35600 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon I Hi, Eric Think I'll try splitting this in 2. I'll put the stuff most directly related to the Anapanasati Sutta in the next post. --- ericlonline wrote: ... > How do you know the commentators were > capable of understanding the suttas and > also of interpreting them? I thought the > Buddha did not set up a Dhamma heir btw? To answer your last question first, yes in agree that is so. However, during the time of the Buddha there were monks whom the Buddha endorsed as capable of explaining in detail what the Buddha had said in brief (in brief, because that was the correct level for those to whom the teaching was addressed). The commentaries are a compilation of this wisdom, and have the endorsement of the Great Councils. They are regarded as the generally accepted views of the arahants of the time, rather than the views of the individual compilers. > J> Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving > enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be > interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea. > > Mind is the forerunner. I am saying if the > sign you have placed in front of your mind > says 'I will not be enlightened in this lifetime' > then that is pretty much what you will acheive. > Doubt, it is one of the hindrances. Does not > just effect Anapanasati meditators. The only sign I'd have in front of my mind would be 'No expectations', and perhaps below it in smaller letters '(It begins now)' ;-)) I believe one cannot predict even the next moment of consciousness, let alone what may occur much later in life, so I certainly do not exclude the (theoretical) possibility of enlightenment for anyone. At the same time, I know that enlightenment can only occur when all the necessary conditions are in place, and I am not about to predict when that will be, since I don't think such speculation helps at all. > J> Well that is a literal translation of the term [mindfulness of breathing]. Could you give an > example of what you mean? > > Any of the steps is to be practiced > with mindfulness of breathing in and out. > That is, cognizance of the breath > helps to 'keep it real'. > It is very easy to be deluded. If one is > aware of the breath while practicing > then there is less chance to fall into a > daydream and overestimate what is happening. I'm glad to learn from the above that you do not see mindfulness of breathing as being itself 'the practice', which until now had been my impression from reading your posts, but as something that goes with the practice. What is your understanding of 'the practice'? In particular, is it something that can occur independent of mindfulness of breathing? > ... There is no superior > or inferior. Just those who practice and > those that don't. If only things were as simple as that! Unfortunately for us, among those who practice there are those who practice rightly and those who practice wrongly, and the consequences of wrong practice are worse than the consequences of no practice. Doesn't sound fair, I know, but ... Jon 35601 From: robmoult Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] I'm back... Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi RobM, > > Nice to see you back. I hope you had a great time. > > You make a claim in your work posted for review that tradition holds six > of the seven books of the Abhidhamma were recited at the first three > councils. > > The following is from a link to an article posted to DSG following a > recent get-together at Cooran. Among the attendees was Jill Jordan, who > co-authored the article. > > "Of the seven books, the first, second and seventh are the oldest and > were recited as they stand today at the Second Council of Arahants held > in the first quarter of the 4th Century B.C. The third, fourth and > sixth were completed by the time of the Third Council of Arahants in > about 250 B.C. and the fifth book (the Points of Controversy) dates from > the third Council." ===== A Designation of Human Types, tr. B.C. Law, 1922, 1992 ISBN 009 6 £11.00 Translation of . > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/Introduction.html > > Tradition may well hold what you repeat as being the history of the > Abhidhamma, but history reveals that much of this tradition originates > from 500 AD onwards ie upto 1000 years after the facts that the > tradition misrepresent. > > I believe that there is ample evidence to support the history of the > Abhidhamma as outlined in Jill's article, while the traditional view > seems to find its origins with Buddhaghosa's Atthasalini. It seems to be > Buddhaghosa as well who put forward the tales you repeat re the teaching > of the Abhidhamma to assemblies of devas and a mum in the Tusita heaven, > as well as repeating the teaching to Sariputa at the end of each day. > This to legitimize the claim that the Abhidhamma is Buddha-vacana, which > does, of course, not stand up to historical scrutiny. > > > You may, for the sake of clarity, wish to preface your work with the > proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional context, > not an historical one. ===== I will mention in my text that this is the traditional view (you are correct that it comes from the Atthasalini). As an aside, I view Buddhaghosa