Htoo Naing



	
29857

From: dwlemen <dwlemen@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:48am
Subject: Re: Companionship

 	
Christine,

Thanks for taking the time to write. I do appreciate it. And I'm 
very grateful for the links. The Cincinatti place is too far, but 
the Ft. Wayne, while a good 2.5 hours away, is maybe 30 minutes from 
my inlaws whom I often get the "pleasure" of visiting! That might be 
do-able...

It is difficult in such a Christian community as I"m a part of. 
Correspondence online is OK, and groups like DSG have been very 
helpful. Maybe there's a lesson in attachment here, but I do miss 
that social / community feeling. Living in the small town we do, 
there is a lot of social pressure to be a conservative, republican 
Christian. I told my mother once that I was looking into Buddhism 
and she cried for days (and sent me a dozen books on Christianity!). 
I am hopefull that the Ft. Wayne temple will pan out for some 
contacts. 

I do have some links, but I would always welcome more. Especially 
intro stuff. Someone sent me a CD that had some talks from Bhikkhu 
Bodhi, I believe. That's the name on the disk, so I assume he's the 
same. I've also downloaded some things from Ajahn Brahmavamso (sp?) 
too. 

Anyway, sorry to bug with my whining! Thanks again for the reply 
and the links.


Peace,


Dave
	
29858

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic,

I am writing in relation to the essay “The Dhamma Theory” written by Prof. Y 
Karunadasa (link below). The essay presents a valuable and comprehensive 
view of the development of the dhamma theory. Based on that essay my take on 
sabhava and paramatha is as follows:

Sabhava

The origin of sabhava, or “own nature”, can be traced to the theory of 
moments advocated by the Sarvastivadins who, according to Prof. Karunadasa 
“introduced a metaphysical dimension to the doctrine of dhammas and thus 
paved the way for the erosion of its empirical foundation.” I don’t think 
anyone would dispute that the teachings of the Buddha have an empirical 
orientation and there is plenty of evidence in the Canon that the Buddha 
refused to answer any metaphysical speculations. Therefore the introduction 
of metaphysical speculations is a disservice to the Dhamma. Karunadasa says 
that the Theravadins rejected the metaphysical speculations of the 
Sarvastivadins but also that “it was not without influence on the Theravada 
version of the dhamma theory” and that this influence “can be seen in the 
post-canonical exegetical literature of Sri Lanka,” i.e. the Buddhaghosa 
commentaries.

It has also been argued that the term sabhava is used to characterize the 
own nature of the dhammas or its own unique characteristic. But this poses a 
problem because it is akin to a metaphysical theory of identity and 
difference, where sabhava is the unique characteristic not shared with 
anything else and the universal characteristics (ti-lakkhana) being 
identified with the common or the shared. This is an essencialist 
metaphysical stand point which relegates to the background the understanding 
of the dhammas in terms of their dependence.

But probably the most important aspect highlighted by Karunadasa is that the 
definition of dhammas as sabhava goes against the Patisambhidamagga, which 
is a Canonical text attributed to Sariputta, that specifically states that 
khandhas, and by extension dhammas, are devoid of own-nature 
(sabhavena-suññat).

And finally Karunadasa also says, “Does not the very use of the term 
sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the 
impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this not 
amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance?”

Paramatha

The historical origin of paramatha goes back to the Puggalavadins who argued 
that a person exists as real and ultimate. Karunadasa states that “in the 
Abhidhammic exegesis this term paramatha is defined to mean that which has 
reached its highest, implying thereby that the dhammas are ultimate 
existents with no possibility of further reduction. Hence sabhava came to be 
further defined as ultimate nature.”

There is a recurrent argument in the list that although paramatha as such is 
not mentioned in the Canon, its meaning is there implicit. Karunadasa 
clarifies this point, when he talks about paññatti:

“This theory of paññatti, 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 paññatti 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." There is, however, this important difference to be noted: the 
early Buddhist idea of sammuti is not based on a formulated doctrine of real 
existents. Although what is analysed is called sammuti, that into which it 
is analysed is not called paramattha. Such a development is found only in 
the Abhidhamma, as we have already seen.”

So, samutti is not the same as paramatha and the Canon does not contemplate 
real existents. And by Abhidhamma, Karunadasa must be referring to 
Abhidhamma commentaries since the Canonical Abhidhamma has a non-discursive 
style.

Another way of understanding the philosophy of the Abhidhamma, in addition 
to the Abhidhamma commentaries, is by reference to the Kathavatthu since it 
has an authoritative status of a canonical text, and represents a closer 
companion to other canonical texts than the commentaries. In relation to the 
Kathavatthu, Prof. Kalupahana states that:

“The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies 
precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or reductionist 
perspectives. No one reading the excessively long debate in the Kathavatthu 
on the conception of a person can assert that the Abhidhamma deals with 
ultimate realities (paramattha). Abandoning the search for such ultimate 
realities, it becomes possible to explain the contents of the Abhidhamma in 
terms of the two principal teachings of the Buddha, namely, 
non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada).”

Conclusion

Having said that, I am even more convinced that the use of paramatha and 
svabhava has no place in explaining the teachings of the Buddha. I say more 
convinced because Karunadasa’s essay only has served to confirm the views I 
had based on the writings of Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika. But any 
reference now to Nagarjuna’s writings would probably only confuse the issue 
for many people, so better to leave it aside.

Since the concept of paramatha and svabhava underlie the main line of 
thinking prevalent in this list I will probably be more selective in my 
involvement in discussions in the future in order to avoid unnecessary 
stress and weariness for myself and for my dhamma fellows. Pls. don’t feel 
offended if I don’t answer replies to this message.

Metta to all,
Michael

"The Dhamma Theory" - Prof. Y. Karunadasa:
http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm

	
29859

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Larry

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: Larry 
...
> Okay, I'm agreeable. I think Victor's question was something like
> "did
> the Buddha ever say in the Suttas that concept is an object of
> desire?" What would be your answer?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall Victor's exact question. However,
clearly there can be 'thinking' accompanied by attachment. For
example, the anticipation of a pleasant meal. Is this the kind of
thing that is being discussed?

> Since I can't really find either concept or desire in my experience
> I'm
> tempted to say it's entirely academic. However, since I can't find
> academia either, I guess I won't. 

;-)).

Jon


	
29860

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:07pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc

 	
Larry

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon,
> 
> I was just looking through CMA and I now realize wholesome
> consciousness
> is a lot more complicated than I had thought. However, I would say
> "applying one's (whole) mind to the dhamma" is itself a prompt
> meant to inspire self-prompted volitional action, in other words,
> discipline. On the other hand, I agree insight "just happens".

I see it a purely descriptive of what was happening, namely, actively
listening to the dhamma as being taught by Buddha. No need for any
further prompting at that moment!

> I don't see any difference between journeying half way around the
> world
> to listen to the dhamma and journeying to one's meditation cushion
> to
> closely look at mind and body. One may or may not learn something
> from either action, but both actions are wholesome and will have a
> cumulative salutary effect.

I'd be interested to know why you'd see these actions as being
necessarily wholesome. Surely either could be with 'mixed' motives
or even with mostly wrong view.

Jon

I can't now find your post with the CMA quote on
prompted/unprompted.. Can you point me to it? Thanks.


	
29861

From: phamdluan2000 <phamdluan@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:20pm
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:


James: According to what the Buddha taught about the jhanas and
auxiliary information I have been reading from the Vism., this is not
the true description for the four jhanas. This is a description of a
deeper and deeper emersion going up to the second jhana only. The
third jhana is characterized by a disappearance of rapture (jhana-
nimmitta) to be replaced by happiness and also the factors of
equanimity, mindfulness and discernment. And the fourth jhana has
neither pain nor pleasure and a purity of mindfulness due to one-
pointed concentration. If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the
rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to
purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation
object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have
a genuine arahant in our midst!




KKT: Ah! Sorry, James.

Reaching the fourth jhana
does not mean being an Arahant!


KKT
	
29862

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
Hi KKT,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" <snip>

If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the
> rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to
> purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation
> object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just have
> a genuine arahant in our midst!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KKT: Ah! Sorry, James.
> 
> Reaching the fourth jhana
> does not mean being an Arahant!
> 
> 
> KKT

Hmm…I'm surprised at this post from you. You usually give me more 
credit than most. Please re-read what I wrote. You're missing the 
very important word `may'. What I meant is that if Jeff was going to 
do it, go the distance, get the whole enchilada! ;-), he would have 
to do it from the fourth jhana—as the Buddha taught. Of course, 
nothing is guaranteed. 

Metta, James
	
29863

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:43pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Hi Jon,

Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you didn't
like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you provide
a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer?

Larry
-------------------
Victor: "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
	


29864

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 3:45pm
Subject: Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Michael,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" 
<mbeisert@h...> wrote:
> Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic,
<snip>

This is a very good post/article! I enjoyed and agree with your 
analysis. I was going to add some comments of my own about how the 
incorrect theories of Sabhava, Paramattha, and Pannatti as presented 
in the Abhidhamma have also lead to an incorrect viewpoint of Anatta 
but, like you, I am just tired. I think I need a vacation from this 
group myself. In the meantime, you can read this sutta and probably 
determine for yourself what I was going to say:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html

Metta, James
	

 	 

	
29865

From: phamdluan2000 <phamdluan@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer"

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 


Hi KKT,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" <snip>

If Jeff will cease to concentrate on the
> rapturous feelings of the second jhana (jhana-nimitta) and begin to
> purify mindfulness, equanimity, and concentration of the meditation
> object, he will no doubt reach the fourth jhana and we may just 
have
> a genuine arahant in our midst!
>
>
>
>
> KKT: Ah! Sorry, James.
>
> Reaching the fourth jhana
> does not mean being an Arahant!
>
>
> KKT


Hmm…I'm surprised at this post from you. You usually give me more
credit than most. Please re-read what I wrote. You're missing the
very important word `may'. What I meant is that if Jeff was going to
do it, go the distance, get the whole enchilada! ;-), he would have
to do it from the fourth jhana—as the Buddha taught. Of course,
nothing is guaranteed.

Metta, James




KKT: Agreed, James.

I read too quickly :-))

Anyway, an Arahant may
achieve the fourth jhana
(and much more) but
the inverse is not true.


Metta,


KKT
	
29866

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Michael

Honestly speaking, I could not be bother what is written by Prof Y
Karunadasa bc I dont read materials when authors try to put their own
opinion. I have in many times urge you to read the Abhidhamma text
or commentaries as it is written and not those written by us or
written by others. If you dont read the text yourself, u r basically
judging by others judgements ;-). It is like the blind leading the
blind. 


think about it
Ken O






	
29867

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:28pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Michael (and James),

I'm not scholarly enough to claim that the ideas presented in Michaels post 
are correct based on scholarship, but they do accord with my understanding of 
the what the Suttas are presenting...and also with my objections with 
describing things as 'ultimate realities' or as having 'own characteristics.' 

Michael, thank you very much for going to the trouble of posting this. In 
the two or so years of reading these posts, this is the only one I've ever 
saved.

TG


	
29868

From: <macdocaz1@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:21pm
Subject: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

 	
Hello Ken O, it is once again a pleasure to recieve your reply.
In a message dated 2/9/04 3:27:17 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes:

<< Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 04:47:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...>
Subject: Re: Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation

Hi Jeff

> %%%%%% Jeff:
> That is why Abhidhamma is bad "spiritual" fiction. just read the
> Nikayas and don't bother with Apocrypha.
> %%%%%%

k: Do you think it is possible for pple who are enlighted to write
things that are false. Think about it before attribute Abhidhamma as
a bad spiritual fiction. 

%%%%%% Jeff:
Who is the author of the Abhidhamma, and how do we know he or she was 
enlightened? Please do not say it was the Buddha, because I believe that claim is 
rather flimsy. Please also do not say it was Sariputa who spoke it to the 
angels (devas), that rather fantastic claim is in part why I suspect its origin and 
thus its validity.
%%%%%% 

> %%%%%% Jeff:
> I never said one would avoid any of the factors of enlightenment,
> or all 8 folds of the Noble Path, however it seems too often
people think they can avoid 8th the fold and get to nibbana. In the
Maha-satipatthana sutta, DN 22, the historic Buddha defined
sama-samadhi in terms of jhana, therefore we should assume samadhi
does not mean 'concentration' as it is too often translated, but 
absorption (jhana). >>

k: Even if it translated as jhana - your definition of jhanas is
still if I have not wrong - ecstasy or absorption. That is only the
feeling portion. You cannot on one hand keep advocation jhanas
(which is only one factor of enlightement) and when question about
the other six factors, you mention superficially, you did not mention
their roles and how they congruent with your view points. I like to
hear in your own words how does your definition of jhanas work with
mindfulness and how does your definitin of jhanas work with the other
six factors>>

%%%%%% Jeff:
Jhana gives rise to the Seven factors of Enlightenment

Many apologies for not giving you precisely what you wanted, and thank-you 
ever so much for your persistence. I directed my awareness to your question 
while leading this afternoon's meditation sit. For me to answer your question I 
believe will require a challenge of the translations just a little bit, 
otherwise I do not believe your question can be adequately answered. However if you 
would allow me to challenge those translations, then I will proceed.

I am sure you are familiar with the Five Jhana Factors (see below). I of 
course have had to change a few things there as well to reflect my experience. I 
assume you have already read my early posts here since October, so you will 
be somewhat familiar with my thesis already.

I have already posted extensively on Vitakka and Vicára, in which I 
challenged the accepted translation of "applied & sustained thought" to "applied & 
sustained concentration." The reason for this is somewhat obvious, Vitakka and 
Vicára are meant as means of access to absorption (jhana). How can anyone 
believe applied & sustained thought will give rise to absorption? We already are 
burdened by the "monkey mind" which is incessant thought, and it never gave 
rise to absorption before, so why should it now, just because some translator 
didn't get the translation right? 

I believe it is also reasonably well established that concentration leads to 
absorption (jhana), considering concentration techniques are commonly used in 
Buddhism and other contemplative traditions. I hope I do not have to argue 
this point any further. However if you are not satisfied I am sure I have 
posted here at least 2 earlier messages on this subject.

Now piiti has to be changed from 'rapture' to 'ecstasy' or 'bliss' because 
'rapture' is "the state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy." 
(please check your dictionary). Since 'rapture' has the quality of the subject 
being transported, then I take this term to be the contemplative Christian term 
for an out-of-body (OOB) experience. Also please note 'rapture' is still an 
aspect of 'ecstasy' (again check your dictionary). Therefore I do not think I 
am challenging the translation that much by translating 'piiti' as 'ecstasy'.

The jhana factors 'Sukha' (joy); Ekaggatha (one-pointedness); Passaddhi 
(tranquillity); and finally Upekkha (equanimity) I am not challenging.

The Five Jhana Factors:
Jhana is described as below:

The first jhana (effusive elation) contains 5 jhana factors:
Vitakka (applied or initiating concentration)
Vicára (sustained concentration)
Piiti (ecstasy)
Sukha (joy)
Ekaggatha (one-pointedness)

Second jhana (joy, no concentration needed):
piiti (ecstasy)
Sukha (joy)
Ekaggatha (one-pointedness)

Third jhana (contentment, tranquillity):
Sukha (joy)
Ekaggatha (one-pointedness)
Passaddhi (tranquillity)

Fourth jhana (Equanimity):
Ekaggatha (one-pointedness)
Upekkha (equanimity)

So, you asked about the 7 factors of enlightenment (see below), and how jhana 
is important in giving rise to them. It just so happens that jhana is 
instrumental in giving rise to at least 4 of the 7 factors of enlightenment {ecstasy 
(piiti), tranquillity (passaddhi), equanimity (upekkha)}, and finally don't 
forget that jhana is the definition of sama-samadhi, the 4th of seven factors 
of enlightenment that jhana contributes. Since there seems to be no evidence 
in the Pali canon for giving rise to the 7 factors of enlightenment without 
jhana, then it seems reasonable to say that absorption (jhana) is essential in 
giving rise to at least four of seven necessary conditions for enlightenment. 
And, it could be argued that the other three remaining factors of enlightenment 
are a consequence of jhana as well.

the 4 Jhana Factors that contribute to the Seven factors of Enlightenment

3) Tranquillity passaddhi
5) Equanimity upekkha
6) Ecstasy or bliss (Rapture) piiti
7) Absorption samadhi

The Seven factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga, sambojjhanaga DN 22.16, n.689, 
33.2.3(2):
1) Wisdom panna
2) Energy (kundalini) viriya
3) Tranquillity passaddhi
4) Awareness (mindfulness) sati
5) Equanimity upekkha
6) Ecstasy or bliss (Rapture) piiti
7) Absorption samadhi

In conclusion it seems translators have been working on understanding the 
Pali language for about a century. Certain definitions have become canonized due 
to there duration in usage, however who was it that decided certain Pali 
terms must be translated in certain ways? In every language words, often have a 
range of meaning based on their usage and context. Translating from one 
language to the next is very difficult because there are very few words that have a 
one for one translation throughout the range of their meaning. Therefore I 
believe it is reasonable to challenge those definitions.

May you become enlightened in this very lifetime.

Jeff Brooks
	
29869

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: The Mind in Early Buddhism

 	
Hi, all -

Binh Anson, who no longer subscribes to any internet discussion 
groups, asked me to pass on the following information. If you wish, you may feel 
free to pass it on to other internet sites that you deem appropriate. What Binh 
wrote is the following:
____________________________
I have uploaded a book by Ven. Thich Minh Thanh: "The Mind
in early Buddhism", based on the Pali's Abhidhamma. 

Originally this book was a Ph.D's Thesis written by him at
Delhi University, India. 

He has kindly given me the permission to share it on the
Internet. The URL is:

=> http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/mind/00_toc.htm
-----------------------------------------------------

Those of you who belong to more than one of the lists to which I have 
mailed this have my apology for multiple copies.

With metta,
Howard



	
29870

From: <macdocaz1@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 1:21pm
Subject: Concentration leads to Absorption, which leads to Enlightenment

 	
Concentration leads to Absorption, which leads to Enlightenment

It has been widely accepted that a dedicated contemplative practice can bring 
one to enlightenment. However there are many contemplative traditions, and 
they teach many concentration techniques. How does one choose which practice 
to conduct to produce the desired result, enlightenment?

We may first examine what is meant by 'enlightenment.' Every religion seems 
to have a concept of enlightenment. And, some religions define enlightenment 
very specifically. Buddhism seems to have defined enlightenment in the 
narrowest and most articulated form in the Pali canon. There you will see that 
enlightenment is defined in terms of a subjective absorption, which is brought 
about primarily through the practice of meditation. 

The historic Buddha articulated his path to freedom from suffering, and 
enlightenment (nibbana), through a subjective purification process he called the 
Noble Eight Fold Path. This path is said to be a "middle path" that leads 
through three basic components wisdom (panna) ethics (sila) and absorption 
(samadhi).

Noble Eight Fold Path:

Samma-ditthi right view (understanding)
samma-sankappa right thought, 
samma-vaca right speech
samma-kammanta right action, 
samma-ajiva right livelihood, 
samma-vayam right effort, 
samma-sati right awareness (mindfulness)
samma-samadhi right absorption.

Wisdom, or discernment (panna), brings us to right view. Right view or 
understanding is understood as following reasoning, study and reflection to its 
logical conclusion that enlightenment is in deed possible in this very lifetime, 
and that there is in deed a path of effort, or a practice regimen, that one 
can engage in that will bring one to enlightenment. 

Ethics (sila) are revealed and illuminated in Right Thought, Speech and 
Action. Sila is the avoiding of harmful thoughts, words and action and the 
cultivation of beneficial thoughts, words and action. Beneficial thoughts are 
cultivated by meditating upon 4 desirable abstract qualities. These desirable 
qualities, or states of mind, are called the Four Divine Abodes (Brahma Viharas or 
Bodhichitta).

The Four Boundless States or Divine Abodes (Brahma Viharas or Bodhichitta):

1) Metta Loving Kindness
2) Karuna Compassion
3) Mudita Sympathetic Joy
4) Upekkha Equanimity

Right livelihood is any subsistence strategy that sustains one without 
interfering with one's journey to enlightenment (nibbana) and it must be ethical. 
There are a wide range of ethical subsistence strategies available in our 
culture. Some of these strategies or careers are healing work, counseling, 
meditation and yoga instruction, etc. But, there are actually many, many such 
subsistence strategies. One need only keep in mind that one's subsistence strategy 
must not only pay the bills, but also leave sufficient time to engage in all 
of the aspects of the Noble Eight Fold Path: which includes time to study 
through various books and materials; time to reflect upon what you have studied; 
then sufficient time to engage in the actual practice. Since Buddhism is a 
contemplative tradition, then engaging in the practice, constitutes meditation 
practice. And, finally all of this must fall under ethical conduct and the 
cultivation of the four positive states of mind (Brahma Viharas).

Right awareness is articulated in the three suttas (chapters) on awareness 
(Sati) in the Pali canon. Right awareness (samma-sati) is cultivated through 
the practice of concentration. Awareness (Sati) practice is defined in the Sati 
suttas as awareness of the breath, body, senses and mind. These are known as 
the four cornerstones of awareness (Sati).

DN 22.21
"And what is right awareness (samma-sati)? There is the case where an 
aspirant remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & aware -- 
putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. one 
remains focused on feelings in & of themselves ... one remains focused on the mind 
in & of itself ... one remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves 
-- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with 
reference to the world. This is called right awareness (samma-sati)."

Mindfulness is the common translation of the Pali term 'Sati.' However, I 
prefer to use the word 'awareness' for a translation of the Pali term 'Sati,' 
because that is what we are doing when we are practicing Satipatthana, 
developing awareness. The word 'mindfulness' refers to the mind, which is a rather 
vague term in the English language that can also mean the processes of cognition. 
It is some of these processes of cognition, (perception, thinking, reasoning 
and memory) that we are attempting to bring to cessation, while maintaining 
only the awareness component of cognition for enlightenment (nibbana) to arise. 

Awareness (Sati) is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and 
developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of awareness is 
revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are a series of concentration 
exercises that lead to the development of awareness (Sati), which leads to 
absorption (jhana), which leads to cessation (nibbana).

The Noble Eight Fold Path requires Right Absorption (sama-samadhi), which is 
the cultivation of absorption states (jhanas) through the development of awar
eness (Sati) by practicing the concentration techniques that are revealed in 
the three Sati suttas. Right Absorption (sama-samadhi) is defined in terms of 
absorption (jhana) in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN 22.21).

DN 22.21
"And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an 
aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) 
qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from 
withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and 
vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of 
tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained 
{concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of 
exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of 
ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones 
declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the 
abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier 
disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity 
of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right 
absorption."

If you are intent upon enlightenment (nibbana) in this very lifetime, then 
cultivating absorption (jhana) should be the most important thing on your mind. 
That however does not mean that you have to renounce all of your material 
possessions and relationships to arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and 
now" (jhana). All you need do is follow the Noble Eight Fold Path, which 
requires that one develop right awareness (samma-sati) which leads to right 
absorption (samma-samadhi), which leads to cessation (nibbana).

Meditation is too often interpreted in a concept of doing something, as in 
mantras, yantras, and tantras. It might be worth realizing that there is 
nothing magical or sacred about one's technique. All of the various methods and 
techniques of meditation are simply concentration aids to occupy the mind with 
the intention of enlightenment, and to redirect it whenever it wanders. This is 
in fact the central concept behind concentration, that is to occupy the mind 
in a single activity and to gently redirect it back to its meditation object 
whenever it wonders off the object.

One pointedness is one of the terms used to define concentration. Because of 
this I find too often concentration is defined in terms of a narrow focus. 
However, since concentration is simply directing one's awareness toward an 
object, and redirecting it back to the object over and over again, until the mind 
or awareness sticks on the object, then one could also include reflection upon 
abstract concepts as a meditation object as well.

In Theravadan Buddhism they have developed a meditation practice, called 
vipassana, that is oriented toward abstract concepts. Those abstract concepts are 
typically reflections upon three topics that were central to the historic 
Buddha's teaching method. Those concepts were dissatisfaction (dukkha), 
impermanence (anicca) and no self identification (anatta). With the idea that one can 
direct and redirect the mind toward an abstract concept, then we could extend 
our definition of concentration to include a broadly focused awareness domain 
upon concepts. From here we could extend our thinking about concentration to 
include larger objects as well, like the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, etc. 
Therefore we can conclude concentration can be upon any object, large or small, 
abstract or concrete (nama or rupa).

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these 
URLs:

Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html
Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html
Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html

The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/

May you become enlightened in this very lifetime.

Jeff Brooks
	
29871

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Eye Consciousness

 	
Hi James,

I know you’ve had enough of me and texts, but please know your
contributions and feedback are always appreciated here. I agree that
response to me yesterday was mild and my comment was inappropriate;-)

Perhaps one reason I rely heavily on the Abhidhamma and commentaries is
because I can be so dense and slow to appreciate the meanings in suttas
which may be apparent to others. Sometimes, indeed, you’ve pointed out
important aspects in them which I’ve quite overlooked, so I’m always glad
to read your introductions and comments. 

It’s rather like when I watch a movie and usually lose the plot which
someone has to explain to me afterwards. We all need different ways of
explanation as it stresses in the Kathavatthu (which I’ve quoted before)
and which Karunadasa made reference to. I’m also sure that in our
ignorance, we all tend to share what we find helpful even if it isn’t what
the other is seeking. That was why I went to some trouble to track down
your Vism reference and type all the extra detail. I realize it was more
than you requested and now I’m probably about to do the same again;-)

--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 

>(I don't really care to pursue 
> dreaming or the `phantom limb phenomenon' anymore; it seems that if a 
> subject isn't written somewhere in a Buddhist text you can't 
> comprehend it fully or don't wish to.)
....
I could just say that my experience is different from yours and that when
I dream it is a purely mental activity without any experience of seeing,
hearing, smelling, tasting of touching due to their not being any 'impact'
on these senses. I don’t think it would take us far. We’d just have to
agree to disagree. The purpose of the texts is to help us understand that
often what we think we experience -- starting with the *I* or *we* in the
first place -- is an illusion. Without the Buddha’s guidance (or that of
his wise followers), we’d never know.

After this long ramble, I was reminded of King Milinda yesterday, and the
section on Dreams, Dilemma 75. Better still, it’s on-line, so you may like
to read it:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3606.htm

I’ll just give a couple of short extracts here for those who are too busy
to follow the links. (The asterisks inserted are mine and I’ve inserted
some of the footnotes in square brackets):
*****
QUOTE:

[DILEMMA THE SEVENTY-FIFTH.
DREAMS.]

33. 'Venerable Nâgasena, men and women in this world see dreams pleasant
and evil, things they have seen before and things they have not, things
they have done before and things they have not, [298] dreams peaceful and
terrible, dreams of matters near to them and distant from them, full of
many shapes and innumerable colours. What is this that men call a dream,
and who is it who dreams it?'

'*It is a suggestion* [nimittam], O king, *coming across the path of the
mind which is what is called a dream*. And there are six kinds of people
who see dreams--the man who is of a windy humour [vaatiko], or of a
bilious one, or of a phlegmatic one, the man who dreams dreams by the
influence of a god, the man who does so by the influence of his own
habits, and the man who does so in the way of prognostication. And of
these, O king, only the last kind of dreams is true; all the rest are
false.'

<...>
36. 'Venerable Nâgasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he awake or
asleep?'

'Neither the one, O king; nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become
light [okkante middhe; ‘like a monkey’s sleep], and he is not yet fully
conscious [cf Abhidammattha Sangaha, 111,8], in that interval it is that
dreams are dreamt. When a man is in *deep sleep*, O king, his mind has
returned home (has entered again into the *Bhavanga*) , and a mind thus
shut in does not act, and a mind hindered in its action *knows not the
evil and the good, and he who knows not[appativigaanantassa] has no
dreams*. *It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt*. just, O
king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall
even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind
has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind
inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not
dream. For it is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. 
*****
Of course I’d be glad to hear any comments. 

Metta,

Sarah
p.s I think your answers to Philip’s Qus are excellent. I’ll be seeing
him on Friday. I appreciate your patience with the StarKids.
======


	
29872

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 11:46pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
Dear Htoo,

Your kind letter gave me and gentle example gave me real joy. I especially
appreciated the trouble you went to in re-writing if after losing the
first reply in cyberspace and your pleasant tone.

I’ve interspersed some more comments for our discussion.
....
--- htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 
> Htoo:
> 
> I am not teaching. I am not instructing. I am just discussing even 
> though my posts are numbered. I had to number to collect and group my 
> thoughts.
> 
> I do not have to teach anyone as there is Tipitaka. CDs are availe 
> and there also are online material. What I intend is to discuss.
....
I appreciate this and also your modesty. I think the numbers are helpful,
especially when there are replies like now. 
....
H: > As all Dhamma are Anatta, there is no control.
> 
> When Paramattha and Pannatta cannot be separated, problems arise.
....
S: Good, we agree and can discuss on this basis.
> --------------------------------------------------------------> Htoo:
> 
> Dhamma practitioners, Dhammafarers, Dhamma learners, Meditators, 
> Samsara travellers. I use 'the' as a group who are practising.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: So when you say ‘the Dhamma practitioner practises Mahasatipatthana’ or
‘he is able to see all mental phenomena’, in paramattha terms you are
referring to sati sampaja~n~na? I’m checking because so often this is said
or read with an idea of ‘someone’ practising......without any idea of the
dhammas involved.

Nina wrote before: “Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own
conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who
meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I said
before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that develops
insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is only a moment of
sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of self who is guiding,
this can be accumulated, so that there will be conditions again for their
arising. We should not underestimate the force of panna that is
accumulated.”
.....
> Sarah:
> 
> Is concentration really the key to `seeing all phenomena whenever
> they
> arise'. 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo:
> 
> Can you see clearly when the water is cloudy?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: but what clarifies the cloudy water? Are you sure it is concentration
rather than wisdom, insight or vipassanaa-pa~n`naa foremost? Without
panna, is there any knowledge about what right concentration is?
....
> Htoo:
> 
> I do not think. I just hint how to concentrate. If concentration 
> becomes steady that is if the mind is well concentrated, most events 
> will be known and concentrated mind will also be recognized at that 
> time when nearly most events are recognized.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
S: My point is that concentration can be kusala or akusala and that
concentration does not lead of itself to wisdom, otherwise there’d have
been no need for a Buddha. If anything, it’s the other way round - when
there’s samma ditthi, there’s also samma samadhi arising with it.
.....
> Htoo:
> 
> Exactly. A good concentration is one of impediment to development of 
> Panna. But the map has not been checked. It is at an early 
> preparatory phase.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
S: Perhaps our difference here is that I think the map has to be followed
from the very beginning, otherwise one will follow the wrong route and be
taken further away from the path.
.....
> Htoo:
> 
> Watching, looking, chasing, contemplating, considering, noting, 
> noticing, cognizing, recognizing, taking, marking, observing, 
> surveying, etc etc are just words.
> 
> When Paramattha have been seen, no one will find self. I never 
> suggest Atta.
....
S: So let’s talk about the functions of panna and sati as these are what
are referred to under sati sampaja~nna in the Satipatthana sutta. Surely
the functions are to know and be aware of realities (paramattha dhammas),
not to watch and notice and mark etc which are aspects of thinking.
....
H: > Vipassana. Vi - distinguishing, differentiating, particularly, 
> especially, differently. Passa - to look, note, watch. It is just 
> representation of Mahasatipatthana.
> 
> The word ' watching ' is just stimulation.
....
S: vipassana - pa~n~na, direct seeing of realities. Watching would be an
inaccurate description, a suggestion of ‘doing’ rather than
‘understanding’ as I see it.

Nina also gave a helpful message on the meaning of vipassana
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954
In it, she also writes:

“Jim explained the word vipassanaa: < the Patisambhidhamagga com. gives
the
following interpretation of vipassanaa: "Aniccataadivasena vividhehi
aakaarehi dhamma passatii ti vipassanaa." It sees realities in various
aspects by way of impermanence and so on.>” 
..... 
H: > Sati is a Nama Dhamma. It arises only when there conditions to arise.

> No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with 
> Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....
S: Very good question, imho.

In truth, as you know from your study of abhidhamma, there is no *you* to
do anything with Mahasatipatthana. When there is the idea of events
(concepts) being noted or watched, there is the subtle attempt to
re-introduce a *me* that can do something. We talk about anatta and
‘no-control’, but while the idea of self has not been eradicated, it
creeps in all the time, especially into our ideas of ‘practice’. If our
idea of practice is something different from our understanding of
‘dhammas’ or ‘Abhidhamma’, it shows it’s not correct.