as primarily a compiler of much older commentaries rather than an author. I am certainly in agreement that the Dhammasangani, Vibhanga and Patthana are the most important of the Abhidhamma texts, however, I believe that most academics agree that the Puggalapannatti was the first written. Stylistically and content-wise, it is closest to the Suttas (much of it is taken verbatim from the Suttas). The PTS website describes the Puggalapannatti as "The fourth volume of the Abhidhamma-pitaka, although it appears to be the earliest of the Abhidhamma texts and contains many statements about the "person" (puggala) found elsewhere in the Sutta-pitaka.". Perhaps Jill is referring to the Matika (table of contents)? I would be interested in learning from her more about this point. Metta, Rob M :-) 35602 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon II Hi, Eric --- ericlonline wrote: ... > J> I have pasted at the end of this post the 2 tetrads we are > talking about.Do you find them easy to understand as they are? > > If you are trying to be a sculptor and > have never touched clay then it will be > hard to understand instructions about sculpting. > Make some stick figures and maybe a context > starts to spring out of your own 'playing' > that is capable of adding meaning to otherwise > meaningless words. Yes but the analogy is not appropriate to the task of developing understanding and overcoming wrong view. By definition, unless the 'practice' is correct from the outset, the result will simply be more wrong view, making the goal even more difficult to attain. I think it's more like, as someone (KenH, Andrew?) said, setting off having misread the map, and so taking oneself further away from the intended destination. > J> Are you saying that it definitely doesn't refer to jhanas? > > Jhana is not mentioned therefore > jhana is not necessary to begin > to practice. Well, jhana is not mentioned by name, but that of course does not mean it is not being referred to. (Just a point of correction here, too. According to the passage I quoted, it is only in the second and third tetrads (not the first) that jhana is referred to. So there is certainly no suggestion of jhana being 'necessary to begin' here.) > J> I'd be interested to hear your > explanation of these (and the other 2) tetrads. > > What do you want to know? I'm questioning whether the meaning of the second and third tetrads is as clear as you seem to suggest it is without outside assistance. So I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the following aspects (see passages set out at the end of this post): - as regards the second tetrad [19], what exactly is meant by 'rapture', 'pleasure' and 'mental fabrication', and what is the significance of this particular order of things. Likewise with the expressions 'sensitive to' mental fabrication and 'calming' mental fabrication; - as regards the third tetrad [20], what is meant by '*sensitive to* the mind', '*satisfying* the mind', '*steadying* the mind' and '*releasing* the mind', and what is the significance of this particular order? (And I hope you're not going to tell me that the answer can only be known by trying it ;-)). ... > J> Also, what do you understand by the reference in the > sutta to monks who were already devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out > breathing? > > You would have to ask the person who > spoke those words what their intentions > were. Anything beyond that is at best > an educated guess and also meaningless > for our aims. I think if we are going to give importance to certain passages in the sutta (such as the often-quoted passages at [15] to [17]), we should have regard to the whole of the sutta and not just to selected passages in isolation. ... > J> You'd have to tell me how to get to the first tetrad to begin > with, Eric ;-)). > > Sit down, shut up, stop theorizing and > stake your awareness as best you can > at the breath. A colourful paraphrase of the Buddha's words, Eric ;-)). I think you have in mind the passage from the Anapanasati Sutta beginning 'There is the case ..." (see just below these comments*). However, I don't think that passage should be read as an instruction to stop what we are doing now and do something else instead. Such a reading would not be consistent with the rest of the Tipitaka, especially the Satipatthana Sutta. Rather it should be read as setting the scene for the instruction that follows, that is to say, that what follows is for the person who fits that particular description. More to the point for you and me, Eric, is that at this very moment there is no wilderness, shade of an empty tree, or other similar environment. My present environment is ordinary daily life (writing a message at the computer), and yours I imagine is the same (reading my message at the computer). Indeed, these and other similar 'non-meditative' moments make up by far the majority of our life. Now surely the teachings have as much application to these as to any other moments. So why aren't we discussing what is bhavana ('practice', if you like) at times like this? *[17] "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. ... Dont let anyone get > in your way of this! Not even your > own naysaying, I can never do it > we are all doomed, doubtful > inclinations! ;-) I appreciate your concern for my spiritual development Eric, ;-)) but I have to say that if you think the path can be developed only under those particular circumstances (seated and silent, to paraphrase your paraphrase) then the Satipatthana Sutta was given in vain. My question to you would be, what about all the rest of the time? Jon From the Anapanasati Sutta: [19] "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. [20] "[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. 