As Sitagu Sayadaw writes:

“Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical.
Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of
contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And
while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after
one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study
of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing.”
http://www.abhidhamma.org/

In other words, the practice is the understanding of paramattha dhammas at
this very moment with detachment, not with selection, watching or special
focussing.
....
<...>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo:
<...>
> Suttas are like the first method of teaching. Abhidhamma is like 
> dissection and looking under microscope. All should be studied. 
> Suttas are intended for particular person, group or groups of people 
> etc. Anything in Suttas are in a way or other can be seen in 
> Abhidhamma.
> 
> For me, I like both.
....
S: The Abhidhamma is not just a dissection under the microscope or a
theory in a book as I see it. There is no distinction in meaning or
practice. Abhidhamma can also be seen throughout the suttas. Satipatthana
and the development of sati sampaja~n~na is in whatever we read, even when
reading about the jhanas. Still no self, no watching, no control.
.....
H: > Dhamma is Dhamma. Even though some facts are agreed by a group of 
> people, they may or may not be right. But right things are always 
> right. So, I said, ' Dhamma is Dhamma.'
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu!
.... 
> Htoo:
> 
> You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you 
> replied kindly to me.
....
S: Even when I’m travelling, I take note of your messages. I’m sure others
appreciate them and perhaps they’ll respond more now they know you like
feedback and are reading the messages. I think in the past I’ve replied
once or twice and you may not have seen the replies. 
... 
H: > I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good 
> moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well 
> support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember Dhammaarammana, 
> Dhammaayatana and your discussion.
....
Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin’s messages here as well as
he’s making some excellent comments as I see it and I know he’d be
delighted with any response you might give. 

It was a good discussion on the topic you mention and I was most impressed
by your open-mindedness. I see the same error in many articles, including
the present one by Karunadasa I believe.
....
> 
> Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to see.
.....
;-) ‘Patience is the greatest virtue’

I'd be grateful for any further feedback you give. Please let me know
where we agree or disagree.

Metta,

Sarah
======




	
29873

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
sorry all - it’s a long post..... K= Prof Karunadasa
================================================

Hi Michael, TG, James & All,

As I've said before, I don't agree with everything K. writes, but I think
that on these questions I agree with his comments and reference sources
more than many others do;-)Why not save this post instead, TG??;-)
....
--- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> wrote: 
<...>
> Sabhava
<...>
>Karunadasa
> says 
> that the Theravadins rejected the metaphysical speculations of the 
> Sarvastivadins but also that “it was not without influence on the
> Theravada 
> version of the dhamma theory” and that this influence “can be seen in
> the 
> post-canonical exegetical literature of Sri Lanka,” i.e. the Buddhaghosa
> 
> commentaries.
....
S: However, Karunadasa has already explained that the Pali tradition,
including the Buddhaghosa commentaries, ‘did not succomb to this
error...’:

K: “As we shall soon see, about a hundred years after the formulation of
the dhamma-theory, such a trend surfaced within certain schools of
Buddhist thought and culminated in the view that the dhammas exist in all
three periods of time. But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to
this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete
entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and
description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate
entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an
existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material
dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them
thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided
-- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to
the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that
composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows
that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed
(ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities.13 [Vism 137]
*****
<...>
M: >This is an essencialist 
> metaphysical stand point which relegates to the background the
> understanding 
> of the dhammas in terms of their dependence.
> 
> But probably the most important aspect highlighted by Karunadasa is that
> the 
> definition of dhammas as sabhava goes against the Patisambhidamagga,
> which 
> is a Canonical text attributed to Sariputta, that specifically states
> that 
> khandhas, and by extension dhammas, are devoid of own-nature 
> (sabhavena-suññat).
> 
> And finally Karunadasa also says, “Does not the very use of the term 
> sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the
> 
> impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this
> not 
> amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance?”
....
S: What you (Michael) omit here are Karunadasa’s answers to these
questions. Following on from this last quote, he writes:

K: “The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they
therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This
they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another
which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be
quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not
that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own
conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier
definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an
active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the
new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes
a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of
an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses
the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of
dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to
show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own
conditions.

"Consonant with this situation, it is also maintained that there is no
other thing called a dhamma than the "quality" of being borne by
conditions.48 The same idea is expressed in the oft-recurrent statement
that what is called a dhamma is the mere fact of occurrence due to
appropriate conditions.49 In point of fact, in commenting upon the
Patisambhidamagga statement that the five aggregates -- and, by
implication, the dhammas -- are devoid of sabhava, the commentator
observes that since the aggregates have no self-nature, they are devoid of
own-nature.50 It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used
as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the
very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of
being.”
*****
S: The references here are to a variety of ancient commentaries.

In other words, there is, according to the commentaries and Karunadasa, no
conflict of meaning or any suggestion of ‘sabhava in any sense that
implies a substantial mode of being’ when used in the commentaries and no
conflict in interpretation with the Patisambhidamagga.
... 
M: > Paramatha
<..>
> There is a recurrent argument in the list that although paramatha as
> such is 
> not mentioned in the Canon, its meaning is there implicit. Karunadasa 
> clarifies this point, when he talks about paññatti:
....
S: Before he talks about pannatti, he clarifies what is meant by
paramattha:

K: “The term paramattha is sometimes paraphased as bhutattha (the
actual).67 This is explained to mean that the dhammas are not non-existent
like an illusion or mirage or like the soul (purisa) and primordial nature
(pakati) of the non-Buddhist schools of thought.68 The evidence for their
existence is not based either on conventions (sammuti) or on mere
scriptural authority (anussava).69 On the contrary, their very existence
is vouchsafed by their own intrinsic nature.70 The very fact of their
existence is the very mark of their reality. As the Visuddhimagga
observes: "It (= dhamma) is that which, for those who examine it with the
eye of understanding, is not misleading like an illusion, deceptive like a
mirage, or undiscoverable like the self of the sectarians, but is rather
the domain of noble knowledge as the real unmisleading actual state." 71
The kind of existence implied here is not past or future existence, but
present actual and verifiable existence (satvijjamanata).72 This emphasis
on their actuality in the present phase of time rules out any association
with the Sarvastivadins' theory of tri-temporal existence. Thus, for the
Theravadin, the use of the term paramattha does not carry any
substantialist implications. It only means that the mental and material
dhammas represent the utmost limits to which the analysis of empirical
existence can be pushed.”
*****
S: Clearly as Karunadasa reads the Visuddhimagga and other ancient
commentarial texts, ‘the term paramattha does not carry any substantialist
implications’ and simply refers to namas and rupas which can be directly
known.
.....
M: <...>
> So, samutti is not the same as paramatha and the Canon does not
> contemplate 
> real existents. 
....
S: No one to my knowledge on DSG as ever suggested that samutti (common
designation) means the same as paramattha (ultimate truth). 
K: “Accordingly the term ‘person’ becomes a common designation (sammuti)
given to a congeries of dependently, originated psycho-physical
factors.”[i.e namas and rupas or paramattha dhammas].
....
M: >And by Abhidhamma, Karunadasa must be referring to 
> Abhidhamma commentaries since the Canonical Abhidhamma has a
> non-discursive 
> style.
...
S: He’s referring to both. As he says, the first formal definition of
pannatti occurs in the Dhammasangani. He gives quotes from this. We find a
variety of styles in the Abhid.canon.
....
M: > Another way of understanding the philosophy of the Abhidhamma, in
> addition 
> to the Abhidhamma commentaries, is by reference to the Kathavatthu since
> it 
> has an authoritative status of a canonical text, and represents a closer
> companion to other canonical texts than the commentaries. 
....
S: I’m glad to see your confidence in the Abhidhamma texts and this is why
I quoted a couple of times from the Kathavatthu before, clearly showing
the same point that Karunadasa makes in this quote I’d like to add:

K: “As recorded in the Kathavatthu, the "Points of Controversy," the main
contention of the Puggalavadins or "Personalists" is that the person is
known in a real and ultimate sense (saccikatthaparamatthena
upalabbhati).20 Against this proposition a number of counter-arguments are
adduced, which need not concern us here. What interests us, however, is
that in denying that the person is known in a real and ultimate sense, the
Theravadins admit that the khandhas or dhammas are known in a real and
ultimate sense. Thus in their view what is real and ultimate is not the
person but the khandhas or dhammas that enter into its composition.21”
*****
S: Finally, you add a quote from Prof Kalupahana about the Kathavatthu and
suggesting that the Abhidhamma does not deal with ultimate realities
(paramattha). At first I took the quote to be Karunadasa’s as it was his
article we were discussing and I was amazed as it would have contradicted
the rest of the paper. It wasn’t. I would simply urge everyone to read
the Kathavatthu and other texts for themselves rather than relying on
comments such as these.

Another quote from Karunadasa:

K: “For if the dhammas are defined as real and ultimate, this means, not
that they partake of the nature of absolute entities, but that they are
not further reducible to any other reality, to some kind of substance
which underlies them. That is to say, there is no "behind the scenes"
substance from which they emerge and to which they finally return. This
means, in effect, that the dhammas represent the final limits of the
Abhidhammic analysis of empirical existence. Hence this new definition
does not erode the empirical foundation of the dhamma theory as presented
by the Theravadins. Moreover, this view is quite consonant with the
statement occurring in the earlier texts that the dhammas come to be
without having been (ahutva sambhonti) and disappear without any residue
(hutva pativenti).”22
*****
M: > Since the concept of paramatha and svabhava underlie the main line of

> thinking prevalent in this list I will probably be more selective in my 
> involvement in discussions in the future in order to avoid unnecessary 
> stress and weariness for myself and for my dhamma fellows. Pls. don’t
> feel 
> offended if I don’t answer replies to this message.
....
S: Michael, I think it’s been very helpful raising these topics. No
offence will be taken either way, but we’ll all be glad to hear from you
on any topic.

Metta,

Sarah
=====
> "The Dhamma Theory" - Prof. Y. Karunadasa:
> http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm

K: "The validity of the two kinds of statement corresponding to sammuti
and paramattha is set out as follows:

Statements referring to convention-based things (sanketa) are valid
because they are based on common agreement; statements referring to
ultimate categories (paramattha) are valid because they are based on the
true nature of the real existents."142

142. San1ketavacanat saccat lokasammutikarana
Paramatthavacanat saccat dhammanat bhutalakkhana.

(A I 54; KvuA 34; DA I 251)
==========================




	
29874

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] A Long Long Way ...

 	
Hi Icaro,

--- icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> wrote: > 
=
> But looking at the DSG Meeting Photos I get the sincere wish to be 
> at the Next Meeting with you all!
> On my next Vacancies...who knows?
> Bangkok, here I go!
....
That would be great!

Why not join us on the trip to India also in October? (if anyone is
interested, pls contact Betty who posted a few days ago to check
availability of space etc).

Metta,

Sarah
=======

	
29875

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:09am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote: 

> Yes you are right, Buddha is only Omniscience when he "advert" his
> mind to wisdom. (was said in King Mahinda Questions - forgot the
> spelling).
...
;-) Milinda. Mahinda was the great arahant who took the teachings to Sri
Lanka. Thanks for the reminder about the section on dreams in it.

I'm following with interest your discussions on Jhana.....Keep it up;-)

Just a couple of small points:
1. You've mentioned a couple of times there can be jhana without panna. I
don't think so. For the development of samatha from the very beginning,
there has to be panna which clearly understands the object and how it can
bring calm. I think you mean the panna of satipatthana. In jhana, concepts
are usually the object of panna. Oh, perhaps you are referring to wrong or
akusala jhana factors, but then I'm not sure why you mention rupa and
arupa jhanas which must be wholesome???

2. I quite agree that wrong concentration is easily taken for jhanas,
especially when there is no right understanding of the object and nature
of calm. As we discussed in Bkk, just concentrating on a piece of earth or
breath does not lead to wholesome states or jhana. Hence, the
understanding is the key from the very beginning in the development of
samatha. 

3. I really agree with all your strong comments about altering words in
the suttas and other texts to suit personal views and especially when it
may have influence. Thank you for words to Jeff on this. I think a
translator has to have a good knowledge of Pali and be very honest about
the task at hand and to faithfully translate the meaning as it is
according to his/her ability. One can always add personal footnotes as you
suggest.

Metta and appreciation,

Sarah
=====



	
29876

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_samahita@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:11am
Subject: Direct Experienc encore

 	
Dear Exnir & friends:
You asked:

> What one perceives that one comes to know. 
> Perception arises first and Knowledge follows. 
> Perception is structurally simpler than Knowledge. 
> There is a subtle difference between Perception 
> and Knowledge, isn't there Bhante?

If unaware perception without knowledge following can happen.
Actually that is very common.

First there is Contact:
1: Contact: Eye + Apple + Visual Consciousness (locally arisen within eye!) 
then mind receives, examines & determines the object, thereby 
two characteristics is simultaneously assigned to the object:

2: Feeling - is the object pleasant, painful or indifferent ? -
3: Perception - what is the Name of the object - what is it (similar to) ?

4: By these Intention towards the object is formed - what to do ? -
Craving towards or away from object or just neglect it ?
If pleasurable feeling have been assigned - lust arise.
If pleasurable feeling have been assigned - aversion arise.
If indifferent feeling have been assigned - neglect arise.
This all goes on automatically if not Awareness is turned on.
No real knowledge is here required except the name of the object.
This sequence can & do often function subconsciously in all variable degrees.
Here may e.g usually be silently assumed that the object 'apple' is:
a: Stable & permanent. (possible to keep)
b: Always pleasurable & desirable. (without side effect as addiction)
c: 'Mine' & under 'my control'. (within reach & dominance)

If - however - mindfulness SATI is turned on, directed & 
sustained thought becomes involved following contact & 
simultaneously with the assignment of feeling & perceived 
classification, then remembrance of the REAL characteristics 
BEHIND the mere appearance of object 'apple' becomes 
increasingly apparent:

A: Aha, all constructions will decay & vanish also apples.
It may give me only a short-lived satisfaction & then 
the urge from ever needing apples hereafter:
An endless self torture based on something that is:
Transient, a passing state, momentary.
Disappearing the moment is has emerged.

B: Aha, but then feeling of need for apples, 
fear of loosing apples and envy towards 
all who possess apples surely follow.
This sense pleasure is like a burning pit.
It makes me come back to birth, ageing
decay & death again & again.
A real serial killer is this innocent looking 
'apple'... & all other sense objects;
live or dead,
mental or physical
material or immaterial,
fine or foul !!!

C: Aha, of course I cannot keep it. It will vanish
with time. The taste of it within seconds.
Nothing is under 'my control' as all phenomena
arise & cease according to their own causes & 
specific impersonal & given conditions.
Neither internally nor externally is there anything
not changing that 'I' can keep as 'mine'...

A+B+C is Direct Experience & Knowledge.
The presence of this Knowledge has CONSEQUENCES:
Whatever the assigned feeling may have been:

Craving is disabled. Aversion is disabled. Neglect is disabled:

'Even though I contacted see apple & know apple, 
neither do I want apple nor do I reject apple, 
yet I remain aware, at ease, in equanimity ...
Apple or not - independent & free - 




All yours in the Dhamma.
Peace is Ease.
Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/











	
29877

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_samahita@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Advancing Withdrawal!

 	
Friends:

What is the benefit of Seclusion ?

The Separation from the Hindrances.
The Relinquishment of Afflictions.
The Fearlessness of mental Freedom.
The Joy of sweet & silent Solitude.
The Happiness of open Awareness.
The Serene Bliss of inward Calm.
The Gaining of much Merit.
The Making of great Fruition.
The Reaching of higher States.

These are the inherent advantages of renunciation.
Going Forth is thus the best of all states leading
entirely beyond all three levels of existence.

Thus this Noble Life remains Supreme.
Yeah! Verily, indeed & exactly so.
So come forward friends!
You will never regret it..







All yours in the Dhamma.
Peace is Ease.
Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/











	
29878

From: Andy Wilson <andy@l...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:49am
Subject: the self... how?

 	
All

as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only arises
when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and teaches
instead the truth of anatta / not-self. 

Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression
arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise
only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or
impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense
myself, therefore i am'

Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense of
self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad.

I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but would like
to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed.

Metta

Andy

ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that each
citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very empty and
frightening to me.
	
29879

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:34am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants (was:Yet more discussion (and food

 	
Hi Sarah

Actually I was trying to differientiate the jhanas of rupa and arupa
and those of lokuttara jhanas. Those of lokuttara jhanas are the
one I attribute with panna (satipattana). During Buddha times there
are ascetics who experience jhanas but it is not lokuttara jhanas
hence will not lead to Enlightment as they do not have right
understanding. Anyway, with the correct panna, any jhanas even rupa
jhanas, I believe can condition enlightment. I thought i heard you
pple say in the discussion that with right understanding, one who is
in arupa jhana can attain enlightment. Correct me if I am wrong on
jhanas (not an expert though - just know the difference between good
and bad ones), I was trying to differentiate the correct and
incorrect jhanas and also jhana is not key elements to supermanhood
(enlightement ;-) even though some do attain supernatural powers). 


Ken O










	
29880

From: Benjamin Jerome <bj3682@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:40am
Subject: [dsg] learning pali

 	
Dear Everyone,

I would like to learn to read especially the Samyutta Nikaya and the
Majjhima Nikaya in Pali. What is the best way to go about learning Pali?
Right now I don't know very much, I'm just familiar with the alphabet and
some common words. Can someone recommend any certain book to start with?

Thank you,
Ben
	
29881

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:41am
Subject: jhanas (was: Smile-producing consciousness of Arahants)

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> wrote: > Hi Sarah
> 
> Actually I was trying to differientiate the jhanas of rupa and arupa
> and those of lokuttara jhanas. Those of lokuttara jhanas are the
> one I attribute with panna (satipattana).
....
Right - just there are different kinds of panna and any bhavana has to be
with panna. I thought this was what you meant, but thanks for clarifying.
....
> During Buddha times there
> are ascetics who experience jhanas but it is not lokuttara jhanas
> hence will not lead to Enlightment as they do not have right
> understanding. 
....
Exactly, or let’s say, not vipassana panna or satipatthana panna which
understands realities as anatta, rather than saying just 'no
understanding' or 'no right understanding'.
....
>Anyway, with the correct panna, any jhanas even rupa
> jhanas, I believe can condition enlightment. 
....
With the correct panna, I believe any reality can be arammana paccaya or
other conditions such as pakati upanissaya for lokuttara cittas to arise.
It always comes back to the panna.
....
>I thought i heard you
> pple say in the discussion that with right understanding, one who is
> in arupa jhana can attain enlightment. 
....
I don’t think I was one of the ‘ you ppl’. As I understand, one cannot
attain enlightenment whilst in any jhana, but jhana factors or any other
realities can be known by insight immediately after. Lokuttara cittas have
nibbana as object, not jhana objects. Lokuttara jhana cittas therefore
take nibbana as object with the intensity of the jhana experienced. this
is how we get 40 supramundane cittas (5 jhana levels x 8 paths and
fruits).

You can find it all in CMA ch 1, compendium of consciousness and also
Nina’s anapanasati series would give more detail, I’m sure.
.....
>Correct me if I am wrong on
> jhanas (not an expert though - just know the difference between good
> and bad ones), I was trying to differentiate the correct and
> incorrect jhanas and also jhana is not key elements to supermanhood
> (enlightement ;-) even though some do attain supernatural powers).
....
I’m not an anything expert either;-) I think your points and cautions are
very good. As you stress, we can read about all the same factors under
unwholesome jhana conditions. See Nina’s ‘Conditions’ on this.

Again, for any bhavana, including samatha, panna (understanding of the
object - in this case a concept) has to be stressed from the very
beginning. Not desire or wishing for results, concentration (usu. akusala)
or a special position. This is why daily life objects such as metta,
death, the Buddha, foulness and dhamma are stressed. And lobha is so
crafty. As soon as there’s the idea of looking at an image of the Buddha
or a corpse or reading a sutta on death, there can be attachment for a
result and no calm at all. As you’ve been stressing, wholesome states only
develop by the right conditions and a self trying or just concentrating
on an object on not among them.

Lot’s more in UP under ‘jhana’, ‘jhana and vipassana’, ‘samatha’ and so
on. 

I’ll give everyone (and my arm) a rest from posts tomorrow when I’ll be
busy. So hope to read more of yours and others' discussions.

Metta,

Sarah
=====


	
29882

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:45am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Larry

According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of
the Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying
the factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the
six internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six
classes each of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition,
and craving; the six elements; and the five aggregates.'

There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of
these groups of items.

So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to
concepts.

I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I
don't know whose side that puts me on ;-))

Jon

--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon,
> 
> Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you
> didn't
> like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you
> provide a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer?
> 
> Larry
> -------------------
> Victor: "Hi Larry, 
...
> 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


	
29883

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] the self... how?

 	
Hi, Andy -

In a message dated 2/10/04 6:51:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, andy@l... 
writes:

> All
> 
> as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only arises
> when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and teaches
> instead the truth of anatta / not-self. 
> 
> Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression
> arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise
> only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or
> impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense
> myself, therefore i am'
> 
> Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense of
> self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad.
> 
> I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but would like
> to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed.
> 
> Metta
> 
> Andy
> 
> ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that each
> citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very empty and
> frightening to me. 
> 
==============================
Everything is as it is, and there is no need to be frightened by it. 
The fear you speak of doesn't arise from just experiencing what appears, but 
from thinking and theorizing about it. In and of itself, it is harmless, and you 
are safe.
Now, as far a self being required for the illusion of self to arise, 
that just isn't so. There are several senses of "self", all of which should be 
taken only conventionally. The one which is relevant to your questioning is 
that of "knowing subject". What if you were to think about things in the 
following way: When (felt) hardness, for example, is experienced, what is actually 
there? Nothing but the hardness sensation. There is the hardness, and, 
inseparable from it, the presence of that hardness. The presence of the hardness is the 
"consciousness of it". (I am talking here about experience, not about what 
might or might not exist in some alleged "external world".) The condition and 
its being present are inseparable. There is nothing else involved - 
specifically, no knowing subject, and hence no object of knowing either, for subject and 
object are mutually dependent. But there *seems* to be more than the condition 
and its presence.There seems to be a subject related to a grasped object. 
However, when looked for, no subject can be found. The condition that is the 
seeming of a subject *does* arise, it does become present, repeatedly. This is due 
to the operation of reflection - a revisiting of recently passed experience 
under the influence of the ignorance-conditioned inclination to reify (to "make 
things" out of mere experience). Due to ignorance, and the mental 
fabricating/constructing resulting from that ignorance, there arise the sense of a seeming 
subject. When defilements are fully uprooted, that formational process will 
end, and no sense of self will be a part of experience any longer.
Oh, one more thing: Don't get caught up in thinking of so-called 
cittas as separate things.There is a gapless flow of experience - condition upon 
condition upon condition becoming present, interdependent, mutually condit
ioning. And conceptually projected from this flow is an entire "external world", 
like a wondrous magic show - all smoke and mirrors. Enjoy the show, but don't be 
taken in by the magician's tricks.

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) 




	
29884

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:55am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Htoo,
----------------------------------------------------------------------

S: So when you say `the Dhamma practitioner practises 
Mahasatipatthana' or `he is able to see all mental
phenomena', in 
paramattha terms you are referring to sati sampaja~n~na? I'm
checking 
because so often this is said or read with an idea of
`someone' 
practising......without any idea of the dhammas involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo : You already know. This is Sampajanna Pabba of Mahasatipatthana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Nina wrote before: "Vipassana, insight, develops according to its
own
conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who
meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I 
said before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that 
develops insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is 
only a moment of sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of 
self who is guiding, this can be accumulated, so that there will be 
conditions again for their arising. We should not underestimate the 
force of panna that is accumulated."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo : Well said, Sarah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: but what clarifies the cloudy water? Are you sure it is 
concentration rather than wisdom, insight or vipassanaa-pa~n`naa 
foremost? Without panna, is there any knowledge about what right 
concentration is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Panna has to be defined again. When meditate, arising Citta may 
be with joy or without joy. Prompted ot unprompted. But there is 
Pannindriya Cetasika. Then in clear water there is a light.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: My point is that concentration can be kusala or akusala and that
concentration does not lead of itself to wisdom, otherwise
there'd 
have been no need for a Buddha. If anything, it's the other way 
round - when there's samma ditthi, there's also samma samadhi
arising 
with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: When pointing witha gun at a man, there is concentration. Yes. 
But all I have been talking are not killing, stealing, misusing of 
sensual pleasure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Perhaps our difference here is that I think the map has to be 
followed from the very beginning, otherwise one will follow the wrong 
route and be taken further away from the path.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

The map has not been spread out and laid out let alone to read it. So 
far, the Samsara traveller ( :-)) ) is trying to collect the things 
which might be required during the journey, 'The Journey To Nibbana'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: So let's talk about the functions of panna and sati as these
are 
what are referred to under sati sampaja~nna in the Satipatthana 
sutta. Surely the functions are to know and be aware of realities 
(paramattha dhammas), not to watch and notice and mark etc which are 
aspects of thinking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: The meaning is there. Clear understanding works. Here the 
matter is insight and full insight and fully enlightened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: vipassana - pa~n~na, direct seeing of realities. Watching would be 
an inaccurate description, a suggestion of `doing' rather than
`understanding' as I see it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Good point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

Nina also gave a helpful message on the meaning of vipassana
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954
In it, she also writes:

"Jim explained the word vipassanaa: < the Patisambhidhamagga com. 
gives the following interpretation of vipassanaa: "Aniccataadivasena 
vividhehi aakaarehi dhamma passatii ti vipassanaa." It sees realities 
in various aspects by way of impermanence and so on.>" 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I will go there and read it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

H: 

>No one can control Sati. Yes. But how will you do with 
>Mahasatipatthana, if not events are not being noted, watched?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

S: Very good question, imho.

In truth, as you know from your study of abhidhamma, there is no 
*you* to do anything with Mahasatipatthana. When there is the idea of 
events (concepts) being noted or watched, there is the subtle attempt 
to re-introduce a *me* that can do something. We talk about anatta and
`no-control', but while the idea of self has not been
eradicated, it
creeps in all the time, especially into our ideas of
`practice'. If 
our idea of practice is something different from our understanding of
`dhammas' or `Abhidhamma', it shows it's not
correct.

As Sitagu Sayadaw writes:

"Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical.
Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of
contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And
while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after
one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study
of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing."
http://www.abhidhamma.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

I once wrote on theory and practice at triplegem, I think. Theory of 
sea and seaman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah: In other words, the practice is the understanding of 
paramattha dhammas at this very moment with detachment, not with 
selection, watching or special focussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: If on the tract already, these are not needed to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: The Abhidhamma is not just a dissection under the microscope or a
theory in a book as I see it. There is no distinction in meaning or
practice. Abhidhamma can also be seen throughout the suttas. 
Satipatthana and the development of sati sampaja~n~na is in whatever 
we read, even when reading about the jhanas. Still no self, no 
watching, no control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Good point. I will note that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: So, not full Anumodana?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> .... 
> > Htoo:
> > 
> > You always support me. When other did not touch my message, you 
> > replied kindly to me.
> ....
> S: Even when I'm travelling, I take note of your messages.
I'm sure 
others appreciate them and perhaps they'll respond more now they
know 
you like feedback and are reading the messages. I think in the past 
I've replied once or twice and you may not have seen the replies. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: May be due to a great bulk of messages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

> H: > I think once Sukin invited me to your group. You are a good 
> > moderator. You well manage the messages. You well argue. You well 
> > support with evidence from Tipitaka. I do remember 
Dhammaarammana, 
> > Dhammaayatana and your discussion.
> ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah: Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin's messages
here 
as well as he's making some excellent comments as I see it and I
know 
he'd be delighted with any response you might give. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I will try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah:

It was a good discussion on the topic you mention and I was most 
impressed by your open-mindedness. I see the same error in many 
articles, including
the present one by Karunadasa I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Karunadasa?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ....
> > 
> > Dhamma is nowhere but in our mind. The problem is inability to 
see.
> .....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

;-) `Patience is the greatest virtue'

I'd be grateful for any further feedback you give. Please let me know
where we agree or disagree.

Metta,

Sarah
======
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I hope, I have given a clear account.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing




29885

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:38am
Subject: Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy,

Regarding your question, you might want to refer to the following
<quote>
If there's no self, then who gets enlightened? 
If there's no self, then what gets reborn?
If there's no self, then why...? 
Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Buddha categorically declare, without 
qualification, "There is no self".[1] Any question that begins along 
the lines of, "If there's no self..." is thus inherently misleading, 
dooming the questioner to a hopeless tangle of confusion -- "a 
thicket of [wrong] views" [MN 2]. Such questions are best put aside 
altogether in favor of more fruitful lines of questioning.[2] 
</quote>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#noself

Regarding how the word "self" is used in the Pali Canon, the 
following reference provides relevant examples:

Dhammapada XII
Self
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp/12.html

Knowing how the word "self" is used in context without preconceived 
ideas about what self is or should be, you might want to refer to 
the following discourse:

SN 22.15 What is Impermanent

<quote>
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent
is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should
be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine,
this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Feeling is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is
suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really
is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this
is not my self.'

"Perception is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What
is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it
really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am
not, this is not my self.'

"Volitional formations are impermanent. What are impermanent are
suffering. What are suffering are nonself. What are nonself should
be seen as they really are with correct wisdom thus: 'These are not
mine, these I am not, these are not my self.'

"Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering.
What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it
really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am
not, this is not my self.'

"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences
revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards
perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion
towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes
dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it
is liberated there comes the knowledge: 'It's liberated.' He
understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what
had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of
being.'" [1]

Metta,
Victor

[1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 869.


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" <andy@l...> 
wrote:
> All
> 
> as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only 
arises
> when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and 
teaches
> instead the truth of anatta / not-self. 
> 
> Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the 
impression
> arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could 
arise
> only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or
> impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i 
sense
> myself, therefore i am'
> 
> Why is this not the case? It seems to me that without *some* sense 
of
> self every citta would be a very lonely and isolated monad.
> 
> I realise that this goes against the heart of Abhidhamma, but 
would like
> to know where in the canon this particular argument is addressed.
> 
> Metta
> 
> Andy
> 
> ps. i have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that 
each
> citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very 
empty and
> frightening to me.
	
29886

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:34am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hello James,

James:
I was going to add some comments of my own about how the
incorrect theories of Sabhava, Paramattha, and Pannatti as presented
in the Abhidhamma have also lead to an incorrect viewpoint of Anatta
but, like you, I am just tired. I think I need a vacation from this
group myself.

Michael:
It is interesting that you say that. I noticed in a recent message you 
mentioned your interest in pursuing the development of concentration. A 
while ago I also came to the conclusion that jhana is a necessary step in 
the path and have been working towards that and quickly came to the 
conclusion that the discussions in any list are quite a disturbance for this 
practice.

But another point I would like to mention is that the view of the Dhamma as 
teachings about paramatha, and paññatti, and sabhava, also relegates to the 
background the teachings of co-dependent arising which in my mind is the 
real key teaching of the Buddha. In fact anatta can only make sense in view 
of conditionality. The path of practice which the Buddha recommended with 
emphasis on meditation (jhanas and insight) only makes sense if you place 
conditionality at the top of the teachings because basically with meditation 
one is developing skills to influence the conditions in a favorable 
direction. Now if instead of conditionality one places dhammas as paramatha 
on the top of the list I can clearly understand why meditation will loose 
importance. One will argue that paramathas can be realized anytime, 
anywhere, no need for meditation. No need to say that I strongly disagree 
with that.

Metta
Michael

	
29887

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 0:24pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hello Sarah,

Sarah:
Finally, you add a quote from Prof Kalupahana about the Kathavatthu and
suggesting that the Abhidhamma does not deal with ultimate realities
(paramattha).

Michael:
Prof. Kalupahana is basing his argument on two things. First that the 
Kathavatthu has to be regarded with higher authority than the Abhidhamma 
commentaries since the Kathavatthu is a Canonical text. I don’t think you 
can dispute that. Second, the Kathavattu can be used to interpret the 
teachings of the Abhidhamma Canonical texts. I don’t think you can dispute 
that either. Now, Prof. Kalupahana argument is that nowhere, I repeat, 
nowhere, in the Kathavattu, you can find arguments to justify the assertion 
that the Abhidhamma Canonical texts deal with ultimate realities 
(paramatha). Do you dispute that affirmation? While it is in the Abhidhamma 
commentaries that you will find the argument of ultimate realities. Since 
the Kathavattu takes precedence over the Commentaries the conclusion is 
pretty obvious.