35603 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi, Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: ... > I think with the more frequent arising of an understanding of reality in > line with the Teachings, there will be a natural tendency towards a loss > of appetite for the world, which is not to be confused with an > increasing aversion to the world. Well put. As I see it, however, this 'loss of appetite for the world' is a lessening of clinging to sense-objects and of craving for rebirth, and this is something that occurs gradually and naturally as insight into the true nature of reality is developed. I would not equate it with, for example, moving towards a life of (conventional) seclusion; that, as I understand it, is something that may occur for a variety of reasons not necessarily connected with the development of insight into the true nature of reality. > I read the Suttas and Vinaya as being in promotion of the holy life to > end the round of rebirths, so a trend of unforced/unprompted > renunciation would be an indication of increasing understanding. While it's fair to say the holy life is promoted, we need to also consider whether it is given as an indispensable part of the path for all, and on that point I think the evidence clearly points to a "No" answer (for example, there are many instances of enlightenment occurring outside those particular circumstances). Jon 35604 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - ... Howard: I believe there are at least two senses to 'concept'. One of these is a) a kind of thought or mental construct, and the other is b) the alleged referent of the first. Jon: But what is (b) other than a thought or mental construct? The whole point is that there *is no* referent (and of course, no 'alleged referent' either), there is only the thought or mental construct of a referent. I think the most we can say is that some concepts represent the names of conventional objects and some concepts do not. But they are all thoughts or mental constructs. As I said in a previous post, it is not correct to talk about a dhammas/concepts dichotomy (although in discussion we no doubt do, speaking loosely). To do so seems to reify concepts. The message I get from the teachings (including the Abhidhamma) is that as far as this present moment of experience is concerned, there *are* only the dhammas that are the subject of the sutta references to khandhas, elements, sense bases, etc. Anything else perceived as 'being' is only supposed (i.e., mind constricted). Howard: Now, in case b), the sense is not of concept as idea, as a kind of mental event, but of concept as *referent* of an idea. So, there is the idea or perception of a tree - a mental event, and there is the alleged tree itself. ... Jon: You say: "there is the idea or perception of a tree - a mental event, and *there is the alleged tree itself*." There is no 'alleged tree' outside the idea or perception of a tree. Howard: The bottom line on all this, as I see it, is that there is more than one sense of 'concept', that all senses of it have some illusory aspects to them, but concepts are not entirely illusory in that they often have a directly experienced phenomenon (such as hardness or heat or an itch) as *intended* referent, and even when that is not so, they often codify networks of actual relations among directly experienced phenomena, and they serve as the means for us to grasp relations, to engage in thought, and to communicate with others. Jon: All concepts are, to use your terminology, a 'thought or mental construct'. They are mind-created, that is the definition of a concept. To say that there are different classes of soncept, or that some are less 'illusory' than others, is something of a distraction, I believe ;-)). The focus of the teachings is not concepts but dhammas. Jon 35605 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:58am Subject: Re: Signs of progress? (was, Anapanasati Sutta) Hi, Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: ... > All that you list above seems to me like good signs which I would be > in accord with. I would add that one might also develop a sense of > peace, or well-being, or subtle happiness not based on conditions, as > one moved towards greater unattachment and more refined states of > perception. I would think that if one continues to be miserable and > feel oppressed and reactive while practicing Buddhism for many years, > one might not be taking a skillful approach. I'm not sure about this, Rob. There are numerous references in the suttas to people who are sotapannas and who are still 'reactive'. As far as I'm aware, there is no certain link between the development of insight and a (perceived) decrease in the level of one's kilesas. This may seem strange at first, given that