Metta
Michael


	
29888

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:31am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, Michael -

In a message dated 2/10/04 2:44:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mbeisert@h... writes:

> Now if instead of conditionality one places dhammas as paramatha 
> on the top of the list I can clearly understand why meditation will loose 
> importance. One will argue that paramathas can be realized anytime, 
> anywhere, no need for meditation.
============================
Earlier in your post you mentioned the central importance of dependent 
origination in the Dhamma, and I quite agree with that (as my recent posts 
may indicate to you). But at the moment, I'm only responding to what I quoted 
above. I actually disagree with that in part. As I see it, the notion of 
"paramattha dhamma", while a bit of a "constipated formulation" in my opinion, points 
to direct experience as opposed to indirect apprehension of alleged 
conventional existents, dependent on conceptualization. Observing the "fleetingness of 
life" and how a body is composed of parts and how it depends on nutrition and 
a bunch of other things is useful, but not decisive. What is decisive, as I 
see it, is the flow of direct experience (of sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, 
etc) highlighted by brilliant clarity and concentrated attention, and the 
radical impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, impersonality, and insubstantiality of 
all aspects of that, and, most particularly, the unfindability of a knowing 
subject anywhere in this experiential flow. In this sense, I see "paramatthic" 
experience to be of critical importance.
However, I think we agree on the following: With regard to the claim 
"that paramathas can be realized anytime, anywhere, no need for meditation," 
that is completely misleading. Without heightened clarity and concentration of 
attention, the tilakkhana nature of dhammas is entirely missed in any 
significant way. Ordinary mind sees weakly and is overwhelmed by illusion and 
conceptual reification. Meditation and cultivation of the mind are indispensable for 
adequately seeing what is actual and not just conceived, and for seeing its 
nature.

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) 




	
29889

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:35am
Subject: A Sutta I Love

 	
Hi, all - 

The following sutta, posted on another list, is one that I think is 
wonderful. It just appeals to me greatly - in several ways. (I love the poetic 
aspect, the ongoing simile used, the emphasis put on bodily 
sensations/feelings, and, especially, the final line.) And so I'm copying it here to be read by 
any folks interested.

With metta,
Howard

Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.12
Akasa Sutta
In the Sky (1)
Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera.
For free distribution only. 
From Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 
303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist 
Publication 
Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with 
permission. 


"In the sky, O monks, various kinds of winds are blowing: winds from the 
east, west, north and south, winds carrying dust and winds without dust, 
winds hot 
and cold, gentle and fierce. Similarly, monks, there arise in this body 
various kinds of feelings: pleasant feelings arise, painful feelings arise 
and 
neutral feelings arise." 
Just as in the sky above winds of various kinds are blowing:
Coming from the east or west, blowing from the north or south,
Some carry dust and others not, cold are some and others hot,
Some are fierce and others mild -- their blowing is so different. 
So also in this body here, feelings of different kind arise:
The pleasant feelings and the painful and the neutral ones. 
But if a monk is ardent and does not neglect
To practice mindfulness and comprehension clear,
The nature of all feelings will he understand,
And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
When once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
All measure and concept he has transcended. 



/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) 




	
29890

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Jon: "I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so
I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-))"

Hi Jon:

Congratulations! You agree with Victor that there is no basis for the
concept/reality distinction according to sutta, primarily because
concept is not established as an object of desire. Maybe Victor would
like to speak for himself here???

Larry
----------------------------
Jon: Larry 
According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of the
Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying the
factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the six
internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six classes each
of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition, and craving;
the six elements; and the five aggregates.' 
There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of these
groups of items. 
So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to
concepts. 
I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I
don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) 
Jon 
  --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, 
Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you didn't 
like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you provide
a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? 
Larry 
------------------- 
Victor: "Hi Larry, 
... 
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
	
29891

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:36pm
Subject: Control || No Control

 	
Hi all,

The Buddha taught that

<quote>
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would 
not lend itself to dis-ease. 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 dis-
ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this 
form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
</quote> [1]

Some might interpret what the Buddha said in the quote as the 
support for the view "there is no control" because "it is not 
possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this form not be thus.'"

Let me elaborate more on the quote in the following three points:

1. If form were self, then this form would not lend itself to dis-
ease. If this form does not lend itself to dis-ease, then this 
form, having control over itself, would be able to say 'Let this 
form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

2. Conversely, if form, having control over itself, were able to 
say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus,', then this 
form would not lend itself to dis-ease. If this form did not lend 
itself to dis-ease, then this form would be self.

3. Equivalent to the statements in second point, if form were not 
self, then this form would lend itself to dis-ease. If this form 
lent itself to dis-ease, then this form, not having control over 
itself, would not be able to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this 
form not be thus.'

So regarding the quote, let me put forth the following questions:

To whom or what should the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this form not be thus' be attributed?

In other words, from whose point of view is the imperative 'Let this 
form be thus. Let this form not be thus' said?


Metta,
Victor

[1] Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta,
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-059.html
	
29892

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for consciousness

 	
Betty: "Dear Howard and Larry, 
    I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just
how ignorance leads to sankhara,..."

Hi Betty,

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that ignorance as wrong
view or bewilderment must arise in a mind door process or as
accumulation/latent-tendency, thence conditioning the arising of a root
consciousness (e.g. desire) which is the "sankhara" link in dependent
arising. What do you think?

Larry
	
29893

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:41pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Hi Larry and Jon,

It is interesting to see that the discussion has been kept going 
between two of you without my participation. But in respond to 
Larry's call, I am in it again for now.

Jon, you said to Larry that 
<quote>
I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so I
don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) 
</quote>

Larry was discussing with me, not with himself. And I am not Larry.

Larry, to my question

<quote>
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? 
</quote>

you responded that

<quote>
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
</quote>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29429

Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the intellect.

Let me quote the passage again without the repetitions:

<quote>
"In whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion, aversion,
delusion, or mental resistance with regard to 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."
</quote>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-205.html

Metta,
Victor

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:
> Jon: "I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are 
discussing, so
> I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-))"
> 
> Hi Jon:
> 
> Congratulations! You agree with Victor that there is no basis for 
the
> concept/reality distinction according to sutta, primarily because
> concept is not established as an object of desire. Maybe Victor 
would
> like to speak for himself here???
> 
> Larry
> ----------------------------
> Jon: Larry 
> According to the introductory notes at p.849 of CDB, the suttas of 
the
> Kilesa-samyutta are based on 'a tenfold scheme for classifying the
> factors of experience already found in the Rahula-samyutta: the six
> internal sense bases; the six external sense bases; the six 
classes each
> of consciousness, contact, feeling perception, volition, and 
craving;
> the six elements; and the five aggregates.' 
> There are 10 short suttas in the samyutta, one devoted to each of 
these
> groups of items. 
> So from that I would say that there is no direct reference here to
> concepts. 
> I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so 
I
> don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) 
> Jon 
>   --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, 
> Here is Victor's original question, to which I gave the reply you 
didn't 
> like, i.e., "dhammaayatana". How would you answer it? Could you 
provide
> a quote from a sutta to back-up your answer? 
> Larry 
> ------------------- 
> Victor: "Hi Larry, 
> ... 
> 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
	


29894

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 0:55pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] the self... how?

 	
In a message dated 2/10/2004 3:51:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
andy@l... writes:

> Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the impression
> arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion could arise
> only if there were something which was experiencing the illusion or
> impression of self, and so the impression is self-validating: 'i sense
> myself, therefore i am'
> 

Hi Andy

Ever hear of a mirage? How could a mirage that appears to be water arise if 
there is no water underlying it? Easy...a set of conditions can fool 
perceptions into thinking that something specific exists when in fact it doesn't at 
all. All these issues of self vs no-self, control vs no-control...are a matter 
of -- whether or not there is insight into the way phenomena arise 
conditionally.

TG
	

 	 

	
29895

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:01pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ignorance as a condition for sankhara; sankhara as a condition for ...

 	
Hi, Larry and Betty -

In a message dated 2/10/04 7:53:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> Betty: "Dear Howard and Larry, 
> I have long puzzled over the first connection, i.e., just
> how ignorance leads to sankhara,..."
> 
> Hi Betty,
> 
> I've been thinking about this and it seems to me that ignorance as wrong
> view or bewilderment must arise in a mind door process or as
> accumulation/latent-tendency, thence conditioning the arising of a root
> consciousness (e.g. desire) which is the "sankhara" link in dependent
> arising. What do you think?
> 
> Larry 
> 
> 
=========================
This is how I look at it. Ignorance of the selflessness of things 
(avijja) is a requisite condition for the arising of the inclination (sankhara) 
towards subjectivity of experience, and that, in turn is a requisite condition 
for the arising of subjectivity of experience (vi~n~nana), and its object 
(namarupa) via an energized sense door (salayatana), the coming together of these 
three being contact (phassa); contact is then condition for ignorance-defiled 
feeling (vedana), which leads to craving (tanha), which, in turn leads to 
attachment (upadana), and that to "becoming" (bhava), which amounts to sankhara 
once again - the inclining towards a rebirth of subjectivity/self, and this then 
leads to the birth of a new sense of self/identity (jati), and then to decline 
and death of that subjectivity (jaramarana), and thence to suffering 
(dukkha).
When the "becoming" occurs at the last moment of a lifetime, it will 
include the impulsion towards"rebirth" in a specific realm of experience and 
with specific conditions holding. But otherwise, it only determines a rebirth of 
(sense of) self or identity within the current lifetime.
I have discussed my opinion here on more than the question you raised, 
Betty. My apologies for that. My reply to your specific question is that 
ignorance in the form of not realizing the selflessness of things leads to the 
specific fabrication that is the inclination towards subjectivity of experience, 
which is what I understand vi~n`nana to be.

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) 




	
29896

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
SN XXII, 59: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form
would not lend itself to dis-ease. 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 dis- ease. And
it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus.
Let this form not be thus.'"

Hi Victor,

This has never made sense to me but I think it is definitely about "no
control". It doesn't even make sense that "self" has to be permanent.
One unorthodox solution would be to say "self", as the Buddha uses it,
has nothing to do with psychology, but is rather a synonym for "the
desirable". Then we get, "form is not desirable because it is not
subject to perfect control and not desirable because it is impermanent."

I'm not even convinced the Buddha was aware of the Upanisadic use of
"Self". 

How do you interpret this passage?

Larry
	
29897

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Victor: "Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the intellect."

Hi Victor,

I think we all three agree on this, but, as you may recall, this thread
started out, for your part, as a critique of the concept/reality
distinction as it is assumed in abhidhamma. Your point being that
nothing like that distinction could be found in the suttas. I had said
something or other about desire and you asked me to verify that concept
was officially recognized as an object of desire. In response I quoted a
sutta that said "ideas" are objects of desire. Jon pointed out that
"ideas" is a questionable translation of "dhamma ayatana". Jon then
asserted that concepts (ideas) are not officially established, in sutta,
as objects of desire. This could be seen as bolstering your original
critique of the abhidhamma's concept/reality distinction. 

Am I in the ballpark here? Have you changed your mind? Would you like me
to fish out the 4 or 5 posts that address this point? I think Michael
was involved in the discussion as well.

Larry
	
29898

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Victor

--- yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> wrote: > Hi Larry and Jon,
> 
> It is interesting to see that the discussion has been kept going 
> between two of you without my participation. But in respond to 
> Larry's call, I am in it again for now.
> 
> Jon, you said to Larry that 
> <quote>
> I have forgotten the actual point you and Larry are discussing, so
> I don't know whose side that puts me on ;-)) 
> </quote>
> 
> Larry was discussing with me, not with himself. And I am not
> Larry.

Sorry about this. I meant 'you and Victor'!

Good to have you back in this one, Victor. 

I'll reply to your post later (I'm at work now).

Jon

	
29899

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_samahita@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Social Glue!

 	
Friends:
The 4 great bases of Sympathy:


The Generosity of Giving.
The Kindness of speech.
The Benefit of Service.
The Fairness of Impartiality
Treating all even & alike.
"I am just like them." 
"They are just like me."

These qualities are literally
what keeps any friendship, 
family, marriage, society,
group & community Safe
Sound & Together...!

Thus keep them precious
& sacred in mind & heart!

We are not alone here ...



All yours in the Dhamma.
Peace is Ease.
Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/











	
29900

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:18pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Victor

You have the greatest advocator of "this is not I, this is not me,
this is not myself" and yet u are doubting the genesis of what is
this about. It is just very simple, if you can let this form be thus
and let this form not be thus, then there should not be anatta, it
should be atta bc u can tell what form u like. If you can control
what form should be like, please do teach me.


Ken O
P.S> You will definitely ask me back ;-)






	
29901

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:02am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Larry,

I elaborated on the passage in the last message. But I would like 
to add a fourth point to the elaboration and change the wording 
while retain the meaning of the original elaboration:

1. If form were self, then this form would not lend itself to dis-
ease. If this form did not lend itself to dis-ease, then it would be 
possible for form, having control over itself, to say 'Let this
form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

2. Conversely, if it were possible for form, having control over 
itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus,', 
then this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. If this form did 
not lend itself to dis-ease, then this form would be self.

3. Equivalent to the statements in second point, if form were not
self, then this form would lend itself to dis-ease. If this form
lent itself to dis-ease, then it would be impossible for form, 
having no control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this
form not be thus.'

4. Following from the third point, precisely because form is not 
self, form lends itself to dis-ease. Because form lends itself to 
dis-ease, it is impossible for form, having no control over itself, 
to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

I think the one crucial point in understand the quoted passage is to 
understand whom or what the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this form not be thus' is from. I don't know the original pali for 
the translation of the quoted passage. But to me the following 
rendering is clear:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would not 
lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to 
say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But 
precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. 
And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus. 
Let this form not be thus.'"

It is clear in a crucial way that this rendering specifies that the 
imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus' is 
from form.

With this rendering, the "control" relation is immediately evident: 
it is about whether form has control over itself. 

And from the rendered passage above it is clear that form has no 
control over itself because form lends itself to dis-ease. Form 
lends itself to dis-ease because form is not self.

The idea "there is no control" (sometimes just "no control") says 
nothing about who or what has no control over what. The 
ambiguity/vagueness of this idea leave a lot of room for 
speculation: Do I have control or do I have no control over this or 
that?

While it is impossible for form to say, 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this form not be thus', it is entirely possible for one to say, 'Let 
me refrain myself from killing. Let me refrain myself from taking 
what is not giving. Let me refrain myself from sexual misconduct. 
Let me refrain myself from lying. Let me refrain myself from taking 
intoxicant.' While form lends itself to dis-ease, it is entirely 
possible for one to follow the way of practice leading to the 
cessation of dukkha, realizing for him or herself the cessation of 
dukkha.

Metta,
Victor

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:
> SN XXII, 59: "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, 
this form
> would not lend itself to dis-ease. 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 dis- 
ease. And
> it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be 
thus.
> Let this form not be thus.'"
> 
> Hi Victor,
> 
> This has never made sense to me but I think it is definitely 
about "no
> control". It doesn't even make sense that "self" has to be 
permanent.
> One unorthodox solution would be to say "self", as the Buddha uses 
it,
> has nothing to do with psychology, but is rather a synonym for "the
> desirable". Then we get, "form is not desirable because it is not
> subject to perfect control and not desirable because it is 
impermanent."
> 
> I'm not even convinced the Buddha was aware of the Upanisadic use 
of
> "Self". 
> 
> How do you interpret this passage?
> 
> Larry
	
29902

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Ken O,

Please kindly refer to my message to Larry. 

Where did you get the idea that I am doubting the genesis of what is 
this about?

Metta,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victor
> 
> You have the greatest advocator of "this is not I, this is not me,
> this is not myself" and yet u are doubting the genesis of what is
> this about. It is just very simple, if you can let this form be 
thus
> and let this form not be thus, then there should not be anatta, it
> should be atta bc u can tell what form u like. If you can control
> what form should be like, please do teach me.
> 
> 
> Ken O
> P.S> You will definitely ask me back ;-)
	
29903

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 0:56am
Subject: kamma/vipaka

 	
Dear Group,

Interesting how kamma/vipaka takes the fun out of misery:-)"Dynamics" 
at work, a broken little toe on one foot and a sprained ankle on the 
other make me ponder on deep deep things - like "why all at once", I 
ask!! :-)) and "doesn't anything 'regulate' the flow?" and "what 
else is in store?". And to make things worse, knowing I am reaping 
the fruits of actions from the near or far past, makes me feel like a 
hypocrite when friends express warmth and sympathy.

metta and peace,
Christine
---The trouble is that you think you have time ---
	
29904

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:26am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Victor 

Firstly your first email before your second one to Larry, Let me
quote you

<<So regarding the quote, let me put forth the following questions:
To whom or what should the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let 
this form not be thus' be attributed?
In other words, from whose point of view is the imperative 'Let this 
form be thus. Let this form not be thus' said?>>

If one understand the logic of anatta, one would not have asked this
qn. It was attribution to the illusion that one can take
ownership/control of one form - that simple :) - no need to rake our
brains over it.


Your second email is better but still a small comemnt 

<<> While it is impossible for form to say, 'Let this form be thus.
Let this form not be thus', it is entirely possible for one to say,
'Let me refrain myself from killing. Let me refrain myself from
taking what is not giving. Let me refrain myself from sexual
misconduct. Let me refrain myself from lying. Let me refrain myself
from taking intoxicant.' While form lends itself to dis-ease, it is
entirely possible for one to follow the way of practice leading to
the cessation of dukkha, realizing for him or herself the cessation
of dukkha.>>

k: this will mean there is a form that can be control bc one can
tell a self refrain from having sexual misconduct. In fact the
ability to refrain depends on the conter effect of both kusala and
akusala cittas that arise on its own conditions. It will depend
which one is stronger, if akusala wins, sexual misconduct will arise.
Hence the understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can
control, we can only consider/reflect dhamma and panna will very
slowly develop strong enough to refrain from doing akusala actions. 
If you try to control it self consciously, it may seem to work
initially, after that the problem will rise. Bc the roots of our
problems are in the cittas and not in the actions. Without cutting
the roots, akusala actions will still arise even if we try very hard
to prevent it (as though one can prevent it in the first instance). 
And by thinking there is a self in restraining, one is only
developing "Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus".


Ken O





	
29905

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:55am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Hi Larry

Concepts can be an object of citta. Hence desire could arise with
the citta that has concepts as an object. There is nothing wrong
with it bc in satipatthana we are interested in the namas and not the
concept. It is the nama (lobha, dosa and moha) we are interested and
not the concept itself as only namas are real whereas concept are not
real but concepts do induce akusala cittas to arise by different
types of paccaya.

Take the concept of a woman (sorry to use gender). What are our
associations that arise with the woman concept (that induce aksuala
cittas), the sound, visible and touch rupas are the associations
which since beginingless that have this habit (or latency) to arise
with such a concept. Bc not undertanding the world as paramattas,
many of us in the this world are running around in concepts. Letting
concepts induce/condition akusala cittas, letting it run our lives in
circles. 

Another good example is that when we see an insulting sound, and we
become angry over it. If we understand sound as just sound rupas,
where is the insult (insult is a concept). Furthermore, when we are
angry, it is just nama but the problem with many pple thought I am
angry (concept of I, there is an ego being hurt) 


To me, it is not having right understanding in our living moments as
namas and rupas, concepts arise and play tricks with our mind. So in
thats sense, there is no need to sit down on corner to figure this
out or trying very hard to have a control over a self, bc every
moment with our six sense is already a lesson in dhamma ;-). You
can ask me any question but never ask me what is dhamma - it brings
memory ;-).



Ken O




--- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "Larry, I see concepts as ideas
cognizable via the
> intellect."
> 
> Hi Victor,
> 
> I think we all three agree on this, but, as you may recall, this
> thread
> started out, for your part, as a critique of the concept/reality
> distinction as it is assumed in abhidhamma. Your point being that
> nothing like that distinction could be found in the suttas. I had
> said
> something or other about desire and you asked me to verify that
> concept
> was officially recognized as an object of desire. In response I
> quoted a
> sutta that said "ideas" are objects of desire. Jon pointed out that
> "ideas" is a questionable translation of "dhamma ayatana". Jon then
> asserted that concepts (ideas) are not officially established, in
> sutta,
> as objects of desire. This could be seen as bolstering your
> original
> critique of the abhidhamma's concept/reality distinction. 
> 
> Am I in the ballpark here? Have you changed your mind? Would you
> like me
> to fish out the 4 or 5 posts that address this point? I think
> Michael
> was involved in the discussion as well.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 





	
29906

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_samahita@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:24am
Subject: Noble Behaviour!

 	
Friends:

The Noble Way


Whether:
In pleasure or pain,
In gain or loss,
In praise or critique,
In fame or anonymity;
Remain just the Same
Calm, even & Plain!
This all Buddhas teach.


Seeing Laziness as Danger,
Effort as final Peace;
Exert energy, Strive!
This all Buddhas teach.


Seeing Dispute as Danger,
Harmony as final Peace;
Be United as Friends!
This all Buddhas teach.


Seeing Negligence as Danger,
Diligence as final Peace;
Develop the Noble 8-fold Way
This all Buddhas teach.


--ooOoo--


Source: The basket of Behaviour.
Cariapitaka. The 15th book.


http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=13072X 





All yours in the Dhamma.
Constructions Decay & Vanish.
Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/












	
29907

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:39am
Subject: Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy,

James: This is one of my pet/favorite topics (along with Victor I 
think ;-) and I have chosen to respond to your post. I am just going 
to give you my viewpoint and not argue it further. Take what you 
want and reject what you don't want. 

First, did the Buddha teach: "There is no self"? No, he did not 
teach any such thing, ever! Such a teaching would be a metaphysical 
position and the Buddha did not teach metaphysical positions, he only 
taught what was conducive to the holy life. What is conducive to the 
holy life along these lines? Those who wish to attain liberation 
should view nothing as self. This seems to be a small difference in 
viewpoint but it really isn't. It is extremely crucial to understand 
this difference to really understand what the Buddha taught. I am 
warning you now, many members in this group DSG teach the incorrect 
metaphysical position that "There is no self" and make certain 
incorrect assumptions based on this metaphysical position (i.e., 
there is no control, people don't exist, etc.). I caution you to not 
believe this position no matter how authoritative they may sound, how 
many texts they quote, or how many Pali words they use. Such a view 
is bound to cause you mental consternation and is not fitting to the 
holy life.

Andy: "as i understand it Buddhism holds that the sense of self only 
arises when various khandhas are mistakenly identified with self, and 
teaches instead the truth of anatta / not-self."

James: This is not entirely true. A sense of self arises when 
ANYTHING is identified with self. It doesn't just automatically 
occur when the five khandhas come together; and there are other 
entities who aren't `composed' of the five khandas, in deva realms, 
etc., who also have a sense of self. Let me give you a comparison 
that is a bit easier to understand: Some people highly identify with 
their bank accounts. They define themselves by how much money they 
have. When they have a lot of money they are joyous, when they lose 
money they suffer. They have become their money. Other people who 
don't have such identification feel sad for these types of people and 
think that they are delusional. But are they any more delusion than 
anyone else? Defining yourself by your bank account or by the five 
khandas is essentially no different. Granted, those people who don't 
identify themselves by their bank accounts may be a bit wiser, but 
they are still not liberated. They also feel happy when they are 
healthy and/or energetic, and sad when they are sick or dying. Same-
Same. So does this mean that the `self' doesn't really exist? 
No. `Self' exists with ignorance as a requisite condition. `Self' 
exists conditionally. But to be liberated one needs to eliminate 
ignorance and thus eliminate the sense of self.

Take for example the Potthapada Sutta:

[Potthapada:] "I posit a gross self, possessed of form, made up of 
the four great existents [earth, water, fire, and wind], feeding on 
physical food." 

[Blessed One:] "Then, Potthapada, your self would be gross, possessed 
of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical 
food. That being the case, then for you perception would be one thing 
and self another. And it's through this line of reasoning that one 
can realize how perception will be one thing and self another: even 
as there remains this gross self -- possessed of form, made up of the 
four great existents, and feeding on food -- one perception arises 
for that person as another perception passes away. It's through this 
line of reasoning that one can realize how perception will be one 
thing and self another."

Therefore, for all practical purposes, whatever one takes for the 
self is the self. If one takes the body with the other khandhas for 
the self, but also has the belief that `there is no self' without 
letting go of that underlying conceit and attachment, that belief is 
bound to lead to confusion and consternation: "Where is the self 
that I used to have?" It would be a denial of what is plainly 
evident. However, the Buddha in this sutta was speaking in 
conventional terms, not in ultimate terms, as he explains later in 
the sutta:

"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, 
the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which 
the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html 

Therefore, what is the `self' for Potthapada and Citta are not 
the `self' for the Buddha. So, at a metaphysical level, which is 
true? Answer: They are both true! The Buddha would not and could 
not ever utter a falsehood! He was not lying just to humor 
Potthapada and Citta. Even though their viewpoint is based on 
ignorance, ignorance is just as much a reality as wisdom. Therefore, 
both conventional reality and ultimate reality, for all practical 
purposes, are real.

Andy: "Now, I would like to ask - if there is no self, how can the 
impression arise that there *is* a self? It seems that the illusion 
could arise only if there were something which was experiencing the 
illusion or impression of self, and so the impression is self-
validating: 'i sense myself, therefore i am'"

James: The illusion (and I don't like that word but it will do) 
arises because of ignorance. Viewing the five khandas as self or 
viewing one's bank account as self, they are both based on ignorance 
and have ignorance as a requisite condition. Eliminate desire and 
the ignorance goes away. Realize that one's bank account doesn't 
define self and then it no longer will; consequently, realize that 
the five khandas don't define self and they no longer will either. 
Then there will be freedom! Sounds great doesn't it?? ;-)) There 
will then be no fear, no unhappiness, no attachments.

Andy: "I have a fear that people will mail back saying precisely that 
each citta stands completely alone. that makes the world sound very 
empty and frightening to me."

James: Don't rush anything! Take it day by day. Detachment to 
a `sense of self' cannot be rushed or artificially constructed 
either. Follow the Noble Eightfold Path and everything will work out 
fine, as the Buddha taught.

Metta, James
	
29908

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:55am
Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta

 	
Hi Larry,

> What if we say on the level in which we live our ordinary life 
desire
> itself is concept. In other words, the desire that we know and 
have a
> problem with is itself a concept. Do we need extraordinary powers 
of
> concentration and insight in order to realize that a concept is 
not real
> and therefore not a problem? 

There is still the fact that there is 'ignorance' of dhammas. 
Recognizing concepts is one thing, but to say that it is not a 
problem because it is not real is not liberating, though perhaps it 
may placate. Ignorance is still being accumulated on another level. 
Only direct insight can make one feel trully that there is 'no 
problem'. 

Metta,
Sukin.
	
29909

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:15am
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Howard, Michael and all,


> However, I think we agree on the following: With regard to 
the claim 
> "that paramathas can be realized anytime, anywhere, no need for 
meditation," 
> that is completely misleading. Without heightened clarity and 
concentration of 
> attention, the tilakkhana nature of dhammas is entirely missed in 
any 
> significant way. Ordinary mind sees weakly and is overwhelmed by 
illusion and 
> conceptual reification. Meditation and cultivation of the mind are 
indispensable for 
> adequately seeing what is actual and not just conceived, and for 
seeing its 
> nature.

I have for a long time wanted to ask this, "what is the reasoning 
behind the claim that 'concentration and/or jhana is needed as prior 
condition for insight?"

From my own understanding of the Buddha's teachings I would go so 
far as to state that anyone who studies the Buddha's teachings and 
still insists on the practice of Jhana as a necessary condition for 
vipassana will achieve neither. I'll elaborate further after I 
receive a response to the above question. 

And general comments would be greatly appreciated.

Metta,
Sukin.
	
29910

From: Htoo Naing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:17am
Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 03 )

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends,

The Samsara traveller has been travelling without ever exhausting and tiredness. Here the Samsara traveller is refered to anyone who are having a life and even though they are not aware of the Samsara which is the circle of life after life, they have been in this cycle for indefinite time.

Most are not exhausted and tired because they are firmly attached to craving that is craving makes them travelling round the Samsara. But some wise beings realize the suffering as suffering and they have tracked the way and how to get through the Samsara.

The method to attain necessary Panna or Nana or insight is called Mahasatipatthana. It may also be called as Vipassana. Mahasatipatthan takes special contemplation on object, contemplation on feeling, contemplation on mind and contemplation on Dhamma phenomena. Those who are practising Mahasatipatthana may be called as Vipassana meditators. The meditator will represent a typical practitioner.

The meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana. He uses all possible time on contemplation even though there are some events arise unchecked. But sooner he contemplates on that as he has missed that as missing. He contemplates on his mind and mental phenomena. He sees clearly happenings of mind and mental phenomena.

At a time, he has been sitting in meditation. He contemplates on his body. He knows his body touch the floor. He knows that he is sitting. He knows when he hears something as hearing. And he knows air strikes his nostril. He knows touch of air in and touch of air out. He knows warmth at a time and he knows cold at another time. As he is well calm, he feels joyous and rapture embraces him and his whole body is covered with goose-skin.

He notices that he is joyous and rapture raises his energy. He thought that he obtains something special. It might be a pro-element of Jhana or mental power. It is possible that soon ascend to higher Jhana. At 4th Jhana, calmness will well work. When water stand still and well calm then images can well be seen in that water. So does a mind state of 4th Jhana calmness. Then Deva-eye or Dibbacakkhu Nana will arise. This eye will see everything. From here through this wall to outside world to America to Asia to Australia to Africa. In Africa, there are many people who are not obtaining enough food. Apo ( water ) Kasina will be able to make a rain. Crops will grow. Food and agricultural outputs will be more and more productive. Everyone in Africa has enough food now and on... .... ... ( This is just to show distraction ).

The meditator has now recognized that he has been distracted far away and he is in his fantacy and thinking. He now knows that he knows his distraction. That is a mind with sensual thinking that arose. It is a mind with greed. It is a mind with attachment. It is a mind with craving. Mind may at a time lapse into other sensual thinking. Sometimes a mind with Raga arises. These sensual thinking are Kamacchandha Nivarana. Nivarana is dhamma that hinder Magga, Phala, Nibbana.

He then notes that a mind with sensual thinking has arisen. Then he re-orientates on his body contemplation and on the breath. Now he is back in his primary meditational object. He starts to notice that there have been many mind states happened in his mind before he remembers to draw back to breath. Now he is back to his breath. This stillness stay for a while and at a time again, he notices that a mind state which is well calm, well tranquilized and he feels joyous again. He notes that a mind state without attachment, craving, raga, lobha, greed arises at the very present.

May all practitioners practise in a relaxed manner and find Dhamma.

With Unlimited Metta,

Htoo Naing

htootintnaing@y... 

JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 


	
29911

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:30am
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" 
<sukinder@k...> wrote:
> <snip> 
I have for a long time wanted to ask this, "what is the reasoning 
> behind the claim that 'concentration and/or jhana is needed as 
prior 
> condition for insight?"
> 
> From my own understanding of the Buddha's teachings I would go so 
> far as to state that anyone who studies the Buddha's teachings and 
> still insists on the practice of Jhana as a necessary condition for 
> vipassana will achieve neither. I'll elaborate further after I 
> receive a response to the above question. 
> 
> And general comments would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Metta,
> Sukin.

I think it would be more effective for you to explain your position 
rather that to just argue someone else's. Only a position explained 
on its own, not as a argument against a different position, is a true 
one.

Metta, James
	
29912

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:44am
Subject: Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Michael,

Michael: It is interesting that you say that. I noticed in a recent 
message you mentioned your interest in pursuing the development of 
concentration. A while ago I also came to the conclusion that jhana 
is a necessary step in the path and have been working towards that 
and quickly came to the conclusion that the discussions in any list 
are quite a disturbance for this practice.

James: Yes, I agree. I will limit myself as I feel the need. 
Actually, jhana practice makes that easier…I am not quite as addicted 
to the drama of this group as before! ;-)) It is going well; I wish 
you well in your practice also.

Metta, James
	
29913

From: Andy Wilson <andy@l...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 5:35am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
I have several times declared myself to the list to be a newcomer to
Buddhist thought and practice. I'm reading some texts, principally the
Abhidhammaatha Sangaha, and joining in this list to try, first, to
understand what is the position in the Buddhist tradition on questions
that concern me and, second, to use that to try to further work out my
own feelings. I am doing this because I found myself attracted to some
aspects of this tradition as I understand it.

As so many people here have been so patient answering my questions I
feel that I owe it to them to sum up my impressions, namely;

1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction between
'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain reading of the
idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because it seems to lead to
a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot accept intellectually
(ie. that in an important sense everything that is not in and of itself
paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or illusory). It seems that this is
very important to me.

2. In a similar (and, I think, connected) way, I find also that many
posts take a view of anatta I find hard to accept, largely for the
reasons James gave in his last post. I have to confess I find his
approach more satisfying and suggestive, though I understand that from
others' points of view that simply means I remain attached to a wrong
view of reality.

James:
> First, did the Buddha teach: "There is no self"? No, he did not 
> teach any such thing, ever! Such a teaching would be a metaphysical 
> position and the Buddha did not teach metaphysical positions, he only 
> taught what was conducive to the holy life.
...
> James: This is not entirely true. A sense of self arises when 
> ANYTHING is identified with self.

Now I would like to explain practically why this matters to me by way of
asking my most important question to James, Sarah and you all: how much
does your practice and your particular understanding really help you
practically to live your life? Once motivation for study is, of course,
the general sense of disatisfaction with life most people feel. But
specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery I feel at the
moment as a long term relationship breaks up. So, this is not an
academic question for me. How do I deal with feelings of being unwanted
and alone? I know we all of us have those feelings at some time.