the goal is the eradication of all kilesas, but I think it is consistent with our observation that the nature and intensity of a person's set of kilesas changes over time anyway as one goes through life. Many people become more mellow as they get older, even without any understanding of the Dhamma, and a 'less reactive' test would give a false positive in such cases. I think a more reliable guide would be the level of one's wrong view over time, since it is this particular kind of kilesa that is eradicated at stream entry. Jon 35606 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: flipping off the moon Hi, Ben Thanks for this useful analysis of the various schools of thought. You make the point, I think, that there is not much to be gained from studying the views of these schools, and I very much agree with that. Would you care to share with us your own view of what is the development of insight, and the importance of jhana to that, as you understand the teachings of the Buddha? The questin of what is the 'wisdom of the middle way' is one we are all interested in. Jon --- Benjamin Nugent wrote: ... > Based on my mediocre knowledge of the abhidhamma and perhaps more > importantly, what streams of thought spawned from and alongside it > historically, it has become pertinent for me to be skeptical of both > sides > of the discussion. In so doing, I have realized what has been referred > to as > the position of no position.[1] It has been said that it is wrong view > to > hold that your view is the right view, for once "true" takes a stance, > "false" is bound to follow. Adherents of both the 'dry-insight' school > and > the 'just-sit' school tend to wobble on this point. Both admit that the > other is just another path to the goal at one time, and then emphasize > the > incorrectness of the other's [concept, philosophy, practice] at another > time; altogether marginalizing it to futility. > > But I see that these two extremes are not a reality for most of us, so > there > is no need to worry. The wisdom of the middle way still has time to > blossom > within us. We will realize that superior conceptual knowledge, no matter > what the subject, cannot sever the roots of greed, hatred, and aversion > any > more than can the deepest most formless states of absorption. It takes a > skillfull coordination of both. This skill [2] is our gift as human > beings. > Let us not waste it, for death is sooner than we think. > > Sabbe satta avera hontu abyapajjha hontu anigha hontu sukhi attanam > pariharantu, > > Ben 35607 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:35am Subject: Re: The rehearsal of the Co. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I remember that you mentioned texts about the Co. being also rehearsed at > the Great Councils. In the Pali list I was asked to write an intro to the Co > of the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta and mention the source. Please, could you help > me? Is it only in the Mahaava.msa? > Nina.in Dear Nina In the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse "The ancient commentary therof was sang By the First council, Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote With respect Robert 35608 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Annatta teaching Hi, Eric --- ericlonline wrote: > Hey Jon, > > > J:To my reading of the texts, there's no end to the pariyatti --> > > patipatti --> pativedha cycle until final enlightenment is > attained. > > > E: How many texts did the Arahants walk around with? > > J> Hmm. Can I reword that phrase and say 'To my understanding of the > teachings (meaning of course, the teachings as recorded)'? Again, the > arahants at the time of the Buddha had the actual words of the > Buddha very much in mind, and also the words of those senior monks > (Theras) who expounded on the teaching given by the Buddha. Today we > cannot listen to the Buddha himself. What is your idea of the next > best source? > > > Read and understand the advice given > to the Kalamas. [So some texts are OK, I see ;-)). I wonder how a sutta gets to qualify for the Eric seal of approval. jk] If I have read you correctly over our recent exchanges, Eric, you believe we should all rely mainly on our own intuitive perception of things as derived from or confirmed by our 'practice', with as little direct reference to the words of the teachings as possible. Have I got this right? To my way of thinking that approach is fraught with danger, in that one's intuitive views are likely to be wrong views. It is of the nature of wrong views that they are perceived as being right. In any event, if I recall correctly it is implicit in the advice given to the Kalamas that anything heard from a source other than the Buddha should be tested against the teachings as propounded by the Buddha. Can we be in a position to do this if we have not studied and considered the words of the Master? Is there a better source for those words than the Tipitaka? > ... Then sit down, shut up > and stake your awareness at your breath > until you have found your way and are > no longer deceived by words. Even your > own! I don't think the Buddha ever declared there to be a particular form of 'practice' to be undertaken by everyone. He did of course praise different activities or lifestyles which, for those who were suited to those activities or lifestyles, would be conducive to the development of the path, but he was not thereby 'setting' these for others to follow in the expectation of greater progress. In any event, I don't think there's anything in the Anapanasati Sutta about 'staking one's mindfulness to the breath'. The well-known passage from that sutta refers to a monk who sets mindfulness to the fore, and breathes in and out mindfully, but this is not the same thing as staking mindfulness to the breath, in my view. It simply describes a monk who is mindful in what he is doing, which in this case is samatha with breath as object. Jon [17] "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." 35609 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Joop, ... > I want to collect a lot more input so that the second edition is > ready for printing. > > Joop, I really appreciate your comments and I welcome any further > input you may have. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Rob I will reacts on the (details of) this reaction later. But first something about what Herman said. (historical versus traditional) A funny question of Herman "wish to preface your work with the proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional context, not an historical one." Funny for two reasons: - I don't know if another preface should change the content of the Introduction. - There are already many traditional and many historical Introduction. What we need more is a modern one. Of course a modern Introduction is an interpretation, it will not follow hundred procent the Theravada orthodoxy. In such an introduction can of parts of the Abhidhamma to be said that they can better be understood methaphorically and not literally (for example about the 31 Planes that in my opinion are concepts and not made of paramattha's). And more attention can be paid to the question how the (in my eyes very valuable) content of the Abhidhamma can be combined with the results of modern natural sciences. I think that combination is possible and is important for the role it can play in the future. It is possible when we understand better what in fact has be meant with 'rupa'. We can do this by understanding better the very important remakr of Ven. Nyanaponika in his "Abhidhamma Studies": ".. in wat sense can the Abhidhamma be called a philosophy? Let us take a rough division of philosophy in phenomenology and ontology, and briefly define them als follows: Phenomenology deals, as the name implies, with 'phenomena', that is, with the world of internal and external experiences. Ontology, or metaphysiscs, inquires into the existence and nature of an essence, or ultimate principle, underlying the phenomenal world. … The Abhidhamma doubtlessly belongs to the first of these two divisions of philosophy, that is to phenomenology. Even that fundamental Abhidhamma term dhamma, which includes corporeal as well as mental 'things', may well be rendered by 'phenomena' …" (p. 19/20) It should be noted that Bhikkhu Bodhi in his introduction to the book of Ven. Nyanaponika (fourth edition) shows himself more a ontologist: "If however, we understand ontology in a wider sense as the philosophical discipline concerned with determining what realyy exists, with discriminating between the real and the apparent, then we could justly claim that the Abhidhamma is build upon an ontological vision." ( p. XVI). I prefer Nyanaponika's words. Rupa in this phenomenological frame of reference should not be translated as "matter" but as "material qualities", as "matter as experienced by a human (and maybe also by a not-human) being". "Apo" is not "earth" but the way a human being experiences "gravity". etc. But perhaps that's quite another introduction. I look forward to your response. Metta Joop 35610 From: Benjamin Nugent Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:45am Subject: Re: flippin' off the moon Oh dear, all I have is babble... Hi Duncan, Ideas feed off one another. There is no butting in. Only more ideas. Yours therefore, are very welcome. I am familiar with the analogy, and was hoping those reading my post were as well, however thank you for the clarification. I don't disagree with Jon's or your interpretation of this particular analogy. I would phrase it a little differently in saying that the teachings are the finger and every moment of experience is the moon. Action alone is nothing without intention to guide it. Intention is lead by either knowledge or habit. Meditative practice (a type of action) accomplishes nothing - and can lead to further hinderances, without proper study. However, study alone leads to dead concepts and a sea of wrong views unsubstantiated by experience. It is only through the skillfull combination of the two that one is lead to the perfection of humanity realized and declared by the Buddha as the fruition of virtue, concentration, and discernment. This is the way to heaven. It does not however, lead one to nibanna. One of the manifold aspects of kamma, is the law that whatever is born is subject to decay and death. It is therefore that Nibbana, in order to be truly deathless, must be that which is uncaused, unborn, unconditioned. What this means on a very practical level is that there