I found myself yesterday physically crushed by sadness; I was angry and
frightened, I felt abandoned and rejected by my lover, I was entirely
unable to talk or think straight, and so on. My mind felt as though it
was sinking to the bottom of the sea, being slowly crushed by the
pressure as it sank. I had difficulty doing anything (except annoy the
person I love with the unhappy expression on my face) because my mind
was so much the captive of my thought. Now, obviously I need to get some
control of this situation. 

I tried to see my unhappiness as nama and rupa arising and passing away,
to stop myself clinging to attachments, but it seems impossibly hard to
do *from where I'm starting*. There were moments when the feeling
subsided, but those moments too weren't at my control, and then the
unhappiness would rise again. Of course, the feeling isn't always of the
same intensity, but when it's there I have no control of it, it seems
infinite and life not worth living (I don't mean I think of suicide, but
that life buried in unhappiness seems worthless). To make it worse I
then thought: if the end of a relationship is so crushing, how can I
ever cope with, for example, the death of a loved one? My own death?
What does life hold for us if it has this much suffering or, more
accurately, if so little suffering (compared to that of others) seems so
much to the one that suffers it?

The idea that my self is illusion, that my pain and unhappiness mean
only that I'm reaping the reward of previous akusala kamma (for which I
now feel guilt without understanding at all!), that all would be well if
I could somehow separate myself from the passing world, none of this
seems to help because *it reinforces the sense of isolation at the root
of my unhappiness*. How can I cross that line if what I fear is
isolation and separation from others? Is there a way out / a way in?

Metta

--

[][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253
[][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060
[] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net
	
29914

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:28am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Ken,

What exactly is this logic of anatta that one does't understand? 
How should one understand the logic of anatta?

Your feedback and suggestion on the following rendering and 
elaboration on the corresponding passage in 

Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-059.html

are welcome:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would not
lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to
say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But
precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus.
Let this form not be thus.'"

1. If form were self, then this form would not lend itself to dis-
ease. If this form did not lend itself to dis-ease, then it would be
possible for form, having control over itself, to say 'Let this
form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

2. Conversely, if it were possible for form, having control over
itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus,',
then this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. If this form did
not lend itself to dis-ease, then this form would be self.

3. Equivalent to the statements in second point, if form were not
self, then this form would lend itself to dis-ease. If this form
lent itself to dis-ease, then it would be impossible for form,
having no control over itself, to say 'Let this form be thus. Let
this form not be thus.'

4. Following from the third point, precisely because form is not
self, form lends itself to dis-ease. Because form lends itself to
dis-ease, it is impossible for form, having no control over itself,
to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

The following passages are relevant to the teaching on restraint and 
control:

<quote>
157*: 
If you hold yourself dear
then guard, guard yourself well.
The wise person would stay awake
nursing himself
in any of the three watches of the night,
the three stages of life. 



158: 

First
he'd settle himself
in what is correct,
only then
teach others.
He wouldn't stain his name
: he is wise. 



159: 

If you'd mold yourself
the way you teach others,
then, well-trained,
go ahead & tame -- 
for, as they say,
what's hard to tame is you
yourself. 



160: 

Your own self is
your own mainstay,
for who else could your mainstay be?
With you yourself well-trained
you obtain the mainstay
hard to obtain. 
</quote>
Dhammapada XII, Self
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp/12.html


<quote>
360. Good is restraint over the eye; good is restraint over the ear; 
good is restraint over the nose; good is restraint over the tongue. 
361. Good is restraint in the body; good is restraint in speech; 
good is restraint in thought. Restraint everywhere is good. The monk 
restrained in every way is freed from all suffering. 

362. He who has control over his hands, feet and tongue; who is 
fully controlled, delights in inward development, is absorbed in 
meditation, keeps to himself and is contented -- him do people call 
a monk. 

363. That monk who has control over his tongue, is moderate in 
speech, unassuming and who explains the Teaching in both letter and 
spirit -- whatever he says is pleasing. 
</quote>
Dhammapada 25, The Monk
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp1/25.html


Metta,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victor 
> 
> Firstly your first email before your second one to Larry, Let me
> quote you
> 
> <<So regarding the quote, let me put forth the following questions:
> To whom or what should the imperative 'Let this form be thus. Let 
> this form not be thus' be attributed?
> In other words, from whose point of view is the imperative 'Let 
this 
> form be thus. Let this form not be thus' said?>>
> 
> If one understand the logic of anatta, one would not have asked 
this
> qn. It was attribution to the illusion that one can take
> ownership/control of one form - that simple :) - no need to rake 
our
> brains over it.
> 
> 
> Your second email is better but still a small comemnt 
> 
> <<> While it is impossible for form to say, 'Let this form be thus.
> Let this form not be thus', it is entirely possible for one to say,
> 'Let me refrain myself from killing. Let me refrain myself from
> taking what is not giving. Let me refrain myself from sexual
> misconduct. Let me refrain myself from lying. Let me refrain 
myself
> from taking intoxicant.' While form lends itself to dis-ease, it 
is
> entirely possible for one to follow the way of practice leading to
> the cessation of dukkha, realizing for him or herself the 
cessation
> of dukkha.>>
> 
> k: this will mean there is a form that can be control bc one can
> tell a self refrain from having sexual misconduct. In fact the
> ability to refrain depends on the conter effect of both kusala and
> akusala cittas that arise on its own conditions. It will depend
> which one is stronger, if akusala wins, sexual misconduct will 
arise.
> Hence the understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can
> control, we can only consider/reflect dhamma and panna will very
> slowly develop strong enough to refrain from doing akusala 
actions. 
> If you try to control it self consciously, it may seem to work
> initially, after that the problem will rise. Bc the roots of our
> problems are in the cittas and not in the actions. Without cutting
> the roots, akusala actions will still arise even if we try very 
hard
> to prevent it (as though one can prevent it in the first 
instance). 
> And by thinking there is a self in restraining, one is only
> developing "Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus".
> 
> 
> Ken O
	
29915

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:17am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Victor


<< "Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would not
lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to
say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But
precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus.
Let this form not be thus.'" >>

k: Buddha is saying it is impossible to control a self


<< 362. He who has control over his hands, feet and tongue; who is 
fully controlled, delights in inward development, is absorbed in 
meditation, keeps to himself and is contented -- him do people call
a monk. >>

k: Then Buddha is saying there is control over self


> 4. Following from the third point, precisely because form is not
> self, form lends itself to dis-ease. Because form lends itself to
> dis-ease, it is impossible for form, having no control over itself,
> to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

k: If that is your position, dont u think it is impossible for
control. However then you quote a lot of control suttas. Hey I dont
want sutta quotes - I can give u also. I want to hear in your own
words, your understanding how does this contradiction being resolved.
That is what I want to know. How does Anatta can be control :).


Ken O








	
29916

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victor
> 
> 
> << "Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would 
not
> lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to
> say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But
> precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease.
> And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus.
> Let this form not be thus.'" >>
> 
> k: Buddha is saying it is impossible to control a self
> 
> =======
Dear Ken,
Just looking at this sutta quote you gave above. Do you happen to 
have the pali for this, it looks an unusual translation to me.
Robk
	
29917

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Rob K

it is not my quote, I get it from Victor

Ken O



> > =======
> Dear Ken,
> Just looking at this sutta quote you gave above. Do you happen to 
> have the pali for this, it looks an unusual translation to me.
> Robk






	
29918

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:38am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy

We have to realise that Buddhism is not an instant antidote for such
things. Why bc countless yes of habitual effect will not be one day
just gone and *pooh* go away. I have experience crush in love before
(may not be the same as yous) and the first two weeks I almost like a
zombie, and when I need to sleep, I need someone to sleep beside me. 
It takes me almost eight years to get over it. During these eight
years, even pack with Buddhist knowledge that all is impermanent,
anatta, the crushing feeling never truly susbsides. Everytime it
arise, it is very painful. And imagine with this pain and still
consider them as impermanent and anatta - that is almost impossible. 
I cannot count the number of times I have pick myself up again and
again whenever I sink to the crushing feelings. 

However in the end Buddha wisdom pervail. After eight years, I have
finally go over it. The pain has virtually gone. The principles may
seem not to work at first, but keep consider again and again that is
what I encourage you to do. It take a long time for wisdom to see
that this relationships is impermanent and anatta. Till then dont
ever give up, be strong. When u feel down, consider dhamma with us
on this list, get encouragement from us. Nothing more fulfilling in
life is that u have friends that support and encourage you when you
are down. Most importantly friends that do not prejudice or judge
you. That is also how I get my strength from.


Till then be strong
Ken O








But
> specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery I feel at
> the moment as a long term relationship breaks up. So, this is not
an
> academic question for me. How do I deal with feelings of being
> unwanted and alone? I know we all of us have those feelings at some
time.
> 
> I found myself yesterday physically crushed by sadness; I was angry
> and frightened, I felt abandoned and rejected by my lover, I was
> entirely unable to talk or think straight, and so on. My mind felt
as though it was sinking to the bottom of the sea, being slowly
crushed by the pressure as it sank. I had difficulty doing anything
(except annoy
> the
> person I love with the unhappy expression on my face) because my
> mind
> was so much the captive of my thought. Now, obviously I need to get
> some
> control of this situation. 
> 
> I tried to see my unhappiness as nama and rupa arising and passing
> away,
> to stop myself clinging to attachments, but it seems impossibly
> hard to
> do *from where I'm starting*. There were moments when the feeling
> subsided, but those moments too weren't at my control, and then the
> unhappiness would rise again. Of course, the feeling isn't always
> of the
> same intensity, but when it's there I have no control of it, it
> seems
> infinite and life not worth living (I don't mean I think of
> suicide, but
> that life buried in unhappiness seems worthless). To make it worse
> I
> then thought: if the end of a relationship is so crushing, how can
> I
> ever cope with, for example, the death of a loved one? My own
> death?
> What does life hold for us if it has this much suffering or, more
> accurately, if so little suffering (compared to that of others)
> seems so
> much to the one that suffers it?
> 
> The idea that my self is illusion, that my pain and unhappiness
> mean
> only that I'm reaping the reward of previous akusala kamma (for
> which I
> now feel guilt without understanding at all!), that all would be
> well if
> I could somehow separate myself from the passing world, none of
> this
> seems to help because *it reinforces the sense of isolation at the
> root
> of my unhappiness*. How can I cross that line if what I fear is
> isolation and separation from others? Is there a way out / a way
> in?
> 
> Metta
> 
> --
> 
> [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253
> [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060
> [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 





	
29919

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi, Ken O (and Victor) -

In a message dated 2/11/04 4:27:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
ashkenn2k@y... writes:

> Hence the understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can
> control, we can only consider/reflect dhamma and panna will very
> slowly develop strong enough to refrain from doing akusala actions. 
> 
=========================
I have frequently read you and others to say that there can be no 
control. If to control means to influence, I strongly disagree. But in any case, I 
don't think that it has ever been pointed out that you "no-control devotees" 
seem to consistently make an exception! You say above that "... the 
understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can control, we can only 
consider/reflect dhamma ..." To consider/reflect seems to be something that you folks 
think that you *can* control. This exception has been made by several of you, and 
often. "We can only" do that, you say!! Somehow we can't manage to do anything 
else to cultivate the mind, but we *can* initiate considering and reflecting 
on the Dhamma. Why the exception?? Is there volition to consider and to 
reflect? And can it be brought to fruition by effort? That is: Are you able to 
consider and reflect? If yes, then that is control!!
I have my own personal prejudice as to why some people seem to think 
that considering and reflecting is the whole of the practice, and that this is 
the one and only exception to the no-control axiom, and it is that it is only 
these activities that they enjoy - they just don't *want* to meditate etc, for 
any number of reasons, but *love* thinking. But in any case, the extremity of 
the no-control position is exactly that - an extreme that goes way outside of 
the bounds of the Buddha's teaching.
One more thing. Some people may adopt an extreme no-control position, 
because they believe that exerting influence requires some self to do the 
exerting. But it no more requires a self for there to be volition and exerting of 
effort than it requires a self for there to be seeing or hearing or tasting or 
feeling or *thinking* (including considering and reflecting). Is it possible 
that sometimes Buddhists, in detecting the sense of self in their mind, are so 
horrified by this that it causes them to run to an extreme hopelessness 
position that shuns any possibility of volition, effort, and influence?

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) 




	
29920

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, Sukin -

In a message dated 2/11/04 6:18:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sukinder@k... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard, Michael and all,
> 
> 
> > However, I think we agree on the following: With regard to 
> the claim 
> >"that paramathas can be realized anytime, anywhere, no need for 
> meditation," 
> >that is completely misleading. Without heightened clarity and 
> concentration of 
> >attention, the tilakkhana nature of dhammas is entirely missed in 
> any 
> >significant way. Ordinary mind sees weakly and is overwhelmed by 
> illusion and 
> >conceptual reification. Meditation and cultivation of the mind are 
> indispensable for 
> >adequately seeing what is actual and not just conceived, and for 
> seeing its 
> >nature.
> 
> I have for a long time wanted to ask this, "what is the reasoning 
> behind the claim that 'concentration and/or jhana is needed as prior 
> condition for insight?"
> 
> From my own understanding of the Buddha's teachings I would go so 
> far as to state that anyone who studies the Buddha's teachings and 
> still insists on the practice of Jhana as a necessary condition for 
> vipassana will achieve neither. I'll elaborate further after I 
> receive a response to the above question. 
> 
> And general comments would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Metta,
> Sukin. 
> 
===============================
I have read the Buddha to frequently say it is the jhanas 
(specifically the 1st four) that constitute Right Concentration. Right Concentration is a 
legitimate part of the eightfold path, and is not dispensable. BTW, I don't 
say that the jhanas are a necessary prior condition for the arising of any 
insights at all. But the jhanas are requisite for full liberation, because they 
constitute Right Concentration.
BTW, why didn't you elaborate further *before* you received a 
response?

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) 




	
29921

From: <Jackhat1@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:00am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
In a message dated 2/11/04 7:47:35 AM Central Standard Time, andy@l... 
writes:
1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction between
'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain reading of the
idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because it seems to lead to
a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot accept intellectually
(ie. that in an important sense everything that is not in and of itself
paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or illusory). It seems that this is
very important to me.

Andy,

I haven't been reading the posts on this thread and am jumping in without 
knowing what has gone before. The Abhidhamma lists what is considered "ultimate 
realities." One for example is the hardness we feel with our body. If in a time 
of trouble one makes an effort to pay attention to these ultimates such as 
the feel of the ground under our feet, then I think we find that our discomfort 
is "outside" these ultimates and manufactured not real. And, if we keep our 
attention on ultimates, then the metaphysical problem you are having also 
disappears. You might try paying more attention to the list of ultimates than 
abstract definitions.


2. In a similar (and, I think, connected) way, I find also that many
posts take a view of anatta I find hard to accept, largely for the
reasons James gave in his last post. I have to confess I find his
approach more satisfying and suggestive, though I understand that from
others' points of view that simply means I remain attached to a wrong
view of reality.

From my understanding, anatta is something to be experienced. Views are only 
instructions on how to have this experience. I think this experience can 
easily be gained through vipassana meditation. If one does not try to gain this 
experience, it's all b.s.
[snip].

>>Now I would like to explain practically why this matters to me by way of
asking my most important question to James, Sarah and you all: how much
does your practice and your particular understanding really help you
practically to live your life? Once motivation for study is, of course,
the general sense of disatisfaction with life most people feel. But
specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery I feel at the
moment as a long term relationship breaks up. <<

I think that is a very important question that has to be asked (and answered) 
time and time again: How does x "really help you to live your life?" My 
experience is that study has to be taken to the cushion and turned into experience, 
then taken off the cushion into our regular life. Anatta and the difference 
between ultimates and conventions has made a big difference in my life. I could 
explain but it might not be relevant here. I as well as others on this list 
could also supply simple meditation instructions that would help experiencing 
these two concepts. Over time, momentary experiences of these two concepts 
build up our ability to deal with the bigger issues in our life.

Be well. Hi, James. I assume you are the same "James" as I have met on other 
lists.

jack


	
29922

From: Andy Wilson <andy@l...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:48am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Jack, Ken

thank you for your comments.

Jack: I as well as others on this list could also supply simple
meditation instructions that would help experiencing these two concepts.

Andy: I would very much appreciate that. I am a beginner in terms of
meditation, with very little experience, and would welcome any help at
all.

Ken: We have to realise that Buddhism is not an instant antidote for
such things. Why bc countless years of habitual effect will not be one
day just gone and *pooh* go away. 

Andy: Though I'm generally an impatient person, still I don't expect
instant results. I realise that what is at stake is the work of a
lifetime. My worry is that I'm not sure I might even begin succesfully,
given my comments about loneliness, isolation and anatta. 

Ken: Till then dont ever give up, be strong. When u feel down, consider
dhamma with us on this list, get encouragement from us. 

Andy: I am especially grateful for this thought.

Metta

Andy
	
29923

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:49am
Subject: Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" <andy@l...> 
wrote:
[snip]
Andy: 1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction between
'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain reading of 
the idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because it seems to 
lead to a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot accept 
intellectually (ie. that in an important sense everything that is 
not in and of itself paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or 
illusory). It seems that this is very important to me.

Victor: I would echo that sentiment.

Andy: 2. In a similar (and, I think, connected) way, I find also 
that many posts take a view of anatta I find hard to accept, largely 
for the reasons James gave in his last post. I have to confess I 
find his approach more satisfying and suggestive, though I 
understand that from others' points of view that simply means I 
remain attached to a wrong view of reality.


James: First, did the Buddha teach: "There is no self"? No, he did 
not teach any such thing, ever! Such a teaching would be a 
metaphysical position and the Buddha did not teach metaphysical 
positions, he only taught what was conducive to the holy life.
...
James: This is not entirely true. A sense of self arises when 
ANYTHING is identified with self.


Victor: I cannot agree more with James's warning in his message to 
you!


Andy: Now I would like to explain practically why this matters to me 
by way of asking my most important question to James, Sarah and you 
all: how much does your practice and your particular understanding 
really help you practically to live your life? 


Victor: I practice meditation. Reading and studying the discourses 
help me distinguish what is Dhamma and what is Adhamma. Over time, 
my engagement in sensual pleasures decreases, and I have refrained 
from any sexual activity. When sexual thought arises once in a 
while, I would note in mind "yuck" and the thought would recede. 
Desire for relationship has decreased. Sensitivity, fear, and shame 
for wrong doing are greater than before. Inner security and 
confidence are greater than before. Temper becomes softer and the 
mind is less prone to anger. When in unfavorable situation and 
hardship, I often recall the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. It 
helps me calm my mind and put the situation in perspective. 
Comparison between self and others in terms of wealth and social 
status becomes less significant than before. I also visited 
monastic who possesses virtue, samadhi, and discernment. It was a 
joy.

Andy: Once motivation for study is, of course, the general sense of 
disatisfaction with life most people feel. 

Victor: Yes. Dukkha and the cessation of dukkha are what the 
Buddha's teaching, Dhamma, is about.

Andy: But specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery 
I feel at the moment as a long term relationship breaks up. 

Victor: Let the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha be your refuge in 
this difficult time. Relationship comes to be, breaks up, and 
passes away. It is inconstant and dukkha.

Andy: So, this is not an academic question for me. How do I deal 
with feelings of being unwanted and alone? 

Victor: With the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha as your refuge. 
Observe the five precepts. If you observe the five precepts without 
transgression, note that fact. Reflect on the Buddha, the Dhamma, 
the Sangha, and your own virtue of keeping the five precepts pure. 
This will help you build an inner strength, confidence, and joy to 
deal with the feelings of being unwanted and alone. Love. Love 
yourself and those around you with loving-kindness (metta), 
compassion (karuna), joy (mudita), and equanimity (upekkha). 
Reflect on the theme of loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and 
equanimity. Visit accomplished monastics. Visiting them will bring 
joy. A skillful teacher in monastery will help you greatly. If you 
don't have access to a teacher in monastery for now, seek out one. 
And meanwhile, check out this discourse:
Majjhima Nikaya 20
Vitakkasanthana Sutta
The Relaxation of Thoughts
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn020.html

Karuna,
Victor

[snip]
	


 	
 	
29924

From: <Jackhat1@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 5:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
In a message dated 2/11/04 12:00:01 PM Central Standard Time, andy@l... 
writes:
Jack: I as well as others on this list could also supply simple
meditation instructions that would help experiencing these two concepts.

Andy: I would very much appreciate that. I am a beginner in terms of
meditation, with very little experience, and would welcome any help at
all.
Andy,

I'm assuming you are already doing some meditation each day. For experiencing 
anatta, next time you meditate try this: Notice how your breath comes and 
goes by itself. It doesn't need "you" to control it. Then notice other phenomena 
entering any of your five sense doors, for example, sounds and physical 
sensations. They arise and pass away by themselves. They don't need "you" to control 
them. If you are doing sitting meditation and then get up to do walking 
meditation, notice how your getting up happens without "you" controlling it. 
Finally, notice thoughts and emotions. It takes some practice but eventually you can 
see thoughts and emotions arise and pass away by themselves. You don't 
control them either. All these arise and pass away according to causes and 
conditions. You both don't need nor can find an "I" that is controlling them.

I am simplifying this whole meditation but the above might help. You might be 
able to find some guided vipassana meditations on the Internet. I know 
SoundsTrue has some tapes that might help. I think Jack Kornfield did one. Let me 
add, you have to do vipassanna meditation over a fairly long period of time for 
it to "work."

For seeing that suffering and discomfort don't occur when you are mindful of 
ultimates: Guided body scan meditations can help. Learn what the physical 
ultimates are and try to watch them during meditation. Jon Kabat-Zinn as well as 
practitioners of other Buddhists traditions have guided meditation tapes that 
help do this.


Sometime when you are stressed when not meditating, take a moment and try 
observing your body sensations. Feel the ground under your feet, the feeling in 
the pit of your stomach, the feeling of your breath in your nose, etc. See if 
that doesn't alleviate your discomfort.

jack


	

 	 

	
29925

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:15am
Subject: Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy,

Andy: Now I would like to explain practically why this matters to me 
by way of asking my most important question to James, Sarah and you 
all: how much does your practice and your particular understanding 
really help you practically to live your life? Once motivation for 
study is, of course, the general sense of disatisfaction with life 
most people feel. But specifically I want to learn how to cope with 
the misery I feel at the moment as a long term relationship breaks 
up. So, this is not an academic question for me. How do I deal with 
feelings of being unwanted and alone? I know we all of us have those 
feelings at some time.

James: Andy, it seems to me that you are really asking two sorts of 
questions: 1. You want to know if I, and others in this group, 
practice what I/we preach and what good it does for us; 2. You want 
some advice and comfort regarding your most recent breakup. Let me 
address the second question first since I think that it is the most 
pressing at the moment. Though this may not be what you want to hear 
right away, I want to congratulate you on turning this unpleasant 
experience you are going through into something worthwhile and 
beneficial! Rather than sadness or pity, I actually feel great joy 
for you at the moment!! (weird but true! ;-)) Second, time will take 
care of this wound and there is no reason to dwell on it or pick at 
it: Just let it heal. Please allow me to quote from the Anguttara 
Nikaya 74, "Four Thoroughbreds" to cast light on why I am so happy 
for you:

"Again, monks, there is another good, thoroughbred person who neither 
hears it said nor sees that some woman or man is ailing or has died, 
nor did this happen to a kinsman of his, a close relation; but he 
himself becomes afflicted with great bodily pains that are severe, 
sharp, piercing, moved and stirred. Being moved, he strives 
earnestly. With his mind fully dedicated, he realizes in his own 
person the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. 
This good, thoroughbred person, I say, is similar to the good, 
thoroughbred horse that is alerted and stirred only when he is 
pierced by the goad to the very bone. This is the fourth good, 
thoroughbred person found in the world."

So, you are using this suffering you are experiencing to investigate 
and discover the truth (though your situation isn't specifically 
concerning death, it is very similiar). There is nothing better than 
using this situation to become strong and wise! Time will heal the 
pain of the moment and you will forget, but the wisdom you gain will 
be with you forever.

Regarding your first question, I understand why you ask it but I am 
going to decline to answer in such a public forum. It isn't that I 
have anything to hide but I don't want the members of this group to 
focus too much on me (this already happens too much as it is and, 
being empathic/psychic, it disturbs me greatly). If you are really 
pressed to know these details about me feel free to contact me off-
list.

One last note: this upcoming Valentine's Day may I suggest you 
celebrate your newfound love for the wisdom of the Buddha, the 
Dhamma, and the Sangha! There is no Valentine more precious than 
those!!! ;-)

Metta, James
	
29926

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Ken,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:

<< "Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this form would not 
lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible for form [to 
say], 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But
precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease.
And it is not possible for form [to say], 'Let this form be thus.
Let this form not be thus.'" >>

k: Buddha is saying it is impossible to control a self

Victor: It is impossible for form to control itself. I think you 
might want to clarify what you mean by "it is impossible to control 
self." It is impossible for whom or what to control self?


362. He who has control over his hands, feet and tongue; who is 
fully controlled, delights in inward development, is absorbed in 
meditation, keeps to himself and is contented -- him do people call
a monk.

k: Then Buddha is saying there is control over self


Victor: It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, 
speech, and mind. I think you might want to explain what you mean 
by "there is control over self." There is control for whom or what 
over self?


4. Following from the third point, precisely because form is not 
self, form lends itself to dis-ease. Because form lends itself to
dis-ease, it is impossible for form, having no control over itself,
to say 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

k: If that is your position, dont u think it is impossible for
control. 

Victor: It is impossible for form to control itself. I think you 
might want to explain what you mean by "it is impossible for 
control." It is impossible for whom or what to control whom or what?

Ken: However then you quote a lot of control suttas. Hey I dont
want sutta quotes - I can give u also. I want to hear in your own
words, your understanding how does this contradiction being resolved.

Victor: You gave three ambiguous and vague propositions and claim 
contradiction:

1. it is impossible to control a self
2. there is control over self
3. it is impossible for control

For each of these propositions, you might want to clarify:
1. it is impossible for whom or what to control a self?
2. there is control for whom or what over self?
3. it is impossible for whom or what to control over whom or what?

Consider the following two statement and see if they contradict each 
other:
It is impossible for form to control itself.
It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, 
and mind.

Let me know if I can clarify anything in my elaboration on the 
passage for you.


Metta,
Victor
	
29927

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thinking of realities or concepts

 	
Larry and Victor

--- LBIDD@w... wrote:
Victor: "Larry, I see concepts as ideas cognizable via the
intellect."

L: I think we all three agree on this,

J: To my understanding, 'pannatti' (concepts) refers to the name we
give something or to an idea we have (a thought). A concept is a
mind-created object of the mind. Hence, it is not a 'thing' that is
'experienced' by the mind in the same way that, say, an already
arisen sound is experienced by consciousness.

Conceptual thinking is based on dhammas that have been experienced. 
If no past sense-door experiences (a theoretical impossibility, of
course), then no thinking.

L: ... but, as you may recall, this thread started out, for your
part, as a critique of the concept/reality distinction as it is
assumed in abhidhamma. Your point being that nothing like that
distinction could be found in the suttas. I had said something or
other about desire and you asked me to verify that concept was
officially recognized as an object of desire. In response I quoted a
sutta that said "ideas" are objects of desire. 

J: I'm not sure I see the connection between 'desire' and the
realties/concept distinction. Is anyone suggesting that there cannot
be thinking with attachment?

There are of course suttas dealing with attachment to five aggregates
or other classifications of dhammas, that do not specifically mention
concepts. These however merely serve to show that it is the
attachment to the underlying dhammas that is at the root of the
problem.

L: Jon pointed out that "ideas" is a questionable translation of
"dhamma ayatana". Jon then asserted that concepts (ideas) are not
officially established, in sutta, as objects of desire. 

J: Just in that particular sutta, I think. I was not referring to
the sutta pitaka at large.

But in any event, the important thing is that it is the attachment
that is to be known, not the concept.

Jon


	
29928

From: Andrew <athel60@t...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:03pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy
Lots of people are giving you some very good advice on all these 
difficult matters. Perhaps a word from one of the more flippant 
members might not go astray? We are all different, I know, but 
tackling anatta in the way you are is IMHO akin to diving from the 
high board on your first visit to the public swimming pool! Truly, I 
was "into" Buddhism for a decade before insights began to manifest in 
that regard. Be patient! You at least have to climb up the ladder 
and waddle nervously out to the edge of the diving platform and then 
backtrack a couple of times before you take the plunge!

You wrote: 
But specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery I feel 
at the
> moment as a long term relationship breaks up. So, this is not an
> academic question for me. How do I deal with feelings of being 
unwanted
> and alone? I know we all of us have those feelings at some time.
> 
> I found myself yesterday physically crushed by sadness; I was angry 
and
> frightened, I felt abandoned and rejected by my lover, I was 
entirely
> unable to talk or think straight, and so on. My mind felt as though 
it
> was sinking to the bottom of the sea, being slowly crushed by the
> pressure as it sank. I had difficulty doing anything (except annoy 
the
> person I love with the unhappy expression on my face) because my 
mind
> was so much the captive of my thought. Now, obviously I need to get 
some
> control of this situation. 
> 
> I tried to see my unhappiness as nama and rupa arising and passing 
away,
> to stop myself clinging to attachments, but it seems impossibly 
hard to
> do *from where I'm starting*. There were moments when the feeling
> subsided, but those moments too weren't at my control, and then the
> unhappiness would rise again. Of course, the feeling isn't always 
of the
> same intensity, but when it's there I have no control of it, it 
seems
> infinite and life not worth living (I don't mean I think of 
suicide, but
> that life buried in unhappiness seems worthless). To make it worse I
> then thought: if the end of a relationship is so crushing, how can I
> ever cope with, for example, the death of a loved one? My own death?
> What does life hold for us if it has this much suffering or, more
> accurately, if so little suffering (compared to that of others) 
seems so
> much to the one that suffers it?

A: Have you read the story of Kisagotami? She was the lady whose 
young son died and she was consumed by unbearable grief and guilt. 
She begged the Buddha to bring her son back to life and he agreed, on 
condition that she provide him with a mustard seed from a household 
untouched by death. Despite all her desperate searching, she was 
unable to find such a household. Insight dawned on her and she 
became an arahant. This verse is attributed to her:

The Sage has emphasised and praised
Noble friendship for the world.
If one stays with a Noble Friend
even a fool will become a wise person.
Stay with them of good heart
For the wisdom of those who stay with him grows.
And while one is staying with them,
from every kind of dukkha one is freed.
Dukkha one should know well,
and how dukkha arises and ceases,
and the Eightfold Path
and the Four Noble Truths.

Andy, in a moment of extreme despair, I once felt wonderfully 
liberated by the knowledge that, as far as the gaining of wisdom is 
concerned, it didn't really matter whether I was having a great time 
or a lousy time, whether I was a "success" or a "failure". Those 
things are not of primary importance.

Regarding conventional and ultimate realities, remember too 
that "anger" and "worry" etc are considered absolute realities. They 
are not illusory! It is the story weaved around them that is the 
illusion - the "this is mine" type of thinking.

Last comment - be easy on yourself! You haven't dropped a nuclear 
bomb on a city or done all sorts of other terrible things. You have 
a human birth because of wholesome things done in the past. 
Congratulate yourself! With patience, understanding and a good 
heart, you'll work your way through all this. We're all in the same 
boat.
With best wishes
Andrew
	
29929

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Victor

k: I think it is very painful for me to explain terms that is
explicitly simple in the suttas. Sometimes I am thinking you are
going in circles over the Sutta Cannon. You still have not answer my
question, how do we control something that is Anatta? You have not
resolved the contradiction that I have asked you. 


Ken O 









	
29930

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Howard

Dont be exasperated by this little funny group :-). Yes reflection
is still volition but the distinction is whether one is purposedly do
it or one do it naturally. If reflection is view as a form of
control, then again this practise is not the correct practise. There
is a fine line and this line is very difficult to notice. 

*love* thinking - yup all the time we are thinking, even those who
are meditating is also thinking (so they also love thinking in that
sense). As long as one does not see the word as namas and rupas, we
are all thinking. 

Please disregard us if you find us chattering like children over our
love on the *no-control* mantra. Anyway, can we control self in the
first place ;-). Cheers.


best wishes
Ken O






	
29931

From: Andrew <athel60@t...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Howard

Pardon my butting in here but I don't think you are connecting with 
what the "no-control devotees" are really on about.

You wrote:

I don't think that it has ever been pointed out that you "no-control 
devotees" 
> seem to consistently make an exception! You say above that "... the 
> understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can control, we 
can only 
> consider/reflect dhamma ..." To consider/reflect seems to be 
something that you folks 
> think that you *can* control. This exception has been made by 
several of you, and 
> often. "We can only" do that, you say!! Somehow we can't manage to 
do anything 
> else to cultivate the mind, but we *can* initiate considering and 
reflecting 
> on the Dhamma. Why the exception?? Is there volition to consider 
and to 
> reflect? And can it be brought to fruition by effort? That is: Are 
you able to 
> consider and reflect? If yes, then that is control!!
[snip] 
But it no more requires a self for there to be volition and exerting 
of 
> effort than it requires a self for there to be seeing or hearing or 
tasting or 
> feeling or *thinking* (including considering and reflecting). Is it 
possible 
> that sometimes Buddhists, in detecting the sense of self in their 
mind, are so 
> horrified by this that it causes them to run to an extreme 
hopelessness 
> position that shuns any possibility of volition, effort, and 
influence?