is nothing, no activity, no thought, no doctrine to understand, that will effectively bring about nibbana. There is no causual link from intentional acts (i.e. kamma) - wholesome or unwholesome - to that which is called unbinding. This includes the act of learning and studying as well as the act of developing meditative skills like concentration and mindfulness. This may be a little difficult to accept for some. Those who believe that they are practicing or studying for the 'result' of enlightenment are going to have a hard time with this fact. Don't get me wrong, this little obstacle doesn't marginalize or negate the value of Buddhist practice, nor its place in removing the fetters that bind us to becoming in the first place. In fact, it serves to strengthen one's faith (yes nori, faith) and resolve. For, even an intellectual understanding of kammic cause and effect is enough for a beginner to want to take heed of negative habit formations and develop virtuous ones in their stead. One reads for example, the Buddha's explanation of the formation of clinging or greed and then decides to be mindful of his or her own mental-material experiences - not just to see if the Buddha was telling the truth, but to really penetrate and know the reality behind the words for oneself. As stupidly simple as the comparison is, it's like knowing how to bake bread from a recipe's instructions and the actual baking of the cake. Knowledge leads and shapes our practice. But practice is needed to fully know. With love, Ben A few side notes: I would like to point out that making an argument is not merely deconstructing word-for-word, the other person's choice of phrasing an idea, for then you are only playing around with definitions and not really advancing the discussion with your own insights. As much as I would like to assume that everyone in this group sees through conceptual thought and penetrates to the reality behind an idea, I am not so naieve. I also agree with the view that any statement that begins with the word "I" is ipso facto false and therefore there is no need reply to this post condemning me to self-delusion. In short, don't cling to these words and I promise I won't either. In fact, I'll outright deny ever typing them. :-) Duncan wrote: -------- Hello Ben and Jon Sorry to butt in, but have been reading this dialogue and felt a need to comment. Indeed the 'finger pointing to the moon' is an old saying in Ch'an, or Zen, referring to the need not to take the appearance of truth as truth itself. In other words, Buddhism is the finger, not the moon. Enlightenment is the moon. The teacher's words are not moon but finger, regardless of whether one's teacher is Yun-Men or Chou-Chou or Buddha or Joe Bob Whoever, and strict adherence to the words instead of the reality to which they point is perhaps a fatal mistake. I have heard it said that ignorance is a sickness, and dispelling that sickness is the reason for practice. The teachings are medicine for the sickness. It seems to me that if a medicine cures your dis-ease, it was worthwhile, and if not, perhaps one needs to examine the way in which it was taken, and perhaps the medicine itself. I have had a long road to get to my limited understanding, and still have far to go, but I do understand that the Dhamma is proper medicine if administered correctly, and that it comes in many forms. Please disregard my babble and nonsense, but if there is anything useful in it, I am happy to have provided it. If I have misunderstood what the two of you were discussing, please delete this whole message. With metta and respect... Duncan -------- 35611 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:43am Subject: Help? I'm in dire need of help here. I'm letting this chance for spiritual growth slip, and by sitting at my computer reading Abhidharma and meditating for 15 or 30 minutes a day I am practising the path to the animal womb. I have a commentary on the four foundations of mindfulness, the third section is short and specifically says you need knowledge or understanding of Abhidharma to practise it. Otherwise, so far I can practise mindfulness of posture, feelings, and the four elements, working up to the repulsiveness of the body meditation. I am waiting (and will continue to wait) for a meditation session in which I acheive the concentration sign indicative of momentary concentration, the concentration needed to be aware of everything that happens in your psycho-physical aggregates from moment to moment. Even the Vissudhimagga says this is necessary. Access concentration would be even better. So basically I'm not sure that I'm reading the works put together by Nina on cita and cetasikas in a way that will effectively allow me to practise these four foundations of mindfulness in the proper fashion when the time comes. Sarah has told me that I shouldnt expect understanding to be great the first time around, but I wouldn't even say I'm studying the cetasikas, more like reading. I'm just unable to read it in an effective mode to put together some kind of understanding. I may or may not be able to recognize these citas and cetasikas in daily life, but I want to be assured that I can. I don't see any suggestions that are possible but despite the matter of fact tone of this post I am really in dire need of help here because I don't think things will be working out. Thanks -AL 35612 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? Hi Al, Just take it easy -- the problem is the desperation for particular results and what you write about concentration. It’s arising aleady at each moment. Forget about being aware of everything.....or trying to catch or recognize any special dhammas -- this kind of attachment won’t help at all. When you read, just read and relax. It’s ignorance most the time for us all and that’s OK. We all need a lot of patience on the path. Take a break and forget about any expectations of results or fears of unhappy rebirths. I’ll get back to some earlier comments of yours and maybe these tomorrow hopefully. Others may be able to assist too. Meanwhile, of course write more to us if it helps to put it on paper. Truly, your study and reflections are going very well -- we were just commenting on that today whilst reading your excel qus on the satipatthana/bagels thread. Hope you share the pix are able to spend a little more time with your sis if she pops round later. Metta, Sarah ======= --- Andrew Levin wrote: > I'm in dire need of help here. 35613 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Al, > > Just take it easy -- the problem is the desperation for particular results > and what you write about concentration. It's arising aleady at each > moment. Forget about being aware of everything.....or trying to catch or > recognize any special dhammas -- this kind of attachment won't help at > all. Sorry Sarah I beg to differ. IMO, awareness of all that's going on in the psycho-physical complex is key, hence the four foundations of mindfulness. Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though, but I still think, from what I've read, that that level of concentration is necessary to watch the rise & fall of phenomenon. When you read, just read and relax. It's ignorance most the time for > us all and that's OK. We all need a lot of patience on the path. > Alright, this I'm willing to defer to you on, I think some basic knowledge of the elements of cetasikas will suffice for now. > Take a break and forget about any expectations of results or fears of > unhappy rebirths. Why? Should I not fear the hellish torment I'm on path for?? That is what I am practising for, a rebirth in the lower realms. Somehow whatever I'm doing is mischeivous or wicked, maybe it's because I'm selfish, I don't know exactly, but that coupled with my ever-present illness does not have me in good spirits for even the near-term future. Only insight into why I'm wicked and reflection on my unwholesome actions will do any good. > I'll get back to some earlier comments of yours and maybe these tomorrow > hopefully. Others may be able to assist too. Meanwhile, of course write > more to us if it helps to put it on paper. > > Truly, your study and reflections are going very well -- we were just > commenting on that today whilst reading your excel qus on the > satipatthana/bagels thread. > > Hope you share the pix are able to spend a little more time with your sis > if she pops round later Thanks, Sarah, for your quick 'in the nick of time' reply. It's appreciated. 35614 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:51am Subject: Re: Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' Hallo Rob --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Joop, … > This is a draft, so I haven't added table of contents, index, > chapter numbering, etc. All of this will be in the final version. OK > … The idea of a spontaneous birth in the human realm answers the > question as to how the first human was born without a mother (i.e. > which came first; chicken or the egg?). This is one of the obscure > details that I included just to be technically accurate. To me it's too obscure (I prefer the evolutionary theory), perhaps you can add a footnote. > I am of the opinion that, in Buddhism, nama is much more important that rupa. I don't agree, is this an opinion or a quote from the Tipitaka ? > …I am curious, what other information about rupa would you include? Cf my message # 35609 about phenomenology, rupa and the natural sciences ! > > J: Page 66-81 are about the "31 planes of existence": too much pages. > I added this level of detail because it is a very popular topic in Dhamma talks. I think full of metta and karuna about the simple people who need such a mythology (=concepts); in modern Buddhism the role of it can diminish. > > J: Page 66 quotes the words "rupa-loka" and "arupa-loka" but not the > > important (from a soteriological point of view) fetters (samyojana's) > > nr 6 and 7: rupa-raga and arupa-raga. > Interesting point. I will consider adding in references to the > fetters as a driving force to rebirth in the rupa-loka and arupa- loka worlds. OK > I want to collect a lot more input so that the second edition is > ready for printing. > Joop, I really appreciate your comments and I welcome any further > input you may have. > Metta, Rob M :-) That will not be easy, I hope more members of the DSG will participate in the discussion first. I realise my comment are partly out the (orthodox) Theravada but it's my love for the core of the Dhamma and it's future that brings me to this opinions. Metta, Joop 35615 