A: A scientist recently claimed to have shown that the brain keeps 
thinking during sleep. That is why we can have a problem we haven't 
solved and we may wake up in the middle of the night with the 
answer. The brain has worked it out during sleep. Obviously, then, 
there is volition during this "sleep thinking". Do we have any 
control over it? No. The "sleep thinking" occurs when the requisite 
conditions are present for it to arise.
I think the "no-control devotees" are saying that it is the same 
thing during waking hours. It may LOOK LIKE we are deciding "Let 
there be reflection on the Dhamma" and this dutifully occurs (a bit 
like the Biblical God saying "Let there be light" and there was 
light) - but that's an illusion. Reflection on the Dhamma occurs as 
a result of the requisite conditions being present. Volition is part 
of that equation, certainly. But it is a misreading of 
conditionality to think that volition is a mighty originating "Let 
there be light!" type of thing. If that were the case, how 
could "sleep thinking" occur because there is no conscious deciding 
to think?
Is "no control" a doctrine of hopelessness as you say? I think the 
opposite. I think it leads to understanding and that's pretty 
important because nearly everyone on this list seems to agree that 
the Buddha said (yes, in the Suttanta) that Right View comes first. 
At the time of the Buddha, there were dog ascetics and cow ascetics 
and meditators of various persuasions who were filled with diligence 
and effort, but since they had Wrong View, where did it get them?
Best wishes
Andrew
	
29932

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:40pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hello Andy, :-)

I agree with Andrew - go gently - attend to things in appropriate 
order - take comfort when and where it is available - you don't need 
to solve the riddle of the universe when your main task is that of 
becoming at ease in your world again.

Mostly we're not prepared for the strength of the emotions that arise 
when a relationship ends. The aftermath of separation is sad and 
hurtful, and is often more like a trauma if the break-up was 
unexpected, or unwished for.. 
Many of us on this List have experienced the disruption, desolation 
and shock of the loss of a partner. If the relationship is 
longstanding, then a whole way of life seems to be being destroyed as 
well - one's very identity seems threatened. Sometimes most of your 
friends could be held in common, and this causes awkwardness with 
friends not knowing who to support and how. Some of these friends 
may eventually be lost also. If others are hurt and bewildered 
(maybe children) you can find that instead of receiving comfort you 
are supporting them. You can easily become exhausted with the myriad 
of things and people to attend to. If you had been used to going 
everywhere together, you could find it intimidating to turn up to 
social activities alone, or lose the inclination to go out at all. 
Resist that. There can be a decrease in self esteem, feelings of 
embarrassment, mixed with fear and anger, and an unbearable yearning 
for life to be as it was. For recovery to occur, the relationship 
has to be accepted as over, and it is better to have a clean break 
for a while rather than the 'we can still be friends' idea.

Andy, if you had multiple fractures (and, in a way, you have) you'd 
go straight to the emergency department of the local hospital, you'd 
take mundane pain relief, you'd take advantage of physiotherapy when 
it was the right time, and you'd endure what had to be endured until 
that particular hurt was eased and healing had begun. Just so with 
a fractured life, take comfort and support from where it is 
offered, plan for little changes, set up new routines. Let it be 
known that you are renovating your life and have decided the past is 
the past. If you aren't sleeping well, start regular exercise. 
Preferably with others. Eat well. Have a check-up with your local 
doctor. When you are able, join something where you mix with people 
unconnected with the past - maybe just a regular yoga class. Accept 
all reasonable invitations to anything. Write more regularly to us 
all Andy, if you don't understand anything read up on it, prepare 
detailed posts, and get involved in the discussions. You may find 
that whole minutes go by when you haven't thought of the hurt in your 
life - and gradually this time lengthens. Why not read and reflect 
about a few things on Conditionality (Paticcasamupadda) and Anatta as 
that seems to be occupying your mind at the moment. Here are a 
couple of different perspectives:
Anatta
http://www.bswa.org/publications/HTML/Anatta_NonSelf.html
http://www.bswa.org/publications/HTML/Anatta_NonSelf.html
Paticcasamupadda
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism//mogokcan.htm

Understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta arises when the conditions 
are right, Wisdom (pa~n~na) arises when it arises and nothing can 
force it to, and nothing can prevent it from doing so. Keep contact 
with admirable friends, hear and reflect on the dhamma, relax, don't 
worry, all will be well. A good sutta to consider is the Nava 
Sutta - what the chicken wanted had nothing to do with the outcome, 
the outcome was dependent on previous conditions. 

It takes a long time, and sometimes all one can do is endure. But 
you WILL be happy again, you WILL reconstruct your life so that there 
is not a 'person shaped blank' dominating it. The good thing 
about 'anicca' (impermanence) is that, though the good things don't 
last, neither do the painful things. :-)

metta and peace,
Christine
---The trouble is that you think you have time ---

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" <andy@l...> 
wrote:
> I have several times declared myself to the list to be a newcomer to
> Buddhist thought and practice. I'm reading some texts, principally 
the
> Abhidhammaatha Sangaha, and joining in this list to try, first, to
> understand what is the position in the Buddhist tradition on 
questions
> that concern me and, second, to use that to try to further work out 
my
> own feelings. I am doing this because I found myself attracted to 
some
> aspects of this tradition as I understand it.
> 
> As so many people here have been so patient answering my questions I
> feel that I owe it to them to sum up my impressions, namely;
> 
> 1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction between
> 'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain reading 
of the
> idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because it seems to 
lead to
> a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot accept intellectually
> (ie. that in an important sense everything that is not in and of 
itself
> paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or illusory). It seems that 
this is
> very important to me.
> 
> 2. In a similar (and, I think, connected) way, I find also that many
> posts take a view of anatta I find hard to accept, largely for the
> reasons James gave in his last post. I have to confess I find his
> approach more satisfying and suggestive, though I understand that 
from
> others' points of view that simply means I remain attached to a 
wrong
> view of reality.
> 
> James:
> > First, did the Buddha teach: "There is no self"? No, he did not 
> > teach any such thing, ever! Such a teaching would be a 
metaphysical 
> > position and the Buddha did not teach metaphysical positions, he 
only 
> > taught what was conducive to the holy life.
> ...
> > James: This is not entirely true. A sense of self arises when 
> > ANYTHING is identified with self.
> 
> Now I would like to explain practically why this matters to me by 
way of
> asking my most important question to James, Sarah and you all: how 
much
> does your practice and your particular understanding really help you
> practically to live your life? Once motivation for study is, of 
course,
> the general sense of disatisfaction with life most people feel. But
> specifically I want to learn how to cope with the misery I feel at 
the
> moment as a long term relationship breaks up. So, this is not an
> academic question for me. How do I deal with feelings of being 
unwanted
> and alone? I know we all of us have those feelings at some time.
> 
> I found myself yesterday physically crushed by sadness; I was angry 
and
> frightened, I felt abandoned and rejected by my lover, I was 
entirely
> unable to talk or think straight, and so on. My mind felt as though 
it
> was sinking to the bottom of the sea, being slowly crushed by the
> pressure as it sank. I had difficulty doing anything (except annoy 
the
> person I love with the unhappy expression on my face) because my 
mind
> was so much the captive of my thought. Now, obviously I need to get 
some
> control of this situation. 
> 
> I tried to see my unhappiness as nama and rupa arising and passing 
away,
> to stop myself clinging to attachments, but it seems impossibly 
hard to
> do *from where I'm starting*. There were moments when the feeling
> subsided, but those moments too weren't at my control, and then the
> unhappiness would rise again. Of course, the feeling isn't always 
of the
> same intensity, but when it's there I have no control of it, it 
seems
> infinite and life not worth living (I don't mean I think of 
suicide, but
> that life buried in unhappiness seems worthless). To make it worse I
> then thought: if the end of a relationship is so crushing, how can I
> ever cope with, for example, the death of a loved one? My own death?
> What does life hold for us if it has this much suffering or, more
> accurately, if so little suffering (compared to that of others) 
seems so
> much to the one that suffers it?
> 
> The idea that my self is illusion, that my pain and unhappiness mean
> only that I'm reaping the reward of previous akusala kamma (for 
which I
> now feel guilt without understanding at all!), that all would be 
well if
> I could somehow separate myself from the passing world, none of this
> seems to help because *it reinforces the sense of isolation at the 
root
> of my unhappiness*. How can I cross that line if what I fear is
> isolation and separation from others? Is there a way out / a way in?
> 
> Metta
> 
> --
> 
> [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253
> [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060
> [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net
	
29933

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Dear Sarah,

Thank you for summing up this issue so comprehensibly. Like Ken O, 
I had no inclination to read Karunadasa's article; I was not 
interested in yet another self-appointed prophet telling us what the 
Buddha `ought to have' taught. But that was a misjudgement – with 
the benefit of your explanation, I see that the author was not 
denouncing the Tipitaka (as Michael had led us to believe); he was 
trying to understand it. (Just like us.)

Kind regards,
Ken H


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
wrote:
> sorry all - it's a long post..... K= Prof Karunadasa
> ================================================
> 
> Hi Michael, TG, James & All,
> 
> As I've said before, I don't agree with everything K. writes, but 
I think
> that on these questions I agree with his comments and reference 
sources
> more than many others do;-)Why not save this post instead, TG??;-)
> ....
>
	
29934

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:57pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy

You wrote:
-------------------
A: > I have several times declared myself to the list to be a 
newcomer to Buddhist thought and practice. I'm reading some texts, 
principally the Abhidhammaatha Sangaha, and joining in this list to 
try, first, to understand what is the position in the Buddhist 
tradition on questions that concern me >
----------------------

I think you have begun your Buddhist studies in the right way. That 
is, by trying to understand what the original texts are saying. 
That, ideally, is what dsg is all about: See the description on our 
home page, which begins; "A discussion forum for anyone interested 
in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found in all three 
baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in 
the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient 
commentaries of that tradition.
The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with 
the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the 
present moment."

Isn't that excellent? Could there be a more worthy -- less self-
centred -- objective? Unfortunately, other, more populist, forms of 
Buddhist practice have gone in the opposite direction: All too often 
they come down to; "You won't believe the insights I received while 
sitting on my cushion! Gather round everyone, and I'll tell you all 
about it!"

---------------------
A: > and second, to use that to try to further work out my own 
feelings. 
--------------------

The Buddhist way of doing this is to take the self out of 
everything. Ultimately, your feelings are no more yours than they 
are mine – they are momentary mental phenomena. They have been 
comprehensively described by the Buddha in order that they might be 
fully understood (by direct experience). 

---------------------
A: > I am doing this because I found myself attracted to some 
aspects of this tradition as I understand it.
-------------

I suspect that all of us (who were not born as Buddhists) were 
initially attracted by aspects that seemed to confirm our 
preconceptions. The joy of it comes when we stop clinging, throw 
our preconceptions out the window, and see the world in a totally 
new light.

-------------

A: > As so many people here have been so patient answering my 
questions I feel that I owe it to them to sum up my impressions, 
namely;
1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction 
between 'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain 
reading of the idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because 
it seems to lead to a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot 
accept intellectually (ie. that in an important sense everything 
that is not in and of itself paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or 
illusory). It seems that this is very important to me.
----------------

Good. First, know what the Tipitaka and commentaries say, then, 
decide whether you agree or disagree. 

The big trap is to rewrite the Dhamma to make it the way we want it 
to be. Millions of people are doing this every day. And it would be 
quite harmless were it not for the fact that they dishonestly 
attribute their personal revelations to the Buddha. (Otherwise, no 
one would listen them.)

If, after giving it a fair hearing, we find the Dhamma unconvincing, 
we should move on (leaving it the way we found it).

--------------
A: > 2. In a similar (and, I think, connected) way, I find also that 
many posts take a view of anatta I find hard to accept, largely for 
the reasons James gave in his last post. I have to confess I find his
approach more satisfying and suggestive, though I understand that 
from others' points of view that simply means I remain attached to a 
wrong view of reality.
------------

One of the beautiful things about the Dhamma is that it describes 
reality the way it is. If there is wrong view, you can know there is 
wrong view; if there is right view, you can know there is right 
view. There is no suggestion we have to change reality. When there 
is right understanding of the way things are, the right changes will 
follow. 

Kind regards,
Ken H
	
29935

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Ken O,

Which terms that are explicitly simple in the suttas but you find 
painful for you to explain?

Like I said in the previous message, You gave three ambiguous and 
vague propositions and claimed contradiction:

1. it is impossible to control a self
2. there is control over self
3. it is impossible for control

To clarify those statements, I put forth these questions for you:

1. it is impossible for whom or what to control a self?
2. there is control for whom or what over self?
3. it is impossible for whom or what to control over whom or what?

Now, consider the following two statements:

It is impossible for form to control itself.
It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech,
and mind.

Do you think that these two statement contradict each other? 

You came up with the question "How do we control something that is 
not self." But I did not say we can control something that is not 
self. Nor did I say we cannot control something that is not self.

Your question has nothing to do with what I said that:

It is impossible for form to control itself. 
It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, 
and mind.

Ken, it occurs to me that you created an issue and tried to force it 
upon me, while I did not raise that issue in the first place.

Let me know if I can clarify anything in the elaboration on the 
passage in 
Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-059.html
for you.

Metta,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong 
<ashkenn2k@y...> wrote:
> Hi Victor
> 
> k: I think it is very painful for me to explain terms that is
> explicitly simple in the suttas. Sometimes I am thinking you are
> going in circles over the Sutta Cannon. You still have not answer 
my
> question, how do we control something that is Anatta? You have not
> resolved the contradiction that I have asked you. 
> 
> 
> Ken O
	
29936

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:15pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi, Ken -

This is a very nice, warm post from you, Ken. Thank you! :-)

In a message dated 2/11/04 8:01:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
ashkenn2k@y... writes:

> Hi Howard
> 
> Dont be exasperated by this little funny group :-). Yes reflection
> is still volition but the distinction is whether one is purposedly do
> it or one do it naturally. If reflection is view as a form of
> control, then again this practise is not the correct practise. There
> is a fine line and this line is very difficult to notice.
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
All volition is purposeful. Volition is intention, and intention is 
intentional! The distinction to be made is not that of purposeful versus 
natural, but intention that is (relatively) free of self versus intention that is 
strongly (self-bound). The less sense of self is involved with volition, and the 
less craving, the more natural, innocent, and worthwhile it is.
--------------------------------------------

> 
> *love* thinking - yup all the time we are thinking, even those who
> are meditating is also thinking (so they also love thinking in that
> sense).
> 
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
Nope. When a meditator is thinking s/he isn't meditating, just 
contemplating (or maybe daydreaming or fantasizing). Thoughts may come and go - that 
is natural function of mind - but thinking is more than occasional thoughts 
floating by. When one is meditating, one is observing - when the observing 
ceases due to getting lost in thought, meditation ceases. 
Now, I'm not saying one should not get lost in thought at times. For 
thought to be really successful at thinking for a worldling getting totally 
swept up in the thinking is actually necessary. But that shouldn't happen while 
meditating. Meditation does not consist of thinking about something; it 
consists of attending to what arises with calm, concentrated, and clear mindfulness.
-------------------------------------------------------------

As long as one does not see the word as namas and rupas, we> 
> are all thinking. 
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I understand what you mean by this, and I don't disagree with it. But 
there are degrees of thinking. When one sits (or stands or walks or whatever) 
to meditate, at first there is much thinking, then less and less, and, if one 
is sufficiently practiced, no thinking at all, or close to none.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Please disregard us if you find us chattering like children over our
> love on the *no-control* mantra. Anyway, can we control self in the
> first place ;-). Cheers.
> 
> 
> best wishes
> Ken O
> 
> 
==========================
With uncontrolled 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) 




	
29937

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:14pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Dear Andy,
Can there be any problem when there is no thinking about it?
Once there is enough understanding of anatta - which must entail 
direct awareness of paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities- there 
cannot be a situation in life that is too hard to understand.

When there is thinking about your lost love the object is concept - 
the story of the person I love who doesn't love me. If there can be 
direct understanding while such thinking is going on one can 
gradually come to see the difference between concept and paramattha, 
and then the concepts remain but they lose their power over us. It 
is the most freeing process that any being in any realm can uncover.
Anything else is only treating the symptoms, this is cutting out the 
disease.
If this is seen -even just a little - then any doubts about why 
parammatha/pannati (reality/concept)is given such stress in the 
Abhidhamma texts will cease. And I think the focus of investigation 
will naturally turn towards insighting paramattha: with this comes 
increasing confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. As 
this develops so too does understanding of the conditioned nature of 
all dhammas grow. And if one is on the right track then the grasping 
at the khandhas, trying to control them will diminish. 
However all these wonderful benefits here and now are minor when we 
consider the final stage: It is the path out of samsara.
RobertK
"What would be left of our tragedies if a literate insect were to
present us his?" (Marcel de Cioran)



In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Wilson" <andy@l...> 
wrote:
> I have several times declared myself to the list to be a newcomer 
to
> Buddhist thought and practice. I'm reading some texts, principally 
the
> Abhidhammaatha Sangaha, and joining in this list to try, first, to
> understand what is the position in the Buddhist tradition on 
questions
> that concern me and, second, to use that to try to further work 
out my
> own feelings. I am doing this because I found myself attracted to 
some
> aspects of this tradition as I understand it.
> 
> As so many people here have been so patient answering my questions 
I
> feel that I owe it to them to sum up my impressions, namely;
> 
> 1. I find the insistence on a hard and fast distinction between
> 'ultimate realities' and derived realities (ie. a certain reading 
of the
> idea of 'paramattha dhamma') to be confusing because it seems to 
lead to
> a sort of literalist metaphysics that I cannot accept 
intellectually
> (ie. that in an important sense everything that is not in and of 
itself
> paramattha dhamma is somehow unreal or illusory). It seems that 
this is
> very important to me.
>
	
29938

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi, Andrew -

In a message dated 2/11/04 9:09:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
athel60@t... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard
> 
> Pardon my butting in here but I don't think you are connecting with 
> what the "no-control devotees" are really on about.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> I don't think that it has ever been pointed out that you "no-control 
> devotees" 
> >seem to consistently make an exception! You say above that "... the 
> >understanding of dhamma is that there is no way we can control, we 
> can only 
> >consider/reflect dhamma ..." To consider/reflect seems to be 
> something that you folks 
> >think that you *can* control. This exception has been made by 
> several of you, and 
> >often. "We can only" do that, you say!! Somehow we can't manage to 
> do anything 
> >else to cultivate the mind, but we *can* initiate considering and 
> reflecting 
> >on the Dhamma. Why the exception?? Is there volition to consider 
> and to 
> >reflect? And can it be brought to fruition by effort? That is: Are 
> you able to 
> >consider and reflect? If yes, then that is control!!
> [snip] 
> But it no more requires a self for there to be volition and exerting 
> of 
> >effort than it requires a self for there to be seeing or hearing or 
> tasting or 
> >feeling or *thinking* (including considering and reflecting). Is it 
> possible 
> >that sometimes Buddhists, in detecting the sense of self in their 
> mind, are so 
> >horrified by this that it causes them to run to an extreme 
> hopelessness 
> >position that shuns any possibility of volition, effort, and 
> influence?
> 
> A: A scientist recently claimed to have shown that the brain keeps 
> thinking during sleep. That is why we can have a problem we haven't 
> solved and we may wake up in the middle of the night with the 
> answer. The brain has worked it out during sleep. Obviously, then, 
> there is volition during this "sleep thinking". Do we have any 
> control over it? No. The "sleep thinking" occurs when the requisite 
> conditions are present for it to arise.
> 
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
Either there are volitional impulses during sleep or not. But if there 
is no consciousness (say in deep, dreamless sleep), not even at a very low 
level, then I don't believe there could be what are normally called thoughts - 
it would have to be just somesort of unconscious processing. But even that is 
probably due to volition that occured when there *was* consciousness. After 
all, when do we wake up having discovered something? Usually when having intently 
thought about it (prior to going to sleep) with the purpose of obtaining a 
solution.
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the "no-control devotees" are saying that it is the same 
> thing during waking hours. It may LOOK LIKE we are deciding "Let 
> there be reflection on the Dhamma" and this dutifully occurs (a bit 
> like the Biblical God saying "Let there be light" and there was 
> light) - but that's an illusion. Reflection on the Dhamma occurs as 
> a result of the requisite conditions being present. Volition is part 
> of that equation, certainly. But it is a misreading of 
> conditionality to think that volition is a mighty originating "Let 
> there be light!" type of thing. If that were the case, how 
> could "sleep thinking" occur because there is no conscious deciding 
> to think?
> 
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
By "volition" I don't mean a "Let there be such & such" thought. By 
"volition" I mean an impulse to something. It is normally wordless and so subtle 
as to easily be missed. As an example, when we are walking down a hall, reach 
the end, and then turn around, before the turning there is an impulse to 
turn. We are almost never aware of that impulse, but it is there. If one engages 
in walking meditation for a good while and with very strong concentration and 
mindfulness it can be seen. That impulse is viltion/intention. 
Now, when we have an intention or volition in the *conventional* 
sense, that is actually a complex process which includes many moments of cetana 
mixed in with lots of other stuff. When we stand up, volition was involved. When 
we attend to our breath, volition is involved. When we intentionally kill a 
living being, that is kamma, volitional action, and it will have kammic 
consequences. When we act kindly out of love, that too is volitional, and it has its 
kammic consequences.
-----------------------------------------------------

> Is "no control" a doctrine of hopelessness as you say? I think the 
> opposite. I think it leads to understanding and that's pretty 
> important because nearly everyone on this list seems to agree that 
> the Buddha said (yes, in the Suttanta) that Right View comes first. 
> At the time of the Buddha, there were dog ascetics and cow ascetics 
> and meditators of various persuasions who were filled with diligence 
> and effort, but since they had Wrong View, where did it get them?
> 
--------------------------------------------------
Howard: 
As I see no-control on this list, it appears frequently to me to a 
doctrine of hopelessness, leading as it does to a belief that there is no point 
to meditating! (In fact, there is no point to do anything at all, because 
"Whatever arises will arise when the conditions for it to arise are present," 
ignoring entirely that volitional personal actions are among the needed 
conditions.)
------------------------------------------------

> Best wishes
> 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) 




	
29939

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack

 	
Hi Jack,

I think you have dropped in once of twice before; in which case, 
welcome back. In any case, you're just the man we wanted to see. 
Some of us (Sukin and myself, for example) have been trying to 
settle, once and for all, the issue of formal meditation: Where in 
the Tipitaka, is there any suggestion of formal vipassana 
meditation? 

You wrote to Andy:
----------------------
> The Abhidhamma lists what is considered "ultimate 
realities." One for example is the hardness we feel with our body. 
If in a time of trouble one makes an effort to pay attention to 
these ultimates such as 
the feel of the ground under our feet, then I think we find that our 
discomfort is "outside" these ultimates and manufactured not real. >
---------------------

That sounds like good psychotherapy, and perhaps Andy will find it 
useful, but it is not satipatthana, is it? In the Satipatthana 
Sutta, where we read about a monk's practice in the course of daily 
life, the monk is directly experiencing paramattha dhammas, not 
concepts. Whenever the monk's foot touches the ground, he can know 
hardness as it truly is -- a conditioned rupa with the 
characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. But the feeling 
of `ground under the feet' is a concept and so mindfulness of such 
feeling is not what the Buddha taught at all. To paraphrase the 
commentary to that sutta; "In that, conceptual, way of knowing 
hardness, even dogs and jackals know there is ground under their 
feet." 

----------------------------
J: > And, if we keep our attention on ultimates, then the 
metaphysical problem you are having also disappears. You might try 
paying more attention to the list of ultimates than abstract 
definitions.
---------------------

When we remember that all conditioned reality is nama and rupa, we 
lose (to some degree) the sense of self. There, I agree with you. 
However, when it comes to `trying to pay attention' I can't see any 
connection with the Dhamma. Again, there may well be some 
psychotherapy involved but, according to the Dhamma, there is no 
self who can `try' anything – any contrived attempt at having right 
mindfulness would involve wrong view. Mere dhammas rise and fall; 
if one of them is right understanding (samma-ditthi, panna) then 
right mindfulness (samma-sati) will follow.

Sorry if it's been a torrid welcome; any comments you would like to 
make will be appreciated.

Kind regards,
Ken H
	
29940

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:07pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack

 	
Hi Ken H,

You might want to provide some textual reference to support your 
claim that according to the Dhamma, there is no self who can `try' 
anything – any contrived attempt at having right mindfulness would 
involve wrong view.

Metta,
Victor

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" 
<kenhowardau@y...> wrote:
> Hi Jack,
[snip]
but, according to the Dhamma, there is no 
> self who can `try' anything – any contrived attempt at having 
right 
> mindfulness would involve wrong view. 
[snip]
> Kind regards,
> Ken H
	
29941

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Typo [Re: [dsg] Control || No Control]

 	
Hi, all -

In a message dated 2/11/04 11:19:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... 
writes:

> Howard:
> All volition is purposeful. Volition is intention, and intention is 
> intentional! The distinction to be made is not that of purposeful versus 
> natural, but intention that is (relatively) free of self versus intention 
> that is 
> strongly (self-bound). The less sense of self is involved with volition, and 
> the 
> less craving, the more natural, innocent, and worthwhile it is.
> 
======================
This has a typo. The adverb 'strongly' should be parenthesized, not 
the adjective 'self-bound'. Sorry.

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
29942

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:36pm
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy (Howard & All),

Ever so often a post is written which elicits a range of wonderful
responses and which really unites us all in friendship here. Yours was
such a post. Thank you for your sincerity and openness and for all the
fine examples of metta and compassion shown by everyone who has responded.

The following sutta needs no introduction for you - it merely confirms
what you are saying:

http://insight.samgha101.net/canon/anguttara/an01-001.html

Anguttara Nikaya I.1-10,Pariyadana Sutta, 'Overpowering'
Translated from the Pali by Sean Whittle.

“Thus I have heard: On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. At that time he
addressed the monks: "Monks!" 

"Venerable sir," as the monks listened closely to the Blessed One. 

The Blessed One said this: 

"Monks, I do not see any other single form that invades the mind of a man
and remains like the form of a woman. Monks, the form of a woman invades
the mind of a man and remains. 

"Monks, I do not see any other single sound that invades the mind of a man
and remains like the voice of a woman. Monks, the voice of a woman invades
the mind of a man and remains. 

"Monks, I do not see any other single scent that invades the mind of a man
and remains like the scent of a woman. Monks, the scent of a woman invades
the mind of a man and remains. 

"Monks, I do not see any other single taste that invades the mind of a man
and remains like the taste of a woman. Monks, the taste of a woman invades
the mind of a man and remains. 

"Monks, I do not see any other single touch that invades the mind of a man
and remains like the touch of a woman. Monks, the touch of a woman invades
the mind of a man and remains. 

(S: Repeats the above 'invades the mind of a woman' for 'invades the mind
of a man'. Of course other combinations could be introduced as well.) 
**********

We find ourselves so very attached to people and things and take them to
really exist, when in truth it is our feelings on account of the sights,
sounds, smells, tastes, touches and thoughts that we are so very concerned
about as we desperately try to have pleasant experiences and to avoid
unpleasant ones. 

On account of the importance we give to feelings, feelings have their own
khandha and we read an entire vedanasamyutta (Chapter on feelings) in
Samyutta Nikaya. In ignorance we cling to these feelings* and kamma is
created which perpetuates the cycle of samsara. We can begin to understand
more about Dependent Origination at this very moment when we learn more
about ignorance, attachment and feelings now. 

We begin to understand just a little more about anatta and the meaning of
living alone as opposed to feeling lonely.** We forget that vipaka, the
result of kamma, is just this brief moment of seeing or hearing, for
example, and that the unhappiness or anger is accumulating and laying the
groundwork for more unpleasant experiences in future.

Howard introduced another wonderful sutta, Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.12
Akasa Sutta,In the Sky (1),Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera.

It shows how the feelings on account of what we love, hate, feel good and
bad about, just pass through our lives like the winds from all directions.
The people we find so dear will all pass by sooner or later and the
feelings we experience are mere passing winds in samsara. In ignorance we
will all continue to experience love, heart-break and great loss again and
again during countless lives until mindfulness and clear comprehension
(sati sampaja~n~na) grow to really understand the cause of dukkha as
expressed in this sutta.

“Just as in the sky above winds of various kinds are blowing:
Coming from the east or west, blowing from the north or south,
Some carry dust and others not, cold are some and others hot,
Some are fierce and others mild -- their blowing is so different. 
So also in this body here, feelings of different kind arise:
The pleasant feelings and the painful and the neutral ones. 
But if a monk is ardent and does not neglect
To practice mindfulness and comprehension clear,
The nature of all feelings will he understand,
And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
When once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
All measure and concept he has transcended.” 
*****
You ask if the Dhamma and our understanding of the meaning and practice
help in daily life? Speaking personally, I’d say that ever so often, like
now as I write to you, there’s just a touch of sanity in this mad, mad
world and this can condition a little wisdom and a little metta, karuna,
mudita or upekkha (4 Brahma Viharas (‘heavenly abidings’) for
others;-)Thank you for giving us all this opportunity to consider a little
more.

Metta,

Sarah

*See CMA ch 111, p115f on Feeling and also, ch11, p80
“Whereas the other mental factors experience the object only derivatively,
feeling experiences it directly and fully. In this respect, the other
factors are compared to a cook who prepares a dish for a king and only
samples the food while preparing it, while feeling is compared to the king
who enjoys the meal as much as he likes.”

** See ‘Seclusion’
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts
=============================================


	
29943

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:52pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] learning pali

 	
Hi Ben,

--- Benjamin Jerome <bj3682@a...> wrote: > Dear Everyone,
> 
> I would like to learn to read especially the Samyutta Nikaya and the
> Majjhima Nikaya in Pali. What is the best way to go about learning
> Pali?
> Right now I don't know very much, I'm just familiar with the alphabet
> and
> some common words. Can someone recommend any certain book to start
> with?
.....
I've started Warder and one or two other books many times and never
finished, so I'm not a good person to ask;-)

At this link, go down to ‘Pali - useful assistance’ and I know there’s a
helpful post from Christine with many links to websites and Pali groups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts

Also, you can find the Pali for the Nikayas here and look at it as you
read the translation as I just did for Howard’s selected sutta about the
winds:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html

Also, look under Pali on this website for books which I just saw for the
first time (not sure if Chris gave this one):
http://www.dhamma.ru/sadhu/modules/mylinks/

Metta,

Sarah 
====


	
29944

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 0:05am
Subject: Welcome Jack! (was: the self... how?)

 	
Hi Jack,

--- Jackhat1@a... wrote: 
> Andy,
> 
> I haven't been reading the posts on this thread and am jumping in
> without 
> knowing what has gone before. 
.....
I’m very glad to welcome you to DSG and to see you ‘jumping in’ with you
kind posts and clear explanations to Andy. I’m sure you’ll have already
gathered that there are as many ideas about what ‘meditation’ and
‘practice’ are as there are members in this ‘funny little group’ (as one
bhikkhu described it recently;-)).

I look forward to reading more of your posts. I understand you already
know many folks here. If you’d care to tell the rest of us where you live
and anything else, we’d be glad to hear it. We also have a photo album of
members you might like to look at and contribute to (no obligations of
course;-)):
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst

Metta,

Sarah
======



	
29945

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 0:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
Dear Htoo,

I always enjoy our discussions.

--- htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 

<...>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: Panna has to be defined again. When meditate, arising Citta may 
> be with joy or without joy. Prompted ot unprompted. But there is 
> Pannindriya Cetasika. Then in clear water there is a light.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....
S: Before panna (wisdom) becomes an indriya (controlling faculty), it has
to develop from the very beginning - understanding namas and rupas. So
first, there has to be clear comprehension about namas and rupas, so that
panna can develop. Surely this is the meaning of ‘meditation’ or vipassana
bhavana?
.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: When pointing witha gun at a man, there is concentration. Yes. 
> But all I have been talking are not killing, stealing, misusing of 
> sensual pleasure.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
S: We might think that if we are not breaking the precepts that when we
sit and concentrate (or walk or stand or study), that the concentration
must be wholesome. If this were so, we would not need the guidance of a
Buddha. Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) arises with every citta
(consciousness) as you’ve pointed out in your series on Ministers. At this
moment is there any understanding of wise or unwise concentration even
though we’re not breaking precepts?
.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo:
> 
> The map has not been spread out and laid out let alone to read it. So 
> far, the Samsara traveller ( :-)) ) is trying to collect the things 
> which might be required during the journey, 'The Journey To Nibbana'.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....
S: This is why it’s a little premature to talk about panna as an idriya or
‘seeing all mental phenomena’. We need to start with the basics such as
checking we have the right map and then spreading it out so that we don’t
waste time following the wrong journey;-)
....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: The meaning is there. Clear understanding works. Here the 
> matter is insight and full insight and fully enlightened.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
S: But just a minute - remember we’re still laying out the map. Let’s not
get carried away with the destination just yet;-)
....
<......>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Sarah: In other words, the practice is the understanding of 
> paramattha dhammas at this very moment with detachment, not with 
> selection, watching or special focussing.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: If on the tract already, these are not needed to say.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....
S: Ah, but we have to keep checking ‘the tract’ as we lay out the map.
Let’s check we’re plotting the same route together - after all, there’s
only One Way.
....
<...>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: So, not full Anumodana?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
.....
S: Full Anumodana for your sharing of your understanding of the route and
open-mindedness to discuss it here;-)
....
<...>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sarah: Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin's messages
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: I will try.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
Here’s one he wrote recently which I liked:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29629
....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: Karunadasa?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
....
S: There have been a lot of discussions on this wheel publication by Prof
Karunadasa recently:
Abhidhamma.org

'The Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA', Y.
Karunadasa.

Please share any comments if you read it. You may be able to help me with
one thing. He has many references to this abbreviation, ‘Abhvk’ and I
wanted to check one of them, but I just can’t work out what it stands for.
I’d be glad if you or anyone else can tell me.
.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Htoo: I hope, I have given a clear account.
....
S: Very clear so far. Now, given that we’ve been laying out the map and
agree, I hope, that the path of satipatthana is the path of clearly
knowing and comprehending (also accompanied of course by rt concentration,
rt effort etc) the paramattha dhammas which only ever arise at the present
moment, would you agree that in truth there’s no meditator and no
meditation other than this very understanding of dhammas now?

With metta,

Sarah
======


	
29946

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 0:57am
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Howard, James, Michael, Htoo and all,

> I have read the Buddha to frequently say it is the jhanas 
> (specifically the 1st four) that constitute Right Concentration. 
Right Concentration is a 
> legitimate part of the eightfold path, and is not dispensable. 
BTW, I don't 
> say that the jhanas are a necessary prior condition for the 
arising of any 
> insights at all. But the jhanas are requisite for full liberation, 
because they 
> constitute Right Concentration.
> BTW, why didn't you elaborate further *before* you received 
a 
> response?

Yes Howard I know that you do not state that Jhana is a necessary 
prior condition. This is why I used both `concentration' and `jhana' 
in my post. I find that you and Htoo (and perhaps Victor and others 
too) come from more or less the same position which states that 
a `concentrated mind' is needed to `penetrate' realities. And James 
and Michael on the other hand have stated that they think they need 
to practice Jhana more than anything else. And this could either be 
from the position of seeing Jhana as a high form of kusala, hence 
relating this with the ability to then insight realities, or it 
could be that they believe in the `concentrative power' of Jhana. So 
one reason why I asked first to hear the logic behind both these 
positions is to get a clearer understanding and compare them if I 
have to. Also I do not feel like writing out a general and elaborate 
statement, but would prefer to respond to specific points. But I 
will have to write something now. ;-)

There seem to be an implicit belief that a mind well concentrated is 
in a better position to penetrate the nature of the rising and 
falling phenomena. Obviously no one on this list believes in a mind 
separate from the object experienced, so this must mean that being 
mindful of one's experience in a deliberate (and disciplined) way 
would somehow cause the concentration aspect to become increasingly 
stronger, to experience more deeply the characteristic of dhammas, 
until finally the Tilakkhana is penetrated. 

First of all we know that there is such a thing as `wrong 
concentration', and this is of course akusala and so cannot be the 
same one that would `penetrate realities'. Second, the development 
of wisdom is about *detachment* all the way. Detachment from any 
idea of `accumulation' and most certainly for any `self'. Third, 
Satipatthana is the development of Sati, and the foundation (the 
objects of sati) being the paramattha dhammas, implies that panna is 
needed to *discriminate* (starting from intellectual appreciation of 
the fact), otherwise there is only ignorance everywhere. So with 
more and more experience, both sati and panna are being developed. 
There is no such thing as Samadhipatthana, or the development of 
samadhi. True, that with repeated practice, Sati will arise more and 
more often, such that one may then grow to have more or less 
continuous sati. But this is only because `sati' and `panna' has 
been developed. If detachment had not accompanied panna each step of 
the way, then panna wouldn't grow strong enough to penetrate deeply 
the nature and characteristic of dhammas, because akusala would have 
had plenty of opportunity to distort perception. It is panna which 
recognizes akusala as akusala and kusala as kusala, and the 
vipassana panna knows paramattha dhammas and the tilakkhana. 
Concentration arises with every citta, the right and wrong 
concentration is determined not by concentration per se, but by the 
other factors, primarily Rt. View, having a characteristic of 
reality as object. The fact that during Magga, the concentration is 
equivalent to Jhana, does not mean that `concentration' has been 
developed, but because of the `great object', Nibbana. Nibbana 
causes the concentration at that moment to be equal to that of 
Jhana. 

Jhana is very high degree of kusala and requires a corresponding 
degree of panna, but does it have any direct connection with 
vipassana panna? No! 
The objects are very different. 
Jhana is a consequence of Samatha development. This type of panna 
sees the value of kusala and the danger of akusala. As panna of this 
type develops, it recognizes more and more subtle forms of akusala 
and hence correspondingly, objects of kusala. Objects like the 
kasinas are not just abstract or so called `neutral' objects, they 
are a consequence of the jhana development. So it is a wrong idea to 
think that one develops jhana by keeping in mind certain objects. In 
like manner, the idea of Metta, Karuna etc. are not magic words or 
associated attitudes, which can be conjured up at will with the 
expectation that kusala will be aroused and consequently developed. 
All this requires very, very long time for development, and surely 
it is not up to a "self" to wish to have metta for instance, let 
alone to develop it. With weak panna, it will be "Lobha" 
and "Avijja" which will rule, though even this can give `goose-
pimples' ;-). Besides, those who develop samatha and jhana, know 
their cittas real well. They are constantly developing some form of 
kusala or the other. 21st century man is unlikely to be in this 
constant state of alertness and he should not be moved simply 
because the idea of developing samatha and jhana sound so good.

Vipassana panna on the other hand has as its aim, the eradication 
of `ignorance'. So at any given moment, it is not kusala cittas 
which is the aim, but understanding the true nature of the object. 
There may be wisdom which sees the value of all kinds of kusala, 
especially in relation to the development of the Parami. And though 
the eradication of all kilesas is the aim, this is with the 
understanding that ultimately it is "ignorance" which must go for 
this to happen. 

Is jhana then being practiced as a `tool' or is it being practiced 
as a `support factor'? In either case what is more pertinent, 
understanding "now" or the aim at a future result? Besides, it is 
Jhana cittas which is seen as impermanent, suffering and not-self, 
that leads too enlightenment. Otherwise one can be *forever* stuck 
on that level!! So as far as I can see, jhana has no decisive role 
in the development of vipassana panna. And it seems that if someone 
believed that it did, it would be an instance of wrong understanding 
and hence would not be practicing Buddhism. On the other hand, if 
one is confused about the objects, then jhana could also not be 
reached.

Await your response.

Metta,
Sukin.
Ps: James, you refer to the Buddha's practice of jhana prior to his 
enlightenment. I think that it is obvious that with the accumulated 
panna, he was attracted to the "best" of teachings available and 
progressively rejected them. And so when it came to the last one, 
his accumulated wisdom soon recognized its limitations, hence his 
then taking that greater than quantum leap. ;-)
	
29947

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Michael,

I would urge you, like KenO, to read the Kathavatthu and commentaries for
yourself and definitely not to rely on Prof. Kalupahana’s comments which
you summarise here:

--- Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> wrote:

> Michael:
> Prof. Kalupahana is basing his argument on two things. First that the 
> Kathavatthu has to be regarded with higher authority than the Abhidhamma
> 
> commentaries since the Kathavatthu is a Canonical text. I don’t think
> you 
> can dispute that. Second, the Kathavattu can be used to interpret the 
> teachings of the Abhidhamma Canonical texts. I don’t think you can
> dispute 
> that either. Now, Prof. Kalupahana argument is that nowhere, I repeat, 
> nowhere, in the Kathavattu, you can find arguments to justify the
> assertion 
> that the Abhidhamma Canonical texts deal with ultimate realities 
> (paramatha). Do you dispute that affirmation? 
....
S: The entire Tipitaka is dealing with ultimate realities, whatever terms
or language is being used. In the Kathavatthu itself, the entire first
section is devoted to showing that whereas the khandhas, the ayatanas or
the dhatus are ‘real and ultimate facts’ (paramattha dhammas), ‘person’ is
not. I’m at a loss to understand how Kalupahana or anyone else could read
the refutations in any other way. I’ve typed out a couple of examples
before and also indicated that Karunadasa, whose comments we were
discussing, also summarises from this text to indicate: “the Theravadins
admit that the khandhas or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense.
Thus in their view what is real and ultimate is not the person but the
khandhas or dhammas that enter into its composition.”[21:Kvu 1ff. See too
the relevant sections of its commentary.]
....
>While it is in the
> Abhidhamma 
> commentaries that you will find the argument of ultimate realities.
> Since 
> the Kathavattu takes precedence over the Commentaries the conclusion is 
> pretty obvious.
....
I’ve just fished out some quotes from the Kathavatthu and commentary.
Michael, I think you’d find it fascinating reading as long as you can keep
an open-mind and not be unduly swayed by Kalupahana’s comments.
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m24454.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m24516.html
http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17026.html

Metta,

Sarah

p.s I fully agree with your comment to James that 'anatta can only make
sense in view of conditionality'. I disagreed with the other comments, but
will leave it here for now as they were not addressed to me;-)
======


	
29948

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:26am
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Andy,

I already wrote a post to you about this and I see that several other 
people have posted also. I want to say a bit more; take what you 
want and reject what you don't.

Some words of advice: 
1.Feel free to think about and discover anatta as much as you want. 
I personally think that you are intelligent enough and mature enough 
to handle such an analysis. Of course if you agree with me some 
members are going to automatically think that your understanding is 
suspect! LOL! As I warned you, think for yourself. This is a group 
composed of a lot of `know-it-alls' and they don't want to budge in 
their fixed views. (You can easily identify the `know-it-alls' 
because they rarely if ever use the phrases `This is just my opinion' 
or `I could be wrong'.)

2.Don't use this group as a source of emotional support at all! That 
would be a huge mistake! Many of the members of his group are 
insincere in their communication and they are quick to hug you with 
both arms and stab you in the back at the same time. (I believe this 
comes from their lack of meditation practice and therefore lack the 
purification of the mind. Great learning of the dhamma without 
mental purification leads to great conceit. Therefore, they are more 
concerned about presenting a certain `image' to the group than being 
sincere. Those members who do meditate may not be overly nice all 
the time but they are usually more sincere.)

3.This group contains strong party lines between those who believe 
the Abhidhamma (and don't meditate) and those who don't fully believe 
it (and do meditate). Of course Htoo is a contradiction to this and 
I love to see the Abhidhamma side squirm over that one!! ;-)). You 
should chose to believe what you want based on your understanding, 
not on the persuasive posts of members.

Good luck and I am sure you will be fine.

Metta, James
	
29949

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:39am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi KenH,

--- kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> 
> Thank you for summing up this issue so comprehensibly. Like Ken O, 
> I had no inclination to read Karunadasa's article; I was not 
> interested in yet another self-appointed prophet telling us what the 
> Buddha `ought to have' taught. 
....
Karunadasa seems to have performed a real conjuring trick and managed to
please everyone who reads it in some regard or other;-). I find the
language difficult and the emphasis on 'theory' rather off-putting, along
with some comments, but it is packed with good dhamma references and
detail. I'd seen it before on RobK's website, so I knew it contained some
good material.
....
>But that was a misjudgement – with 
> the benefit of your explanation, I see that the author was not 
> denouncing the Tipitaka (as Michael had led us to believe); he was 
> trying to understand it. (Just like us.)
....
Yes, we're all just trying to understand it and look to whatever signposts
we find useful in this regard. Actually, I really appreciate Michael's
critical approach and questioning of the commentaries. It helps me
consider in far more depth and we know that very few 'Theravadins' have
confidence in the Abhidhamma, let alone the ancient commentaries. An
acquired taste;-) I mentioned to a good friend yesterday that no one
should feel like a 'sore thumb' for having a different understanding of
the texts here. We all learn from these discussions (well, I do;-)).
Really, we're the 'sore thumbs' if we want to out-banner each other;-).

Honestly, when DSG started, I saw myself as just a coordinator and
sign-post. I never expected to be playing the role of Abhidhamma &
Commentaries P.R......Oh well, Nina will be back soon <phew!>.

Metta,

Sarah
========


	
29950

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:03am
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin,

Sukin: James, you refer to the Buddha's practice of jhana prior to his
enlightenment. I think that it is obvious that with the accumulated
panna, he was attracted to the "best" of teachings available and
progressively rejected them. And so when it came to the last one,
his accumulated wisdom soon recognized its limitations, hence his
then taking that greater than quantum leap. ;-)

Sukin: This is a complete lie! You should stop presenting your 
opinion as fact or you will be continually guilty of falsehood. I am 
not going to argue with you because I don't have anything to defend; 
I don't have the burden of proof. Since you make this declarative 
statement you should quote specifically from the Buddha where he said 
this (and I know that you won't find any such quotes because he 
didn't say this). 

James: And James and Michael on the other hand have stated that they 
think they need to practice Jhana more than anything else.

James: This is another complete lie! (And I think you are smart 
enough to not just classify this as a `misunderstanding'…this is a 
purposeful misrepresentation of the facts to prove your view.) 
Again, it is not my responsibility to defend myself; you have the 
burden of proof. Please quote where Michael or I said any such thing 
(and I know that you won't find any such quotes because we didn't say 
any such thing).

Metta, James
	
29951

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:41am
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
> Hi Sukin,
> > Sukin: This is a complete lie! You should stop presenting your 
> opinion as fact or you will be continually guilty of falsehood. I 
am 
> not going to argue 

Oops...this is supposed to be attributed to James

> 
> James: And James and Michael on the other hand have stated that 
they 
> think they need to practice Jhana more than anything else.
> 

Oops...this is supposed to be attributed to Sukin.

> 
> Metta, James

That's what I get for writing posts while I am trying to teach a 
class also!! ;-))

Metta, James
	
29952

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:47am
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi James,


> Sukin: James, you refer to the Buddha's practice of jhana prior to 
his
> enlightenment. I think that it is obvious that with the accumulated
> panna, he was attracted to the "best" of teachings available and
> progressively rejected them. And so when it came to the last one,
> his accumulated wisdom soon recognized its limitations, hence his
> then taking that greater than quantum leap. ;-)
> 
> Sukin: This is a complete lie! You should stop presenting your 
> opinion as fact or you will be continually guilty of falsehood. I 
am 
> not going to argue with you because I don't have anything to 
defend; 
> I don't have the burden of proof. Since you make this declarative 
> statement you should quote specifically from the Buddha where he 
said 
> this (and I know that you won't find any such quotes because he 
> didn't say this). 
> 
> James: And James and Michael on the other hand have stated that 
they 
> think they need to practice Jhana more than anything else.
> 
> James: This is another complete lie! (And I think you are smart 
> enough to not just classify this as a `misunderstanding'…this is a 
> purposeful misrepresentation of the facts to prove your view.) 
> Again, it is not my responsibility to defend myself; you have the 
> burden of proof. Please quote where Michael or I said any such 
thing 
> (and I know that you won't find any such quotes because we didn't 
say 
> any such thing).

I may have overstated with the "more than anything else" part, for 
which I apologize. But I was in fact looking for the correct words 
to say that would put both of you together without having to refer 
to the exact words by either of you. I also had the pressure of 
trying to make the post as short as I can. 
But this is what Michael said in post no. 29886

""Michael:
It is interesting that you say that. I noticed in a recent message 
you mentioned your interest in pursuing the development of 
concentration. A while ago I also came to the conclusion that jhana 
is a necessary step in the path and have been working towards that 
and quickly came to the conclusion that the discussions in any list 
are quite a disturbance for this practice.""

Regarding your own statements, I tried to look for the first post 
but couldn't find it. But I did see another post in which you talked 
about Jhana, though perhaps not in the sense of finding it "more 
than anything else", but certainly more important than discussions 
here. Besides isn't Michael also refering to something you said in 
the quote above?

With regard to the other statement you object to, I can't prove it. 
Sorry. But I have also not heard of any other view as fact. If you 
feel like it, you can provide proof that the Buddha *did* attain 
enlightenment as a consequence of jhana. 

As to your statement "this is a purposeful misrepresentation of the 
facts to prove your view", all I can say is that, in front of a 
chessboard, I can't contemplate beyond two moves. Similarly in real 
life, I can't and don't usually think in terms of manipulating 
situations, which is why it is I who gets constantly taken advantage 
of and not the other way round. But surely there is ignorance and 
greed, perhaps this motivates my verbal and bodily actions anyway.
So I don't know what to say, whether to apologize or to clarify...

Metta,
Sukin.
	
29953

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:36am
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin,

Well, all my students are busy at work at the moment and I should be 
grading papers but instead I am reading DSG! LOL! Oh well, it is 
Thursday, the last day of the week here, and I will have the weekend 
to work on stuff. Let me get to this reply post:

Sukin: I may have overstated with the "more than anything else" part, 
for which I apologize.

James: Apology accepted. This part was extremely important to the 
meaning and personally I found it to be more than `overstatment', I 
found it to be a complete misrepresentation. For the record: I 
believe that all factors of the Eightfold Path are equally 
important. No one single factor is more important than the others. 
Of course the path begins with Right View but Right View isn't more 
important than the other factors. They are all mutually supportive…
and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that any 
different. Sukin, if you don't want to practice meditation 
(vipassana or jhana) then just admit that you are not at a point in 
your life where you want to practice it. Just admit that you are not 
fully practicing the Eightfold Path. Don't lie to yourself and 
others that `Right Concentration' can be practiced at anytime, 
anywhere, without formal practice. That is just wishful thinking—it 
isn't what the Buddha taught. If you accept what the Buddha taught 
you should accept everything, not just what you want to accept.

Sukin: But I did see another post in which you talked about Jhana, 
though perhaps not in the sense of finding it "more than anything 
else", but certainly more important than discussions here.

James: Yes, I did say that jhana meditation is more important than 
discussion in this group. I don't think that discussion in this 
group is a part of the Eightfold Path. As a consequence of 
discussion, I may study the texts and reflect on the Buddha's 
teaching, and that is a factor of the Eighfold Path, but not the 
discussion itself. The Buddha preferred not talking over talking. 
He often praised the quality of silence. It would be better to 
silently reflect than to clash and argue views.

Sukin: With regard to the other statement you object to, I can't 
prove it. Sorry. But I have also not heard of any other view as fact. 
If you feel like it, you can provide proof that the Buddha *did* 
attain enlightenment as a consequence of jhana.

James: When I get home I will look up the sutta from my printed 
version (the entire version isn't available online) and I will write 
out a post explaining. But, again, you are doing the exact same 
thing that you did before: You are claiming that I must prove a 
position that I haven't made. I haven't made the position that the 
Buddha attained enlightenment by jhana ALONE; I have said that it was 
a crucial factor, along with other factors (including Panna). Again, 
as Howard has stated before about this form of argumentation, you 
have set up a `Straw Man' argument, a fake representation of my 
position, and expect me to respond. I am not going to argue what I 
haven't stated.

Metta, James
	


29954

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:49am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 )

 	
Dear Sarah,

Thanks for your kind reply to my message.

With respect,

Htoo Naing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
> Dear Htoo,
> 
> I always enjoy our discussions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Before panna (wisdom) becomes an indriya (controlling faculty), it 
has to develop from the very beginning - understanding namas and 
rupas. So first, there has to be clear comprehension about namas and 
rupas, so that panna can develop. Surely this is the meaning 
of `meditation' or vipassana bhavana?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Nama dhamma and rupa dhamma have to arise if conditions favour. So 
does in case of pannindriya cetasika.

Now I have to draw you to another idea so that we can understand 
more. Panna in accumulated form arise from three source. Sutamaya 
panna, cintamaya panna, and bhavanamaya panna. I think you already 
know all about these.

Panna makes decision in the right way.

Sutamaya panna has to arise when they are taught. In this case, there 
always is at least a teacher. That teacher may be a human, an animal, 
or anything. These panna develop as they are experienced.

Cintamaya panna has to arise when they are worked through thinking. 
Law of gravity, law of relativity etc were origionally cintamaya 
panna developed by origional patented scientists or someone like 
that. But now these scientific laws become sutamaya panna at the 
moment in this world.

Bhavanamaya panna on the other hand is not acquired through reading 
Tipitaka or commentaries or subcommentaries or taught by brillient 
teachers or just thinking.

Arahatta Magga Panna at the moment is the highest now. This Panna is 
for all who want to get through the samsara. Other higher Panna are 
the matter of choice.

Right. Now we start a pace.

Arahatta Magga Nanna has to attained through bhavanamaya panna. 
However, this is only possible ( ONLY POSSIBLE ) with the aid of The 
Great beings Sammasambuddhas.

I mean here 'aid'. This does not mean in the pacchima bhava or final 
life in the whole samsara.

One has to understand all dhamma once in a life as heard through some 
Sammasambuddhas. 

As one heard in a life, they may like dhamma as soon as they see 
wherever they are ( in the samsara ).

So, I made pushing to concentration. This does not necessarily mean 
without panna. Panna has to involve all the time.

If not heard through the aid of one of Sammasambuddha, no one will 
develop Arahatta Panna however hard they try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: We might think that if we are not breaking the precepts that when 
we sit and concentrate (or walk or stand or study), that the 
concentration must be wholesome. 

If this were so, we would not need the guidance of a Buddha. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I have discussed above. Sammasambuddhas are needed in Samsara. 
There are many arising.

Another point ( side point ) is breaking and not breaking precept. If 
one never killed any being in his whole life, he might be said to be 
free of Akusala in terms of killing. But there are two people. One 
avoided killing. Another did not kill. Effect will not be the same. 
This point shoud be drawn out and should be separate discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) arises with every citta
(consciousness) as you've pointed out in your series on
Ministers. At 
this moment is there any understanding of wise or unwise 
concentration even though we're not breaking precepts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Wise and unwise concentration? Concentration is concentration at a 
single moment. It does not need to be wise or unwise. Its function is 
to fix at a point, to fix at a direction.

When concentration become Samma Samadhi, you may say it as wise 
concentration but still it is concentration. Wise and unwise is 
function of Pannindriya cetasika.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo:
> > 
> > The map has not been spread out and laid out let alone to read 
it. So 
> > far, the Samsara traveller ( :-)) ) is trying to collect the 
things 
> > which might be required during the journey, 'The Journey To 
Nibbana'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: This is why it's a little premature to talk about panna as an 
idriya or `seeing all mental phenomena'. We need to start
with the 
basics such as checking we have the right map and then spreading it 
out so that we don't waste time following the wrong journey;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

Do you mean I am wasting time, time of other people, and creating the 
wrong journey? The journey has not even started.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: The meaning is there. Clear understanding works. Here the 
> > matter is insight and full insight and fully enlightened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: But just a minute -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I am patient, I can wait for you. Take time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah: ..remember we're still laying out the map. Let's not
get carried away with the destination just yet;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Please tell me your destination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sarah: In other words, the practice is the understanding of 
> > paramattha dhammas at this very moment with detachment, not with 
> > selection, watching or special focussing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: If on the tract already, these are not needed to say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Ah, but we have to keep checking `the tract' as we lay out
the map.
Let's check we're plotting the same route together - after
all, 
there's only One Way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: But have to individualize. Each Arahat goes each. 
Paccatamvedhitabbo Vinnuhi'ti.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > S: I fully agree. Saddu! Saddhu!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: So, not full Anumodana?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Full Anumodana for your sharing of your understanding of the route 
and open-mindedness to discuss it here;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: You are good as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sarah: Thanks very much Htoo. Please read all Sukin's messages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: I will try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Here's one he wrote recently which I liked:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29629
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I said I will try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: Karunadasa?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: There have been a lot of discussions on this wheel publication by 
Prof Karunadasa recently:Abhidhamma.org
'The Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA', Y.
Karunadasa.

Please share any comments if you read it. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Professor Karunadasa you meaned. Now I got it. For comments,I 
have to take time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:You may be able to help me with one thing. He has many 
references to this abbreviation, `Abhvk' and I wanted to
check one of 
them, but I just can't work out what it stands for.
I'd be glad if you or anyone else can tell me. ( Someone would
help )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Htoo: I hope, I have given a clear account.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: Very clear so far. Now, given that we've been laying out the
map 
and agree, I hope, that the path of satipatthana is the path of 
clearly knowing and comprehending (also accompanied of course by rt 
concentration, rt effort etc) the paramattha dhammas which only ever 
arise at the present moment, would you agree that in truth
there's no 
meditator and no meditation other than this very understanding of 
dhammas now?

With metta,

Sarah
====== 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Actually the map has not been spread out. Yes there is no 
meditator. No one is meditating. All these are in the map itself 
which will come out finally.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	

 	 

	
29955

From: <Jackhat1@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack

 	
In a message dated 2/12/04 12:02:49 AM Central Standard Time, 
kenhowardau@y... writes:
I think you have dropped in once of twice before; in which case, 
welcome back. In any case, you're just the man we wanted to see. 
Some of us (Sukin and myself, for example) have been trying to 
settle, once and for all, the issue of formal meditation: Where in 
the Tipitaka, is there any suggestion of formal vipassana 
meditation? 

Hi, Ken,

The Anapanasati Sutta lists a complete meditation "program" in 16 trainings/ 
meditations/steps/lessons. The last four trainings are vipassana. This tetrad 
starts with training 13: "He trains himself, 'Constantly contemplating 
impermanence, I shall breath in. He trains himself, 'Constantly contemplating 
impermanence, I shall breath out.'" 


You wrote to Andy:
----------------------
> The Abhidhamma lists what is considered "ultimate 
realities." One for example is the hardness we feel with our body. 
If in a time of trouble one makes an effort to pay attention to 
these ultimates such as 
the feel of the ground under our feet, then I think we find that our 
discomfort is "outside" these ultimates and manufactured not real. >
---------------------

That sounds like good psychotherapy, and perhaps Andy will find it 
useful, but it is not satipatthana, is it? In the Satipatthana 
Sutta, where we read about a monk's practice in the course of daily 
life, the monk is directly experiencing paramattha dhammas, not 
concepts. Whenever the monk's foot touches the ground, he can know 
hardness as it truly is -- a conditioned rupa with the 
characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. But the feeling 
of `ground under the feet' is a concept and so mindfulness of such 
feeling is not what the Buddha taught at all. To paraphrase the 
commentary to that sutta; "In that, conceptual, way of knowing 
hardness, even dogs and jackals know there is ground under their 
feet." 
Yes, "ground under the feet" is a concept. I think this concept might be a 
useful teaching tool in some occasions. If used it should be followed by a more 
useful teaching tool, noticing hardness where your feet hit the ground. Feet 
and ground are akso concepts but necessary, in my opinion, to teaching this. 
One of my favorite meditations involves scanning one's body for the 4 Material 
Elements. The first step in this meditation is to scan the body and note 
hardness/softness. When I started off doing this meditation, concepts of 
hardness/softness were useful. As I became more experienced, I was more just noticing and 
not using concepts. Concepts were a learning tool that, like the raft that 
needs to be discarded once over the river, needs at some point to be left 
behind.



J: > And, if we keep our attention on ultimates, then the 
metaphysical problem you are having also disappears. You might try 
paying more attention to the list of ultimates than abstract 
definitions.
---------------------

When we remember that all conditioned reality is nama and rupa, we 
lose (to some degree) the sense of self. There, I agree with you. 
However, when it comes to `trying to pay attention' I can't see any 
connection with the Dhamma. Again, there may well be some 
psychotherapy involved but, according to the Dhamma, there is no 
self who can `try' anything – any contrived attempt at having right 
mindfulness would involve wrong view. Mere dhammas rise and fall; 
if one of them is right understanding (samma-ditthi, panna) then 
right mindfulness (samma-sati) will follow.

In my experience, this is not a problem once on the cushion. "I" sis down to 
"try" to see that phenomena arise and enter the sense doors. If one does this 
for a time, subject (the I) and sense object fall away and there is just 
seeing. Without trying nothing happens. But, without leaving trying behind at one 
point, the results at the end of the path don't happen either.

Be well.

jack


	
29956

From: <Jackhat1@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:56am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Welcome Jack! (was: the self... how?)

 	
In a message dated 2/12/04 2:07:53 AM Central Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:
I look forward to reading more of your posts. I understand you already
know many folks here. If you’d care to tell the rest of us where you live
and anything else, we’d be glad to hear it. We also have a photo album of
members you might like to look at and contribute to (no obligations of
course;-)):
Thanks for the welcome, Sarah. I live in Chicago. 

jack


	
29957

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:13am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi James

I cant help laughing when I read your post.

Hmm before I go, please do watch your back ;-)


Cheers
Ken O aka the-know-it-all :-O

p.s. - that is what make you interesting, your frank and honest
opinion of how your felt. 







	
29958

From: rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:40am
Subject: Posting to groups.

 	
Dear group,
On another group the topic of posting patterns came up, and an 
astute member replied:


How many group posters does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has
been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and
how the light bulb could have been changed differently

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about
changing light bulbs

53 to flame the spell checkers

41 to correct spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb" ...

another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper
term is "lamp"

15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and
that "light bulb" is perfectly correct

156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are
in violation of their "acceptable use policy"

109 to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to
please take this discussion to a lightbulb group

203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic
forum, and lightbulb group about changing light bulbs be
stopped

111 to defend the posting to this group saying that we all use
light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this group

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is
superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of
light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are
faulty

27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light
bulbs

14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then
post the corrected URL's

3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are
relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to
this group

33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety
including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too"

12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because
they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three"

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ

44 to ask what is a "FAQ"

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting
questions about light bulbs"

1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from
now and start it all over again....
	
29959

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:02am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Howard

I think the interpretation of intention and intentionally is
subjective. Maybe this may sound illogical to you. Let me give you
an example, can we intentionally not to got to the toilet for days to
come. I dont think we can bc it is body sense that conditions the
citta which in turns condition body sense to go to the toilet. Can
we then say such intention as intentional. That is what I meant by
intention. The intention should be conditon by condition and not a
kind of some presume intention to condition which is what I called
intentionally. 

I think the question of thinking is also a matter of how one look at
it. To me. meditation or concentration on a single dhamma is still
thinking bc we are *trying* to focus on a single dhamma. Similarly
when someone enjoy his music that is without words and immerse in it
- this is to me also letting one to focus on a single dhamma. Then
again, there is some pple who just stare at the star and become
blank, this is also a focus on nothing - that is still trying to
focus on single dhamma. 

You may not like me asking me this question, how can one control on
thought that is Anatta? I think it is a very impt qn each one of us
has to sincerely ask ourselve deep deep down. You have read my
earlier post before (months ago) I also used to think there is some
form of control. Indeed before I return on Nov last year, my last
post to RobK makes me think alot. This is the question that deeply
disturb me for months before I have to admit that there can be no
control on whatever sort bc it wil be futile as all is anatta. 
Having no control does not mean one is hopelessly in the stream of
samasara. it is this understanding that makes the practise more
interesting, it helps one to be at ease, to be natural, to see each
moment as it comes now and not later, bc now and later will mean no
different to anatta but it will mean a lot of difference to panna. 
When we do later, panna will think conceptually and not in terms of
nama and rupa which is impt to the development of satipatthana. When
we are sitting in a particular position, body position and the
breath are concepts and this also does not lead to the understanding
of namas and rupas. Unless at the sitting once is in sati with rupas
and body sense cittas , then this is what I called samadhi as
describe in samadhi sutta


Sorry to occupy you with my personal thoughts.


Ken O








> Howard:
> Nope. When a meditator is thinking s/he isn't meditating,
> just contemplating (or maybe daydreaming or fantasizing). Thoughts
may come and go - that is natural function of mind - but thinking is
more than occasional thoughts floating by. When one is meditating,
one is observing - when the observing ceases due to getting lost in
thought, meditation ceases. 


> Now, I'm not saying one should not get lost in thought at
> times. For 
> thought to be really successful at thinking for a worldling getting
> totally 
> swept up in the thinking is actually necessary. But that shouldn't
> happen while 
> meditating. Meditation does not consist of thinking about
> something; it 
> consists of attending to what arises with calm, concentrated, and
> clear mindfulness.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As long as one does not see the word as namas and rupas, we> 
> > are all thinking. 
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I understand what you mean by this, and I don't disagree
> with it. But 
> there are degrees of thinking. When one sits (or stands or walks or
> whatever) 
> to meditate, at first there is much thinking, then less and less,
> and, if one 
> is sufficiently practiced, no thinking at all, or close to none.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > Please disregard us if you find us chattering like children over
> our
> > love on the *no-control* mantra. Anyway, can we control self in
> the
> > first place ;-). Cheers.
> > 
> > 
> > best wishes
> > Ken O
> > 
> > 
> ==========================
> With uncontrolled metta,
> Howard
> 

	
29960

From: <Jackhat1@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:31am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
In a message dated 2/12/04 3:00:20 AM Central Standard Time, 
sukinder@k... writes:
> I have read the Buddha to frequently say it is the jhanas 
> (specifically the 1st four) that constitute Right Concentration.
I'm sure you have answered this before so please send me to a reference or 
post. Where is the canonical justification for your statement above?

Are you saying samadhi and the jhanas are the same?

jack


	
29961

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 3:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, Sukin -

&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I will reply to a ffew parts of this 
post in context. At the end I will copy material given in two suttas in the 
Anguttara Nikaya which I sent to DSG (to Jon) a couple years ago, and which 
indicate the importance of concentration.

In a message dated 2/12/04 4:00:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sukinder@k... writes:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Howard, James, Michael, Htoo and all,
> 
> &amp;gt;&amp;nbsp; I have read the Buddha to frequently say it is the jhanas 
> &amp;gt;(specifically the 1st four) that constitute Right Concentration. 
> Right Concentration is a 
> &amp;gt;legitimate part of the eightfold path, and is not dispensable. 
> BTW, I don't 
> &amp;gt;say that the jhanas are a necessary prior condition for the 
> arising of any 
> &amp;gt;insights at all. But the jhanas are requisite for full liberation, 
> because they 
> &amp;gt;constitute Right Concentration.
> &amp;gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; BTW, why didn't you elaborate further *before* you 
> received 
> a 
> &amp;gt;response?
> 
> Yes Howard I know that you do not state that Jhana is a necessary 
> prior condition. This is why I used both `concentration' and `jhana' 
> in my post. I find that you and Htoo (and perhaps Victor and others 
> too) come from more or less the same position which states that 
> a `concentrated mind' is needed to `penetrate' realities. And James 
> and Michael on the other hand have stated that they think they need 
> to practice Jhana more than anything else.&amp;nbsp; And this could either be 
> from the position of seeing Jhana as a high form of kusala, hence 
> relating this with the ability to then insight realities, or it 
> could be that they believe in the `concentrative power' of Jhana. So 
> one reason why I asked first to hear the logic behind both these 
> positions is to get a clearer understanding and compare them if I 
> have to. Also I do not feel like writing out a general and elaborate 
> statement, but would prefer to respond to specific points. But I 
> will have to write something now. ;-)
> 
> There seem to be an implicit belief that a mind well concentrated is 
> in a better position to penetrate the nature of the rising and 
> falling phenomena.
> 
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Perhaps that is due to the Buddha having 
explicity stated such.
-----------------------------------------------
&amp;nbsp; Obviously no one on this list believes in a mind > 
> separate from the object experienced, so this must mean that being 
> mindful of one's experience in a deliberate (and disciplined) way 
> would somehow cause the concentration aspect to become increasingly 
> stronger, to experience more deeply the characteristic of dhammas, 
> until finally the Tilakkhana is penetrated. 
> 
> First of all we know that there is such a thing as `wrong 
> concentration', and this is of course akusala and so cannot be the 
> same one that would `penetrate realities'. Second, the development 
> of wisdom is about *detachment* all the way. Detachment from any 
> idea of `accumulation' and most certainly for any `self'. Third, 
> Satipatthana is the development of Sati, and the foundation (the 
> objects of sati) being the paramattha dhammas, implies that panna is 
> needed to *discriminate* (starting from intellectual appreciation of 
> the fact), otherwise there is only ignorance everywhere. So with 
> more and more experience, both sati and panna are being developed. 
> There is no such thing as Samadhipatthana, or the development of 
> samadhi. 
> 
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Yep, no such name. But the Buddha taught 
the cultivation of concentration and calm throughout his life, and he didn't 
spend 45 years only repeating the content of the Satipatthana Sutta.
----------------------------------------------
&amp;nbsp; True, that with repeated practice, Sati will arise more and > 
> more often, such that one may then grow to have more or less 
> continuous sati. But this is only because `sati' and `panna' has 
> been developed. If detachment had not accompanied panna each step of 
> the way, then panna wouldn't grow strong enough to penetrate deeply 
> the nature and characteristic of dhammas, because akusala would have 
> had plenty of opportunity to distort perception. It is panna which 
> recognizes akusala as akusala and kusala as kusala, and the 
> vipassana panna knows paramattha dhammas and the tilakkhana. 
> Concentration arises with every citta, the right and wrong 
> concentration is determined not by concentration per se, but by the 
> other factors, primarily Rt. View, having a characteristic of 
> reality as object. The fact that during Magga, the concentration is 
> equivalent to Jhana, does not mean that `concentration' has been 
> developed, but because of the `great object', Nibbana. Nibbana 
> causes the concentration at that moment to be equal to that of 
> Jhana. 
> 
> Jhana is very high degree of kusala and requires a corresponding 
> degree of panna, but does it have any direct connection with 
> vipassana panna? No! 
> The objects are very different. 
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; First of all, that isn't the point. 
Mastering the jhanas is a matter of cultivating the mind. Secondly, the jhanas 
have been prominent as a base for investigation of dhammas. In particular, seethe 
Anupada Sutta which shows how the jhanas were vehicles for Sariputta's 
liberation. And consider how the 4th jhana was used by the Buddha himself as base 
for investigation of dhammas.
-----------------------------------------------------

> Jhana is a consequence of Samatha development. This type of panna 
> sees the value of kusala and the danger of akusala. As panna of this 
> type develops, it recognizes more and more subtle forms of akusala 
> and hence correspondingly, objects of kusala. Objects like the 
> kasinas are not just abstract or so called `neutral' objects, they 
> are a consequence of the jhana development. So it is a wrong idea to 
> think that one develops jhana by keeping in mind certain objects. In 
> like manner, the idea of Metta, Karuna etc. are not magic words or 
> associated attitudes, which can be conjured up at will with the 
> expectation that kusala will be aroused and consequently developed. 
> All this requires very, very long time for development, and surely 
> it is not up to a "self" to wish to have metta for instance, let 
> alone to develop it. With weak panna, it will be "Lobha" 
> and "Avijja" which will rule, though even this can give `goose-
> pimples' ;-). Besides, those who develop samatha and jhana, know 
> their cittas real well. They are constantly developing some form of 
> kusala or the other. 21st century man is unlikely to be in this 
> constant state of alertness and he should not be moved simply 
> because the idea of developing samatha and jhana sound so good.
> &amp;nbsp; 
> Vipassana panna on the other hand has as its aim, the eradication 
> of `ignorance'. So at any given moment, it is not kusala cittas 
> which is the aim, but understanding the true nature of the object. 
> There may be wisdom which sees the value of all kinds of kusala, 
> especially in relation to the development of the Parami. And though 
> the eradication of all kilesas is the aim, this is with the 
> understanding that ultimately it is "ignorance" which must go for 
> this to happen. 
> 
> Is jhana then being practiced as a `tool' or is it being practiced 
> as a `support factor'?
> 
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A tool for cultivating the mind, and as 
base for investigation of dhammas.
------------------------------------------------
&amp;nbsp; In either case what is more pertinent, > 
> understanding "now" or the aim at a future result? Besides, it is 
> Jhana cittas which is seen as impermanent, suffering and not-self, 
> that leads too enlightenment. Otherwise one can be *forever* stuck 
> on that level!! So as far as I can see, jhana has no decisive role 
> in the development of vipassana panna. And it seems that if someone 
> believed that it did, it would be an instance of wrong understanding 
> and hence would not be practicing Buddhism. On the other hand, if 
> one is confused about the objects, then jhana could also not be 
> reached.
> 
> Await your response.
> 
> Metta,
> Sukin.
> Ps: James, you refer to the Buddha's practice of jhana prior to his 
> enlightenment. I think that it is obvious that with the accumulated 
> panna, he was attracted to the "best" of teachings available and 
> progressively rejected them. And so when it came to the last one, 
> his accumulated wisdom soon recognized its limitations, hence his 
> then taking that greater than quantum leap. ;-)
> 
================================
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Material from two relevant suttas 
follows below.

With metta,
Howard

Sense control
-&amp;gt;
Virtue
-&amp;gt;
Right concentration
-&amp;gt;
Knowledge and vision of things as they really are
-&amp;gt;
Revulsion and dispassion
-&amp;gt;
Knowledge and vision of liberation.

&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; and

Virtuous ways of conduct
-&amp;gt;
Non-remorse
-&amp;gt;
Gladness
-&amp;gt;
Joy
-&amp;gt;
Serenity
-&amp;gt;
Happiness
-&amp;gt;
Concentration of the mind
-&amp;gt;
Knowledge and vision of things as they really are
-&amp;gt;
Revulsion and dispassion
-&amp;gt;
Knowledge and vision of liberation.



/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./&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp; (From the Diamond Sutra)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 


	
29962

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:17am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hello Andy and KenH, and others,

Sorry but I cannot resist to jump in here.

Andy:
I'm reading some texts, principally the Abhidhammaatha Sangaha

KenH:
I think you have begun your Buddhist studies in the right way. That
is, by trying to understand what the original texts are saying.

Michael:
I think the opposite. Andy, you have started your studies the wrong way. The 
Abhidhammatha Sangaha is not ‘an original teaching’, it is a very suspicious 
text presenting some ideas that are very hard to trace to the original 
teachings of the Buddha. See Rob Moult’s message 29583 for some more 
details. My suggestion would be for you to start reading the suttas. There 
are a number of very good study guides available at the Accesstoinsight.org 
compiled by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. I would suggest to start with The Path to 
Freedom - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html - which has many 
links to suttas that will enable further exploration. Abhidhamma should be 
studied after one has a strong foundation in the suttas.

KenH:
The big trap is to rewrite the Dhamma to make it the way we want it to be. 
Millions of people are doing this every day.

Michael:
This is very true, but not just today. Be very careful when reading the 
commentaries, specially Budhaghosa commentaries. Again one would be advised 
to have a strong foundation in the suttas to be able to discern properly.

Metta
Michael


	
29963

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 2/12/04 11:08:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
ashkenn2k@y... writes:

> Hi Howard
> 
> I think the interpretation of intention and intentionally is
> subjective.&amp;nbsp; Maybe this may sound illogical to you.&amp;nbsp; Let me give 
> you
> an example, can we intentionally not to got to the toilet for days to
> come.&amp;nbsp; I dont think we can bc it is body sense that conditions the
> citta which in turns condition body sense to go to the toilet.&amp;nbsp; Can
> we then say such intention as intentional.&amp;nbsp; That is what I meant by
> intention.&amp;nbsp; The intention should be conditon by condition and not a
> kind of some presume intention to condition which is what I called
> intentionally.&amp;nbsp; 
> 
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; All dhammas arise based on conditions, 
and that includes volition. I don't say otherwise.
----------------------------------------------

> 
> I think the question of thinking is also a matter of how one look at
> it.&amp;nbsp; To me. meditation or concentration on a single dhamma is still
> thinking bc we are *trying* to focus on a single dhamma.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 
> Similarly
> when someone enjoy his music that is without words and immerse in it
> - this is to me also letting one to focus on a single dhamma.&amp;nbsp; Then
> again, there is some pple who just stare at the star and become
> blank, this is also a focus on nothing - that is still trying to
> focus on single dhamma.&amp;nbsp; 
> 
> You may not like me asking me this question, how can one control on
> thought that is Anatta? 
> 
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Ken, a simple question: Can you, right 
now, bring a melody to mind? Of course you can. You can do that, Ken! A 
volition arises (conditioned by reading what I wrote, and possibly by desire, and any 
number of other things), and it has an effect. This is "control", Ken.
-----------------------------------------------------
&amp;nbsp; I think it is a very impt qn each one of us> 
> has to sincerely ask ourselve deep deep down.&amp;nbsp; You have read my
> earlier post before (months ago) I also used to think there is some
> form of control.&amp;nbsp; Indeed before I return on Nov last year, my last
> post to RobK makes me think alot.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This is the question that 
> deeply
> disturb me for months before I have to admit that there can be no
> control on whatever sort bc it wil be futile as all is anatta. 
> 
----------------------------------------------------
Howard: 
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This is a story, Ken - a little piece of 
theory. But you can stand up right now, and then sit down. And that is 
reality!
----------------------------------------------------

> Having no control does not mean one is hopelessly in the stream of
> samasara.&amp;nbsp; it is this understanding that makes the practise more
> interesting, it helps one to be at ease, to be natural, to see each
> moment as it comes now and not later, bc now and later will mean no
> different to anatta but it will mean a lot of difference to panna. 
> When we do later, panna will think conceptually and not in terms of
> nama and rupa which is impt to the development of satipatthana.&amp;nbsp; When
> we are sitting in a particular position,&amp;nbsp; body position and the
> breath are concepts and this also does not lead to the understanding
> of namas and rupas.&amp;nbsp; Unless at the sitting once is in sati with rupas
> and body sense cittas , then this is what I called samadhi as
> describe in samadhi sutta
> 
> 
> Sorry to occupy you with my personal thoughts.
> 
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; What other thoughts are there for us? 
;-))
--------------------------------------------------

> 
> 
> Ken O
> 
> 
==========================
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./&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp; (From the Diamond Sutra)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 
&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;
nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 


	
29964

From: icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:27am
Subject: Home Again...

 	
Hi,noble pack of Dhamma Students!

My travel to St. Luiz, Maranhão, was very very very interesting!
São Luiz is a very typical tropical/caribbean style town: 
wonderful beaches, colonial pretty mansions and houses, an old-
fashioned fishmarket and a warm and peaceful people (Very different 
of showed at "Cidade de Deus" movie, for sure!!!!)
I really miss all your usual chat-n-gossip and exegesis about 
Dhamma matters, noble laypersons, brave & bold company of Dhamma 
practicioners!
Ah... and hard working for government as usual!

(For the future days to come...Bangkok!!!!!)
(Or, if my vacancies could be syncronised out...Sarah's 
suggestion: Delhi!!!)


Mettaya, Ícaro
	
29965

From: icarofranca <icarofranca@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:41am
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Dear jackhat1



"Are you saying samadhi and the jhanas are the same?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a mass of confusion on these issues about Jhana and Samadhi.
Samadhi (Sam+Adhi) is a state of consciousness that Buddha had put 
at a minor level besides Jhana(Sanskrit: Dhyana).
It seems to me that Buddha decided to build or raise up a path 
entirely distinctive of the Classical Yoga's, but not so divergent at 
its basic premisses: mindfulness and precepts. He always stated the 
loss of time to put such practises on the "Top of the Pops" of mind 
culture.

Mettaya, Ícaro
	
29966

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:54am
Subject: Regrettable

 	
Hi All,

Jon sent me a warning off-list that some of my recent posts have been 
too unpleasant in tone. My apologies to anyone offended; that wasn't 
my goal. I simply state things the way I see them, nothing 
personal. And even by stating such things I am not implying that I 
am perfect either. I am still very much a `work in progress'. 
Additionally, no one has to take what I state to be correct-- I could 
be wrong. Anyway, I know in my heart that my intentions were not to 
hurt anyone, only to help, so I don't feel really sorry. But if 
anyone was offended then that is regrettable.

Metta, James
	
29967

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:58am
Subject: Re: Posting to groups.

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@y...> wrote:
> Dear group,
> On another group the topic of posting patterns came up, and an 
> astute member replied:

LOL! I love it!! Me too! ;-))
	
29968

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:02am
Subject: Testing

 	
Just Testing

/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) 




	
29969

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:13am
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?

 	
Hi Ken O,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
wrote:
> Hi James
> 
> I cant help laughing when I read your post.
> 
> Hmm before I go, please do watch your back ;-)
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Ken O aka the-know-it-all :-O
> 
> p.s. - that is what make you interesting, your frank and honest
> opinion of how your felt. 

Hehehe...actually, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that 
description. You are quite sincere, appreciate honesty, admit your 
limitations, and have a pleasant sense of humor. I won't go into 
details of who I was thinking of or the moderators would really have 
a fit! ;-)) I think you laughed because you know, deep inside, that 
I didn't mean you. Those who didn't laugh probably know, deep 
inside, that I did mean them.

Metta, James
	
29970

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:34am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hello Sarah,

Sarah:
I would urge you, like KenO, to read the Kathavatthu and commentaries.

Michael:
I had a cursory look at the Kathavatthu during my stay at the BCBS last 
weekend and have decided to buy it. I have already ordered from Paryiatti. I 
have also ordered the Commentary. I will write again after I read it 
properly.

Metta
Michael

	
29971

From: Charles Thompson <dhammasaro@h...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Posting to groups.

 	
ditto...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: rjkjp1 
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:40 AM
Subject: [dsg] Posting to groups.


Dear group,
On another group the topic of posting patterns came up, and an 
astute member replied:

...................................................................

	
29972

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 0:16pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Posting to groups.

 	
me too!

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Thompson" 
<dhammasaro@h...> wrote:
> ditto...
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: rjkjp1 
> To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com 
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:40 AM
> Subject: [dsg] Posting to groups.
> 
> 
> Dear group,
> On another group the topic of posting patterns came up, and an 
> astute member replied:
> 
> ..................................................................
.
> 
> 	
29973

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:17pm
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin and All,
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
<snip> 
> Sukin: With regard to the other statement you object to, I can't 
> prove it. Sorry. But I have also not heard of any other view as 
fact. 
> If you feel like it, you can provide proof that the Buddha *did* 
> attain enlightenment as a consequence of jhana.
> 
> James: When I get home I will look up the sutta from my printed 
> version (the entire version isn't available online) and I will 
write 
> out a post explaining. But, again, you are doing the exact same 
> thing that you did before: You are claiming that I must prove a 
> position that I haven't made. I haven't made the position that the 
> Buddha attained enlightenment by jhana ALONE; I have said that it 
was 
> a crucial factor, along with other factors (including Panna). 
Again, 
> as Howard has stated before about this form of argumentation, you 
> have set up a `Straw Man' argument, a fake representation of my 
> position, and expect me to respond. I am not going to argue what I 
> haven't stated.
> 
> Metta, James

Here is the post I promised you. I am just going to be quoting a lot 
of sutta material and inserting some transitional comments (The 
entire sutta isn't on the Internet but the relevant parts are) MN 36 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn036.html:

"...But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained 
any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision 
worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, 
and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then -- 
quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental 
qualities -- I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & 
pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & 
evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on 
that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.'"…

"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then -- quite 
withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental 
qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & 
pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & 
evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not 
invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thought & 
evaluation, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & 
pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from 
directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. But the pleasant 
feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With 
the fading of rapture I remained in equanimity, mindful & alert, and 
physically sensitive of pleasure. I entered & remained in the third 
jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has 
a pleasurable abiding.' But the pleasant feeling that arose in this 
way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure 
& pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- 
I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & 
mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that 
arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain."

James: I think the important thing to acknowledge about this 
description of the jhanas is the repeating phrase "But the pleasant 
feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain". To 
me, this demonstrates that the Buddha already had a lot of panna 
(wisdom) to know what the correct practice was and what the correct 
practice wasn't. The Buddha was simply experiencing/practicing the 
four jhanas to purify the mind more and more so that supreme 
knowledge could arise. The jhanas themselves are a vehicle, they are 
not the goal.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, 
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to 
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my 
past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, 
two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, 
many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many 
eons of cosmic contraction & expansion:"

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the 
night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was 
destroyed; light arose -- as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & 
resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not 
invade my mind or remain."

James: To shed more light on this `light arose' reference ;-), allow 
me to quote a footnote to AN 59 "Fourfold Development of 
Concentration": "AA explains `knowledge and vision' (nanadassana) 
here as the divine eye, the super-normal power of vision which 
enables one to see forms at a distance and in other realms and also 
to understand the process of kammic retribution. The preliminary 
practice for this attainment requires the development of 
the `perception of light', after which this inner light is directed 
to distant objects and to other realms."

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, 
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to 
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away 
& reappearance of beings. I saw -- by means of the divine eye, 
purified & surpassing the human -- beings passing away & re-
appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, 
beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their 
kamma:"… 

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, 
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to 
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the 
mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, 
that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is 
the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation 
of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of 
fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is 
the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus 
knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of 
sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from 
the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the 
knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy 
life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this 
world.'

Metta, James
	
29974

From: Michael Beisert <mbeisert@h...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:30pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hello Sarah,

I forgot some comments in my previous mail:

Sarah:
The entire Tipitaka is dealing with ultimate realities, whatever terms
or language is being used. In the Kathavatthu itself, the entire first
section is devoted to showing that whereas the khandhas, the ayatanas or
the dhatus are ‘real and ultimate facts’ (paramattha dhammas), ‘person’ is
not. I’m at a loss to understand how Kalupahana or anyone else could read
the refutations in any other way. I’ve typed out a couple of examples
before and also indicated that Karunadasa, whose comments we were
discussing, also summarises from this text to indicate: “the Theravadins
admit that the khandhas or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense.
Thus in their view what is real and ultimate is not the person but the
khandhas or dhammas that enter into its composition.”[21:Kvu 1ff. See too
the relevant sections of its commentary.]

Michael:
I don’t agree that the Tipitaka deals with ultimate realities, this places 
conditionality in the background while it should be at the forefront. 
Conditionality is the key teaching of the Buddha.

In my cursory look at the Kathavatthu I have found nothing that justifies 
your argument that paramattha are ‘real and ultimate facts.’ In one of your 
messages containing extracts from the Kathavatthu it reads 
“‘Ultimate’(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or 
hearsay,” highest sense has to do with language which is very different from 
facts which has to do with ontology. Karunadasa also does support your view 
when he says “the early Buddhist idea of sammuti is not based on a 
formulated doctrine of real existents. Although what is analysed is called 
sammuti, that into which it is analysed is not called paramattha. Such a 
development is found only in the Abhidhamma.”

In relation to your last statement that “theravadins admit that the khandhas 
or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense” I have a suspicion this 
comes from the commentary. And the commentary to the Kathavatthu was 
compiled by Buddhaghosa. I would be quite suspicious of that. But anyway, I 
will leave my final judgment out until I read the Kathavatthu.

Sarah:
I think you’d find it fascinating reading as long as you can keep
an open-mind and not be unduly swayed by Kalupahana’s comments

Michael:
I am sure it will be fascinating. Maybe you can also be open minded and read 
Kalupahana or even better, read the Mulamadyamakakarika by Nagarjuna.

Metta
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
	
29975

From: Htoo Naing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:54pm
Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 04 )

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends,

The meditator has been in the practice of Mahasatipatthana. He is now practising Cittanupassana or practising contemplation on mind and mental phenomena. When a kind of mind arises he recognizes it and notes that he knows that.

The distraction of mind was noticed and he tried to draw back to the primary meditative object breath. Fluttering by sensual thinking is now a bit calm down and he notices that his mind calms down again. He recognizes that a mind without greed arises.

He is back to his breath. It touches. It touches. Touch. Touch. A long touch is noted. He notices that in that long touch, there seem initial touch followed by sustained touch and then end of touch. Wonderful! So calm is my mind, he thought that his mind was well calm and now he is free of sensual thinking.

Well calm mind. What a good practice that I acquire. He starts to distract without recognizing his mind state. He was once taught in a place. At that place, there were three pupils. The other two people were just poor men. When they first met, they introduced each other. And they meditated at the same centre.

At a time he was abused by a relative of one of those two friends. Actually there was nothing wrong with him. His heart starts to go fast as the thought of hatred arises. But he is still going in distracted way and he does not know that he is distracted. After a while, he notices that his anger making him restless and now then he recognizes that he was distracted.

He smiles in his mind but he still feels some form of heat due to that thought. He notes that a mind with Dosa or hatred has arisen and made him annoyed. After a while again, as continuing attending his breath, his mind becomes calm again. He notices that this state is quite different from the state just passed away. He notes that a mind without hatred arise.

May you all be free from hindrances when you meditate on mind.

With Unlimited Metta,

Htoo Naing

htootintnaing@y... 

JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 



29977

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, Michael (and Sarah) -

In a message dated 2/12/04 4:42:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mbeisert@h... writes:

> Michael:
> I am sure it will be fascinating. Maybe you can also be open minded and read 
> 
> Kalupahana or even better, read the Mulamadyamakakarika by Nagarjuna.
> 
=========================
Should you ever choose to read the MMK, though Michael may disagree, I 
recommend that you read the translation and commentary by Garfield rather 
than the one by Kalupahana. (Garfield's treatment is wonderful, IMO, whereas I 
find Kaulpahana's commentary, although certainly having value, to be 
idiosyncratic.)

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) 




	
29978

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:52am
Subject: Re: [dsg] off-list DSG

 	
Hi, Sarah (and Ken) -

Heh, heh, heh! ;-))

With off-list (but still official) metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/12/04 6:17:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:

> 
> off-list
> 
> Hi Ken O,
> 
> Great work!!!!!
> 
> Just remember to TRIM tails inc. the yahoo blurb in your posts like this
> one below(we all forget sometimes;-))
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah
> ======
> 


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
29979

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:06pm
Subject: Fwd: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, all -

I'm resending this (and another post), because the originals went 
through oddly.

With metta,
Howard




	
29980

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:08pm
Subject: Fwd: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi, all -

A second post being resent.

With metta,
Howard 



	
29981

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:10pm
Subject: Fwd: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi again -

Another try!

With metta,
Howard




	
29982

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: Sorry About All the Repeat Mailings

 	
Hi, all -

Obviously there is some trouble with sending and resending those two 
posts. I'lljust have to settle for the originals with the odd letter sequences 
included. (HTML stuff, I guess.) My apologies.

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) 




	
29983

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:26pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack

 	
Hi Jack,

So it was your first post to dsg - my apologies. I occasionally 
lurk on dhamma-list and that must be where I know you from. With 
your knowledge of Abhidhamma, you fit in like you've been here all 
along. :-)

----------------------------
KH: >> Where in the Tipitaka, is there any suggestion of formal 
vipassana meditation? >>

J: > The Anapanasati Sutta lists a complete meditation "program" in 
16 trainings/meditations/steps/lessons. The last four trainings are 
vipassana. 
---------------------

In the Buddha's day, many thousands of men and women attained 
enlightenment. From the suttas, we know that the vast majority 
attained by insight (vipassana) on its own. Of the others, some 
developed jhana prior to insight, some, developed jhana after 
insight and a very select few developed jhana and insight in 
tandem. The Anapanasati-sutta describes this last-named method. It 
may seem as if there is a watered-down version of mindfulness-of-
breath, that was taught for non-jhana practitioners, but that is not 
the case. (If asked, I could find references (from other dsg posts)
but references are not my strong point:-) )

--------------
<snip>
J : > Yes, "ground under the feet" is a concept. I think this 
concept might be a useful teaching tool in some occasions. If used 
it should be followed by a more useful teaching tool, noticing 
hardness where your feet hit the ground. Feet and ground are also 
concepts but necessary, in my opinion, to teaching this. >
-------------------------

I agree; feet and ground are concepts while hardness is a reality. 
But what I am saying is; the hardness I experience, when I try to 
direct my attention to it, is also a concept: There is the concept 
of an area in space that is 'occupied' by the physical feeling of 
hardness. You might say I need to meditate more intensely but I 
would say no amount of trying would succeed in catching the 
rupa, `hardness.' As a mere physical phenomenon, it comes and goes 
in less than one billionth of a second.

In every moment of sense consciousness (and in some mind-door 
consciousness), a single rupa is experienced by citta and its 
cetasikas. This is where rupa can be directly is known. Our 
trouble (or should I say, `my trouble') is that panna is not among 
the cetasikas (except, hopefully, occasionally -- but even then, 
only at a very, very weak level). 

----------------------
<snip>
J: > Concepts were a learning tool that, like the raft that needs to 
be discarded once over the river, needs at some point to be left 
behind.
-----------

Yes, language (even of Dhamma) is conceptual and when we hear and 
discuss Dhamma, there are concepts. In amongst moments of concept-
consciousness, there are moments of dhamma-consciousness. Moments 
of insight are of this second type but there is no need to 
intentionally stop concepts from arising -- it all happens according 
to conditions.

-------------------------
<snip>
J: > "I" sit down to "try" to see that phenomena arise and enter the 
sense doors. If one does this for a time, subject (the I) and sense 
object fall away and there is just seeing. Without trying nothing 
happens. But, without leaving trying behind at one point, the 
results at the end of the path don't happen either.
---------------

`Trying' involves the concept of a self who is trying. `Not trying' 
involves the concept of a self who is not trying. Neither of these 
two paths leads to enlightenment. As the Buddha said, "Neither by 
striving nor by standing still did I cross the flood." (Ongha-sutta 
(sp?))

Right understanding comes from the Buddha, not from ritualistic 
practices (sorry if ritualistic is a strong word). It is acquired 
through hearing the Dhamma, considering it, discussing it with wise 
friends, and by knowing the present conditioned dhammas for what 
they are (anicca, dukkha and anatta).

That's the way I understand it, anyway. Comments welcome.

Kind regards,
Ken H
	
29984

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: SN 1 Bhikkhuniisamyutta 5.9 Selaa

 	
Samyutta Nikaya 1 Bhikkhuniisamyutta 5.9 Selaa

"At Saavatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Selaa dressed ... 
she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding. 
Then Maara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and 
terror in the bhikkhuni Selaa, desiring to make her fall away from 
concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

"By whom has this puppet been created?
Where is the maker of the puppet?
Where has the puppet arisen?
Where does the puppet cease? [n.358]

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Selaa: "Now who is this ...?
This is Maara the Evil One ... desiring to make me fall away from 
concentration."
Then the bhikkhuni Selaa, having understood, "This is Maara the Evil 
One, " replied to him in verses:

"This puppet is not made by itself, 
Nor is this misery made by another.
It has come to be dependent on a cause;
With the cause's breakup it will cease.

"As when a seed is sown in a field
It grows depending on a pair of factors:
It requires both the soil's nutrients
And a steady supply of moisture:

"Just so the aggregates and elements,
And these six bases of sensory contact,
Have come to be dependent on a cause;
With the cause's breakup they will cease." [n.359]

The Maara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Selaa knows me," 
sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.

Note 358: Spk: Both puppet (bimba) here, and misery (agha) at v. 
549b, refer to individual existence (attabhaava), in the latter case 
because individual existence is a foundation for suffering.
The philosophers of the Buddha's time were divided on the question 
whether suffering is created by oneself (attakata) or by another 
(parakata). The former was the position of the eternalists, who held 
there is a permanent self which transmigrates from life to life 
reaping the fruits of its own deeds. The latter was the position of 
the annihilationists, who held that a being is annihilated at death 
and nothing survives, so that one's share of suffering and happiness 
is due entirely to external conditions. See the debates recorded at 
12:17, 18, 24, 25.

Note 359: One key to the interpretation of Selaa's reply is AN 1 223-
24, where it is said that kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, 
and craving the moisture, for the production of future renewed 
existence. The cause (hetu), then, is the kammically formative 
consciousness accompanied by ignorance and craving. When that 
dissolves through the elimination of ignorance and craving there is 
no production of aggregates, elements, and sense bases in a future 
life. The imagery of seeds and vegetation recurs at 22:54, which 
also helps to illuminate these verses.

metta and peace,
Christine
---The trouble is that you think you have time ---
	


29985

From: yu_zhonghao <yu_zhonghao@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:36pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack

 	
Hi Ken H,

Could you specify what ritualistic practices are? Could you explain 
what right understanding is?

Metta,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" 
<kenhowardau@y...> wrote:
[snip]
> Right understanding comes from the Buddha, not from ritualistic 
> practices (sorry if ritualistic is a strong word). It is acquired 
> through hearing the Dhamma, considering it, discussing it with 
wise 
> friends, and by knowing the present conditioned dhammas for what 
> they are (anicca, dukkha and anatta).
> 
> That's the way I understand it, anyway. Comments welcome.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Ken H
	

 	 

	
29986

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Posting to groups.

 	
Hi All, (esp.you-know-who-you-are know-it-alls;-)),

--- rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> wrote: > 

> 15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and
> that "light bulb" is perfectly correct
> 
....
Of course “light bulb” is correct and I really can’t understand why all
the other hundreds of lightbulb posters didn’t just listen to the
know-it-alls from the start. Why don’t they all just read the commentaries
and sub-commentaries to get their facts straight before posting??? To be
accurate here, I should point out that I’m referring to the a.t.thakathaa
and .tiikaa and to CMA and it’s a.t.thakathaa if there’s still any
doubt;-)

With lots of know-it-all Metta;-)

Sarah
======

	
29987

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Victor

> Now, consider the following two statements:
> 
> It is impossible for form to control itself.
> It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech,
> and mind.
> 
> Do you think that these two statement contradict each other? 
> 
> You came up with the question "How do we control something that is 
> not self." But I did not say we can control something that is not 
> self. Nor did I say we cannot control something that is not self.
> 
> Your question has nothing to do with what I said that:
> 
> It is impossible for form to control itself. 
> It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech,

k: Since form cannot control itself, then how does one say that one
can control form (body and speech) in the first place? Then in
other words, if one can control oneself, then one has to ask what is
oneself? Was it me I or myself or what....? Think about it and reply
to me.


Ken O







	
29988

From: Andrew <athel60@t...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Howard

Thanks for your post - as always, very meaty! (No offence to 
vegetarians). Some comments below:

You wrote:
Either there are volitional impulses during sleep or not. But if 
there 
> is no consciousness (say in deep, dreamless sleep), not even at a 
very low 
> level, then I don't believe there could be what are normally called 
thoughts - 
> it would have to be just somesort of unconscious processing. But 
even that is 
> probably due to volition that occured when there *was* 
consciousness. After 
> all, when do we wake up having discovered something? Usually when 
having intently 
> thought about it (prior to going to sleep) with the purpose of 
obtaining a 
> solution.

A: Very interesting. But I am trying to marry this new 
scientific "fact" with the Abhidhammic mind-moment theory and see if 
it fits. Accordingly, even when we sleep, there has to be citta and 
cetasikas (always including cetana). What is different, then, 
between sleeping and waking mind-moments? It seems that when we are 
awake, there is much conceptual thinking about "what we are doing". 
During sleep, this thinking is absent/minimal. And yet volition is 
still at work as one of the King's retinue.
You say that the volition may come from those waking moments when, 
for example, we were working on the problem at hand. Yes, but there 
is only one present mind-moment conditioned by the previous one and 
the marking function of sanna. Given that we can't really work out 
precisely what conditions are at work and how they affect the 
cetasikas,we simply can't predict (or direct) the conditionality 
process. Sometimes that makes us feel helpless. Sometimes it makes 
us feel free. I know what you mean when you suggest we 
can "influence" the process but when I think along those lines, I 
sometimes think I am treating cetana as a "self" (thinking "that 
volition is me and mine"). Therein lies the danger, methinks.

You wrote:
As an example, when we are walking down a hall, reach 
> the end, and then turn around, before the turning there is an 
impulse to 
> turn. We are almost never aware of that impulse, but it is there.

A: I don't want to make too much of this issue. I am reminded of 
what Stephen Jay Gould used to say about evolution i.e. that it is 
both fact and theory - fact, because we know it occurs, and theory, 
because we don't know exactly how it occurs. Similarly, here, I 
think we both take volition as fact, but differ in our understanding 
of how it operates.
I think there is some benefit to be gained by taking another Stephen 
Jay Gould angle. The creationists used to point to the perfection of 
living beings as an argument for creationism. Look at the beautiful 
hummingbird with its bill that fits precisely into the flower that it 
feeds upon. How could that perfection be the product of a haphazard 
process like evolution? Surely it is the work of a perfect designer 
god! Gould always answered this by saying well and good. But the 
creationists must also acknowledge and explain the rank clumsiness of 
some animals' adaptations eg the panda's thumb - a very poor 
adaptation used by the panda to hold bamboo while chewing it. The 
panda's thumb would not win any design awards!
Here, Howard, it's well and good to point to these volitional 
impulses that are, lo and behold, followed by the intended behaviour. 
We walk down a hall and intend to turn around and, lo and behold, we 
do turn around. But we must also deal with the volitional impulses 
that are NOT followed through. To my mind, it is these impulses that 
expose conditionality at work. It is these impulses that demonstrate 
that there is much more to the equation than "intention precedes 
action" therefore one needs to bring on (force) intention and Voila! 
That's not your view, I know. All I am saying is that I think it 
vital that we have a sense of dealing with a very complex phenomenon 
where the illusion of "self" is very potent.

You wrote:
As I see no-control on this list, it appears frequently to me to a 
> doctrine of hopelessness, leading as it does to a belief that there 
is no point 
> to meditating! (In fact, there is no point to do anything at all, 
because 
> "Whatever arises will arise when the conditions for it to arise are 
present," 
> ignoring entirely that volitional personal actions are among the 
needed 
> conditions.)

A: Well, Howard, I will playfully accuse you of "boxing at shadows" 
here. Surely the other side of this "no control" viewpoint is that, 
if the conditions arise for someone to meditate, they will meditate. 
I don't have a problem with that at all. The caution is one that 
applies to us all - beware the creeping illusion of "self"!
Best wishes
Andrew
	
29989

From: Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hi Howard

> Howard:
> Ken, a simple question: Can you, right now, bring a melody to
mind? Of course you can. You can do that, Ken! A volition arises
(conditioned by reading what I wrote, and possibly
> by desire, and any number of other things), and it has an effect.
This is "control", Ken. This is a story, Ken - a little piece of 
theory. But you can stand up right now, and then sit down. And that
is reality!> and body sense cittas , then this is what I called
samadhi as.

k: I personally think, that this personal believe that we can
control what we talk is still under the guise of self. A self will
always try to reassert itself, that it is in control. When we try to
control it, to me this would mean we are adding wood to fire. 
Understanding of anatta should start from the understanding of anatta
itself and from there we developed understanding. To me, my personal
believe, we cannot start from the understanding of there is a self
that can control to develop understanding of anatta, bc they are not
compatible. I think the the correct premise to start with
developing is very important. I dont think you will buy my argument,
its ok. Everyone got its own cup of aggregates ;-).

Ken O















	
29990

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control

 	
Hello KenO and Howard, and all,

This "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self" was 
something I briefly tried to bring up in Bangkok.
People said they had heard of the expression, but moved on to other 
things. There was a bit of a back log of questions. :-) Wouldn't it 
be possible to start with the idea of a self who could meditate and 
make states arise, and slowly move away from it.
It still feels pretty helpless not to have a method. Meditating is 
so satisfying - one is DOING something.

metta and peace,
Christine
---The trouble is that you think you have time ---

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong <ashkenn2k@y...> 
wrote:
> Hi Howard
> 
> > Howard:
> > Ken, a simple question: Can you, right now, bring a melody to
> mind? Of course you can. You can do that, Ken! A volition arises
> (conditioned by reading what I wrote, and possibly
> > by desire, and any number of other things), and it has an effect.
> This is "control", Ken. This is a story, Ken - a little piece of 
> theory. But you can stand up right now, and then sit down. And that
> is reality!> and body sense cittas , then this is what I called
> samadhi as.
> 
> k: I personally think, that this personal believe that we can
> control what we talk is still under the guise of self. A self will
> always try to reassert itself, that it is in control. When we try 
to
> control it, to me this would mean we are adding wood to fire. 
> Understanding of anatta should start from the understanding of 
anatta
> itself and from there we developed understanding. To me, my 
personal
> believe, we cannot start from the understanding of there is a self
> that can control to develop understanding of anatta, bc they are not
> compatible. I think the the correct premise to start with
> developing is very important. I dont think you will buy my 
argument,
> its ok. Everyone got its own cup of aggregates ;-).
> 
> Ken O
	
29991

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:44pm
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi James,

OK, I now see my mistake and vaguely recall another instant in which 
you had to clarify the same point to another member. However when 
you keep insisting on the need for formal meditation, I have to ask, 
why? If it is not about concentration, is it about `focused 
activity'? If not, then what? Anyway, I'll leave this topic for 
another post. 

And before I proceed I would like to thank you for your efforts in 
finding and providing the Sutta quotes in your post following this 
one. I don't recall ever reading this before. And I have some 
comments which I will make here as well.

James: Apology accepted. This part was extremely important to the 
> meaning and personally I found it to be more than `overstatment', 
I 
> found it to be a complete misrepresentation. For the record: I 
> believe that all factors of the Eightfold Path are equally 
> important. No one single factor is more important than the 
others. 
> Of course the path begins with Right View but Right View isn't 
more 
> important than the other factors. They are all mutually 
supportive…
> and no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that any 
> different. 

Sukin:
When do they mutually support each other? When they arise together, 
no? Otherwise how can one be said to be supporting the other? I 
think you will agree that only Satipatthana leads to the goal. And 
you have probably heard about the distinction between the mundane 
path factors and the supramundane ones. A moment of satipatthana can 
be equated as the development of the mundane path i.e. five of the 
eight path factors. These five factors however have to arise 
together, if not, then there is no development of the kind which 
makes up the practice of the Buddha's path. 
There are other kinds of kusala that can be practiced and developed, 
namely Dana, Sila and Samatha. And all kinds of kusala are 
supportive to one's accumulations and does involve a particular kind 
of panna. These practices however, no matter how much practiced and 
the fruits accumulated, does not in and of themselves lead to wisdom 
of the Buddha's kind. They can lead to Jesus, Shankara, Lao Tzu, 
Rumi and so on, but never to Buddha. As I tried to express in my 
other post, the objects being different. A change of perspective is 
needed and what causes this is Right View, starting with the 
intellectual level and which only the Buddha can teach. 

So Rt. View it seems, must be the starting point and on till the 
end. Without Rt. View, what would any practice of concentration be? 
Michael is partly right in concluding that `thinking in paramattha 
terms' lead to not seeing any need to meditate. Yes, if the only 
reality that matters and which can be known is this moment right 
now, then one feels disinclined to think in terms of some 
conventional activity which says nothing about the mental factors 
being developed. However this is not all, there is always running in 
parallel, consideration about conditionality. This moment is 
conditioned, is it by ignorance, or greed, or wisdom…? And more, *it 
has already fallen away *, so no need to dwell on anything. Is this 
being fixated by the concept of sabhava us folks who believe in 
it?! ;-) Not knowing dhammas and their characteristics (sabhava), 
ignorance takes hold and no matter how much we think and talk about 
dependent origination, the problem is not solved. Thinking beyond 
the present experience in fact conditions more thinking, and this 
can lead to papanca, so much so the characteristic of dhammas that 
appear right now will be ignored, having given preference to an idea 
about conditionality which is in fact the product of thinking. Yet 
we say that ignorance conditions sankhara, what is that ignorance if 
it is not that which can be known now and of which we continually 
deny as having a particular nature?! (Sorry to change topic a bit 
James.) 

James:
Sukin, if you don't want to practice meditation 
> (vipassana or jhana) then just admit that you are not at a point 
in 
> your life where you want to practice it. Just admit that you are 
not 
> fully practicing the Eightfold Path. Don't lie to yourself and 
> others that `Right Concentration' can be practiced at anytime, 
> anywhere, without formal practice. 

Sukin:
Just for the record, I decided to attend my first 10 day retreat 
when my second son was two months old. Though it was not easy, 
considering that my wife had never before been alone, and now with 
two kids. I debated with myself and came to the conclusion that 
there would always be one excuse or the other, and if I did not do 
it now with the present level of motivation, then it might never 
happen. Then 4 or so months later, going to India with my family 
instead of relaxing and enjoying with them, I took the opportunity 
to attend my second retreat, knowing that she and the kids can stay 
with her parents

It was three months later that I found DSG and K. Sujin. Meanwhile 
however, I was so enthusiastic about the idea of meditation, that I 
started buying and distributing books and tapes to all my friends. I 
even had the romantic idea that each family should have at least one 
person who meditates and held the image that I would teach my kids 
to do the same from when they are still young (Nightmare!! Thinking 
about it now). 

It took me a few weeks before I gave up meditation after joining 
DSG. This was not because I was influenced by any argument against 
it, nor was it because I suddenly felt lazy. But I started to 
understand the difference between concept and reality. How could I 
pay attention to an object which was infused so much with my 
personal history and expect it to lead me to understand the way 
things are!? I just couldn't continue meditation. 

I admit though that I am `not fully practicing the Eightfold Path'. 
But could I just make up my mind to do so? Do you? How? 
I never said that Rt. Concentration can be practiced anytime, I 
never think about it. However I do see the rightness and wrongness 
of concentration differently from you, I think. You seem to think it 
in terms of `strength' and penetrative power. I think that it is a 
matter of object. If the object is a pannatti, then it is wrong, if 
it is a paramattha dhamma, then it is right. In between there are 
variations of both. And what determines what the object will be? 
Sati and panna! So we come back to Rt. View again. And how are these 
two developed? Through increase in familiarity with experience, 
guided by the understanding of what is and is not the object of sati 
and panna. 

James:
That is just wishful thinking—it 
> isn't what the Buddha taught. If you accept what the Buddha 
taught 
> you should accept everything, not just what you want to accept.

Sukin:
I don't just accept things out of experience or that it makes sense 
to me, but I have a degree of `blind' faith too. So no, I don't 
judge any part of the teachings as wrong or as irrelevant. 

James:
> James: Yes, I did say that jhana meditation is more important than 
> discussion in this group. I don't think that discussion in this 
> group is a part of the Eightfold Path. As a consequence of 
> discussion, I may study the texts and reflect on the Buddha's 
> teaching, and that is a factor of the Eighfold Path, but not the 
> discussion itself. The Buddha preferred not talking over 
talking. 
> He often praised the quality of silence. It would be better to 
> silently reflect than to clash and argue views.

Sukin:
As a conventional activity, I think study of the texts is good, but 
I consider discussions with wise friends far more important. We can 
discuss this elsewhere. In any case, I think it is important to 
understand that the conventional activity of studying or discussing 
is not the point. It is the understanding (panna as a mental factor) 
conditioned in the present moment and which accumulates and is 
passed on from citta to citta which is the focus. Otherwise we may 
be inclined to think in terms of the importance of the activity, 
instead of focusing on getting the facts right. 
But I do agree that discussions can involve lots of akusala.

> Sukin: With regard to the other statement you object to, I can't 
> prove it. Sorry. But I have also not heard of any other view as 
fact. 
> If you feel like it, you can provide proof that the Buddha *did* 
> attain enlightenment as a consequence of jhana.
> 
> James: When I get home I will look up the sutta from my printed 
> version (the entire version isn't available online) and I will 
write 
> out a post explaining. But, again, you are doing the exact same 
> thing that you did before: You are claiming that I must prove a 
> position that I haven't made. I haven't made the position that 
the 
> Buddha attained enlightenment by jhana ALONE; I have said that it 
was 
> a crucial factor, along with other factors (including Panna). 
Again, 
> as Howard has stated before about this form of argumentation, you 
> have set up a `Straw Man' argument, a fake representation of my 
> position, and expect me to respond. I am not going to argue what 
I 
> haven't stated.

Sukin:
Sorry for setting up the `Straw Man', but I don't promise that it 
will not happen again. I do have difficulty getting together the 
facts; I think it got to do with defective sanna and manasikara ;-). 
With regard to the description of the Buddha's mind process you 
quoted in the other post,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29973

I think as you also have noted, the Buddha was able to go as far as 
he did, because of the accumulated *panna*. He did use Jhana 
as `base', but it was not the jhana factors which was involved in 
the `detachment' process which led to final liberation. It was panna 
which saw in each step, conditionality. 
I must admit though that I am quite stupid when it comes to reading 
and understanding suttas. So I await yours or others' 
interpretation. :-) 

This is already unnecessarily long, so I'll end here.

With metta,
Sukin.
	
29992

From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula <sukinder@k...> 
Date: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Howard,

I don't have the time right now. So I hope you don't mind if I 
answer to this later on?!

Metta,
Sukin

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Sukin -
> 
> &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I 
will reply to a ffew parts of this 
> post in context. At the end I will copy material given in two 
suttas in the 
> Anguttara Nikaya which I sent to DSG (to Jon) a couple years ago, 
and which 
> indicate the importance of concentration.
	
29993

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: Control || No Control

 	
Hi Andrew (and Ken O, Howard),

Andrew: I know what you mean when you suggest we can "influence" the 
process but when I think along those lines, I sometimes think I am 
treating cetana as a "self" (thinking "that volition is me and 
mine"). Therein lies the danger, methinks… Similarly, here, I think 
we both take volition as fact, but differ in our understanding of how 
it operates.

James: Let's look at what the Buddha taught about volition. AN 
84 "Volition":

Monks, when there is the body, there arise in oneself pleasure and 
pain caused by bodily volition. When there is speech, there arise in 
oneself pleasure and pain caused by verbal volition. When there is 
mind, there arise in oneself pleasure and pain caused by mental 
volition. And all this is conditioned by ignorance.

Monks, either on one's own accord one generates that bodily 
volitional formation whereby pleasure and pain arise in oneself; or 
one does so when induced by others. Either clearly knowing one 
generates that bodily volitional formation whereby pleasure and pain 
arise in oneself; or one does so not clearly knowing.

Either on one's own accord one generates that verbal volitional 
formation whereby pleasure and pain arise in oneself; or one does so 
when induced by others. Either clearly knowing one generates that 
verbal volitional formation whereby pleasure and pain arise in 
oneself; or one does so not clearly knowing.

Monks, either on one's own accord one generates that mental 
volitional formation whereby pleasure and pain arise in oneself; or 
one does so when induced by others. Either clearly knowing one 
generates that mental volitional formation whereby pleasure and pain 
arise in oneself; or one does so not clearly knowing.

In all these states, monks, ignorance is involved. But with the 
complete fading away and cessation of ignorance, there is no longer 
that body, speech or mind conditioned by which pleasure and pain may 
arise in oneself. There is no longer a field, a site, a base or a 
foundation conditioned which pleasure and pain may arise in oneself."

James: So, according to the Buddha, body-speech-mind volition is 
conditioned either by oneself or by others, until there is 
enlightenment and then there is no more conditioning. How can it be 
that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? As I 
have been explaining, that is because the Buddha didn't teach `there 
is no self', he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to 
attain liberation. 

Metta, James
	
29994

From: Eznir <eznir2003@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:21am
Subject: Re: Direct Experienc encore

 	
Dear Bhante,

Sorry for the delay in replying. Thankyou for your response. Would 
like to hear your comments on my posting regarding "Namarupa - An 
Illustration".

Metta

eznir

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita 
<bhikkhu_samahita@y...> wrote:
> 
> All yours in the Dhamma.
> Peace is Ease.
> Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/
	
29995

From: Eznir <eznir2003@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:23am
Subject: Namarupa - An Illustration

 	
Dear Friends!,

Namarupa - An Illustration

Say there are two things, (1) a piece of cake and (2) a lump of 
insecticide. They are of matter(rúpa) and hence has the 4 great 
elements, viz., element of extension, cohesion, motion and 
maturization.

Now, one cannot talk of these two things if not for their presence. 
For were they to be not present, there would be nothing to talk of! 
The presence of A thing is therefore the consciousness(viññána) of 
The thing.

So, in reality, all we have is the 4 great elements (and space) and 
consciousness. 

Therefore there is nothing more one could speak of, OF these two 
things, unless, of course, one would want to speak ABOUT these two 
things. Rúpa and viññána, as ultimate realities, certainly do not 
have the expressions with which one could say something about these 
two things. Viññána is the mere presence of the things and rúpa mere 
substance or form of its presence. In a world of concepts Náma & Rúpa 
together with viññána is necessary to conceive things. Náma carries 
the description of the things and so one conceives!

The two things have still to be identified as "a piece of cake" 
and "a bottle of insecticides". But why as "a piece of cake" and "a 
bottle of insecticides"? Why not as some other things? They cannot 
be. Because the person who created them, designed it with a purpose 
in his mind. That is why a table is used as a table and not as a 
stool to sit on. Though the possibility of it being used as a stool 
or as a ladder to reach something, depends on the circumstances one 
is placed in when one sights a table. Primarily therefore, any 
conceptualized thing has an organic unity which points to the 
function it has been designed for.

This designation of the thing is learnt over time and serves as the 
designation-contact of a thing. The Thing itself as matter, has a 
resistance or inertia, which serves as a resistance-contact which 
impinges on our senses and makes its presence. These two types of 
contact, coincides to give a thing its Name(náma).

This is clear if one observes a child, placed near these two things. 
He would not know their difference, and when he grabs either, would 
put his hand in the mouth! The fact that he grabs the things denotes 
resistance-contact, and by putting his hand in the mouth, shows 
knowledge of what they are is not existant in him. But curiosity of 
their possibilities is there.

The designation of a thing that is learnt over time accounts for the 
Sankhãrã(mental fabrications) of a person. If a Thing is rightly 
learnt that would constitute Right Knowledge and Right Deliverance 
for that person. Such an individual is an Arahat, who sees things as 
they are, as just these six elements(4 maha-butas, space & 
consciousness), and 'his'consciousness is 'anidassana', not 
indicating to a thing as 'mine', 'I am' or 'myself' (craving, conceit 
or views).

All those below an Arahat, has these imperfections to some degree. 
Therefore, depending on the stage of their mental developement, they 
would designate things ranging from 'table', 'house', 'car'etc. to 
complex things as 'this is a wonderful evening for a 
stroll', 'Valentine's day!' etc. etc. apart from those sankhárás of a 
contemplative such as 'I am now abiding in the 4th jhana', 'So that 
is how things are impermanent!' and all those skillful Dhammas needed 
to fabricate the 8-fold path. And all of these Dhammas, once they 
have served their purpose, is left behind when realizing Arahatship!

Note also that the difference in these two things is not in the 
things in itself nor in the consciousness but in the mental 
fabrications that the consciousness is made of. Rúpa is rúpa, the 4-
great elements. It is our mental fabrications that construct various 
stories about the things we cognize! 

Any comments and queries?

Metta

eznir
	
29996

From:   buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:38am
Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi Sukin,

Sukin: However when you keep insisting on the need for formal 
meditation, I have to ask, why? If it is not about concentration, is 
it about `focused activity'? If not, then what? Anyway, I'll leave 
this topic for another post.

James: Why leave it for another post? Your posts are usually a 
cornucopia of various topics! ;-)) (so much so that I am not capable 
or willing to address them all; I hope you will understand). 
Meditation IS about concentration, but concentration isn't always of 
just one nature. The mind is a very complex process and therefore 
meditation practice cannot be easily defined. No matter what 
definition I give there is always going to be: `But what about 
this…' `But what about this…' `But what about this…' etc. The Buddha 
spent forty years explaining the process of the mind to his monks and 
didn't cease until his parinibbana…and even then there were monks who 
wanted him to stick around and explain it more! ;-). Even with that 
said I am going to give you a very simple, easy to understand 
explanation for why meditation practice is important: Concentration 
rids the mind of defilements. The mind, when left on its own, 
wanders all over the place and gets itself into a lot of trouble. 
Even if you locked yourself in a room for your entire life, the mind 
would still wander into sensual thoughts/fantasies, ill will, 
delusion, etc. Concentration practice is the only thing which will 
stop the mind from doing this. If you stop the mind from wandering 
around and bring it continually back to one object, it ceases to get 
into trouble and accumulate karma. It doesn't really matter a great 
deal what this one object is, but a neutral object is best. The 
object isn't important; it is bringing the mind back continually back 
to that object that cleans the mind (I find the sensation of the 
breath to be the best object for the simple reasons that it is always 
present, it doesn't require outside props [like other kasinas: 
colors, elements, etc.], and it is neutral.). Ajahn Lee uses an 
analogy to explain this process which I really like: The 
concentration object is like a stone and mental defilements are like 
grass. If you let the grass grow on its own it will turn into a mess 
and a virtual jungle! But if you put a stone on top of the grass and 
don't move that stone, no grass will grow underneath. This is why 
concentration practice is important. But, the roots of the grass 
need to be destroyed or the grass will start growing again each time 
the stone is removed (a person can't meditate forever!); this is 
where insight/panna plays a crucial role. Vipassana meditation tried 
to get rid of the roots while the grass is still growing. For some 
people this works but I have found, after years of practice, that for 
me it doesn't. This is why I have switched to Jhana meditation so 
that I can lessen the defilements in my mind much more before I try 
to get to the roots.

Sukin: When do they mutually support each other? When they arise 
together, no? Otherwise how can one be said to be supporting the 
other?

James: You are basically asking me to explain all of Buddhism. That 
isn't very practical for me to attempt in this forum.

Sukin: I think you will agree that only Satipatthana leads to the 
goal.

James: Why would you think that? I haven't been brainwashed by K. 
Sujin (not yet anyway…knock on wood! ;-)). There are A LOT more 
suttas than the Satipatthana Sutta; Buddhism isn't as simplistic as 
you are implying.

Sukin: And you have probably heard about the distinction between the 
mundane path factors and the supramundane ones. A moment of 
satipatthana can be equated as the development of the mundane path 
i.e. five of the eight path factors. These five factors however have 
to arise together, if not, then there is no development of the kind 
which
makes up the practice of the Buddha's path.

James: Blah, Blah, Blah… To me you are talking gibberish. As far as 
I know, the Buddha didn't teach `path factors', he taught the Noble 
Eightfold Path. This is a theory concocted by stringing several 
commentaries together, cross referencing, and creating a nice little 
package. It sounds impressive and authoritative but I think it is 
predominately nonsense. It may look like Buddhism, it may smell like 
Buddhism, but it aint Buddhism. ;-))

Sukin: So Rt. View it seems, must be the starting point and on till 
the
end. Without Rt. View, what would any practice of concentration be?

James: Of course there must be Right View. I haven't stated 
otherwise. (of course I am speaking of the Buddha's Right View, not 
Rt View according to K. Sujin or Buddhaghosa). Concentration without 
Right View is just a suppression of the defilements, not their 
elimination. The result would be rebirth in a deva realm until that 
karma is expired and then rebirth in an animal or hell realm unless 
one is a Noble Disciple of the Buddha (Sotapanna?) and then there 
would be eventual enlightenment. The Buddha explains this in AN 
77 "The Jhanas and Rebirth" (no available online, the wrong sutta is 
at accesstoinsight in this spot, so if you want me to type it out let 
me know and I will post it in a different post).

Sukin: I was so enthusiastic about the idea of meditation, that I
started buying and distributing books and tapes to all my friends. I
even had the romantic idea that each family should have at least one
person who meditates and held the image that I would teach my kids
to do the same from when they are still young (Nightmare!! Thinking
about it now).

James: This is a natural part of the meditation process, most 
everyone goes through it, no big deal. I wrote a post about it 
titled "The Ups and Downs of Meditation".

Sukin: It took me a few weeks before I gave up meditation after 
joining
DSG. This was not because I was influenced by any argument against
it, nor was it because I suddenly felt lazy. But I started to
understand the difference between concept and reality. How could I
pay attention to an object which was infused so much with my
personal history and expect it to lead me to understand the way
things are!? I just couldn't continue meditation.

James: As I explain earlier in this post, the object of the 
meditation isn't the important thing. You had a misunderstanding of 
the purpose of meditation and jumped to the wrong conclusions. 
Hopefully someday you will return to the practice, but that will be 
up to you.

Sukin: I admit though that I am `not fully practicing the Eightfold 
Path'. But could I just make up my mind to do so? Do you? How?

James: Well, I try to follow the Eightfold Path as much as my defiled 
mind will allow me! ;-)) How do I do it? I monitor and adjust, just 
like I do everything else in life. What's the big deal?

Sukin: You seem to think it in terms of `strength' and penetrative 
power. I think that it is a matter of object.

James: Well, then stop thinking of it in terms of object. The object 
is not the important thing. I really do hope I have cleared up this 
misunderstanding for you.

Sukin: If the object is a pannatti, then it is wrong, if it is a 
paramattha dhamma, then it is right.

James: Actually I agree with you here, but we are starting to get 
into the area of vipassana meditation. Let's just stay with jhana 
meditation for this post.

Sukin: I think as you also have noted, the Buddha was able to go as 
far as he did, because of the accumulated *panna*. He did use Jhana
as `base', but it was not the jhana factors which was involved in
the `detachment' process which led to final liberation. It was panna
which saw in each step, conditionality.

James: Right!! I am glad that you now understand. It takes both 
panna and jhana/vipassana to reach enlightenment (for most people).

Sukin: This is already unnecessarily long, so I'll end here.

James: My reply is also. If you respond, please don't respond in a 
manner to proliferate any of the issues I have raised in this post. 
Try to narrow and focus.

Metta, James
	
29997

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:03am
Subject: cult and guru.

 	
Hi James,
thanks, appreciating your post which Sarah and Jon handed to me in Bgk. I
thought of transferring your message to the right address! A. Sujin
answered: <It is completely gone.>
Nina.
	
29998

From: nina van gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:03am
Subject: bodily intimation, 1

 	
Hi Larry and friends,
I came back from Bgk about an hour ago.
I post a few sections of my Rupas, as an introduction to this subject we
shall study now in the Vis., namely: bodily intimation and verbal
intimation. 

Intimation through Body and Speech

Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa. We look different when
we laugh, when we cry, when we are angry or when we are generous. Then we
can notice that citta produces rúpa.
Bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti) and speech intimation (vacíviññatti) are
two kinds of rúpa, originated by citta. They are not produced by the other
three factors that can produce rúpa, by kamma, temperature or nutrition.
As to bodily intimation, this is movement of the body, of the limbs, facial
movement or gestures which display our intentions, be they wholesome or
unwholesome. The intention expressed through bodily intimation can be
understood by others, even by animals. Bodily intimation itself is rúpa, it
does not know anything. We read in the ³Dhammasangani² (§ 636):

What is that rúpa which is bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti)?
That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in
response to a thought, whether good or bad, or indeterminate (kiriyacitta),
on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or glances
around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the
making known, the state of having made known - this is that rúpa which
constitutes bodily intimation.

According to the ³Atthasåliní² (I, Book I, Part III, 82, 83), in the case of
bodily intimation citta produces the ³eight inseparable rúpas² 1 and among
them the element of air (wind, oscillation or motion) plays its specific
part in supporting the body and strengthen the postures. We read:

... But there is a certain peculiar, unique mode of change in the primaries
(four Great Elements) when set up by mind, through which, as a condition,
mobility (the element of wind or motion) is able to strengthen, support and
agitate the coexistent body. This is intimation. ... Because it is a
capacity of communicating, it is called ³intimation². What does it
communicate? A certain wish communicable by an act of the body. If anyone
stands in the path of the eye, raises his hands or feet, shakes his head or
brow, the movement of his hands, etc. are visible. Intimation, however, is
not so visible; it is only knowable by the mind. For one sees by the eye a
colour-surface moving by virtue of the change of position in hands, etc. 2.
But by reflecting on it as intimation, one knows it by
mind-door-consciousness, thus: ³I imagine that this man wishes me to do this
or that act.²...
(to be continued)
	
29999

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_samahita@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:20am
Subject: Buddha's Flowershop!

 	
Friends:

Take the price of Determination;
Go up to the Flower Shop;
Buy the Meditation Object;
Then Be freed in Freedom!

These are the flowers of meditation objects,
pointed out by the Blessed Buddha, who knows
who sees, completely & perfectly self-Enlightened:

The Perception of the Universal Flux of Transience.
The Perception of the Universal Dissatisfaction.
The Perception of the Universal Impersonality.
The Experience of all pervading Disgust.
The Experience of inherent yet silent Danger.
The Experience of relinquishing Detachment.
The Experience of slow Fading Away of Craving.
The Experience of the release in final Ending.
The Conviction of no Lasting delight in any World.
The Assurance of impermanence of all Constructions.
The quiet Awareness of Breathing in-&-out.
The Imagination of the swollen Corpse.
The Imagination of the rotting Corpse.
The Imagination of the cut up Corpse.
The Imagination of the gnawed Corpse.
The Imagination of the bleeding Corpse.
The Imagination of the axed Corpse.
The Imagination of the axed & scattered Corpse.
The Imagination of the worm infested Corpse.
The Imagination of the naked Skeleton.
The Cultivation of Universal Friendliness.
The Cultivation of Universal Sympathy.
The Cultivation of Universal Mutual Joy.
The Cultivation of Universal Equanimity.
The Remembrance of the inescapable Death.
The Remembrance of the Divine Beings.
The Remembrance of own Morality.
The Remembrance of own Generosity.
The Remembrance of The Three Jewels.
The Remembrance of Body as a mere Form of Organs.
The Absorption into solidity, fluidity, heat & motion.
The Absorption into Colours: blue, yellow, red & white.
The Absorption into the endless infinitude of Space.
The Absorption into the formless infinitude of Consciousness.
The Absorption into an empty vacuum of Voidness.
The Absorption into Neither-Perception-nor-Non-Perception.
The Absorption into ultimate Ceasing of Feeling & Perception.

Whoever is anxious to be freed from ageing, sickness & death,
he chooses one or more of these objects, which is the Support
for reaching: 
Freedom from Attachment.
Freedom from Aversion.
Freedom from Confusion.
Freedom from Conceit.
Freedom from Views.
Freedom from Pain.

So do he cross Samsara, the 4 Floods & reach the other shore: The very
City of Nibbana; stainless, dustless, birthless, ageless, deathless, fearless, pure, sublime, supreme, blissful, peaceful & absolutely stilled Calm.
Here his mind is set irreversibly & forever free in the state of the Arahat.



--oo0oo--



Source: 
The Questions of King Milinda. 
Milindapanha. [332-33] 1st cent. BC.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut045.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_s.htm
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132633 complete.
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=404217 abridgement. 






All yours in the Dhamma.
Constructions Decay & Vanish.
Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/