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? Hi Al, One more quick one -- you just happened to catch me.... --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Sorry Sarah I beg to differ. IMO, awareness of all that's going on in > the psycho-physical complex is key, hence the four foundations of > mindfulness. ... S: Just one reality -one nama or rupa at a time without any expectation about when or how often or how many...otherwise the expectations will prevent any sati arising. .... >Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though, but > I still think, from what I've read, that that level of concentration > is necessary to watch the rise & fall of phenomenon. ... S: The key is understanding, not concentration. There will be momentary concentration regardless. Forget about watching ‘the rise & fall of phenomenon’. Understanding has to know first in theory what namas and rupas are and then gradually sati will develop and be aware of one at a time, depending on the ‘right’ conditions. No watching, no special concentration. I’m glad you appreciate the ‘Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though’. How many aeons have’ we’ rolled round in ignorance in samsara? .... > Alright, this I'm willing to defer to you on, I think some basic > knowledge of the elements of cetasikas will suffice for now. .... S: good. It took me years to read ‘Cetasikas’ because originally it just came out in manuscript draft form - one chapter at a time which we gradually collated in sets. Trust me, there’s no hurry and if you’re getting desperate or over-intense over it or anything else, understand the mental states (no names necessary) and put the book down or stop your meditation or whatever. .... > > > Take a break and forget about any expectations of results or fears of > > unhappy rebirths. > > Why? Should I not fear the hellish torment I'm on path for?? ... S: Because such fear is harmful and is hurting rather than helping you on the way. .... >That is > what I am practising for, a rebirth in the lower realms. .... S: Al, this is just thinking only. We have no idea at all what past or present kamma will bring what result. Developing understanding now is the most beneficial. ... >Somehow > whatever I'm doing is mischeivous or wicked, maybe it's because I'm > selfish, I don't know exactly, but that coupled with my ever-present > illness does not have me in good spirits for even the near-term > future. .... S: Again this is just thinking with dosa (aversion). Cittas change so rapidly. Reflections on the Dhamma are certainly not ‘wicked’ and unwholesome cittas and selfishness are very common for us all. We’re all self-obsessed much of the day. Of course it’s always tough when we have any illness, but we’re here to help each other get through and overcome the real difficulties in samsara. Better to be in prison with wisdom than free with ignorance. ..... >Only insight into why I'm wicked and reflection on my > unwholesome actions will do any good. .... S: Understand that these are the briefest mental states (not ‘you’) that arise and fall away. In between are sense door cittas, bhavanga cittas and wholesome mental states such as now when you reflect wisely. Instead of looking into ‘why’, just accept and understand with detachment. Otherwise there’s just more aversion to ‘my wicked states’. .... > Thanks, Sarah, for your quick 'in the nick of time' reply. It's > appreciated. .... S: Anytime if you catch me;-) I’ll be away for a long weekend next week, but call out if you’re in trouble and someone will step in, I know. This is a very supportive group, I find and you can send out a ‘help’ call anytime. You don’t have to agree with what any of us say. Don’t be afraid to have a little fun today as well, Al......there can be awareness whilst listening to music, raiding the fridge, laughing with friends or taking a brisk walk too. Sometimes I smile at all the nonsensical and useless thinking too;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Switching off this time..... ====== 35616 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Help? Hi Andrew, Perhaps this is a good time to resolve something for yourself. I read your previous emails as expressing resentment at the authority that is being imposed on you from outside. Nothing wrong with that. Every human being needs to feel a sense of control in their life, and it sounds like you feel you have lost your autonomy. In this current post, your urgency comes through. You are desperately trying to achieve something, to avoid something, to control something. Now, you can take it from me, and if not from me, there would be any number of others in this group who will tell you the same, that Buddhism is a path that points to/leads to acceptance of things being just the way they are. I cannot do justice to this in a short paragraph, because with acceptance of the way things are, the way things are changes drastically. What might be important for you to resolve for the moment is whether you want to pursue a path at this time that will lead you to an ever-dwindling sense of self and control. I am saying this only because you are in a struggle (understandably so) to maintain yourself in the face of all those things you have no control over. You understand that you are not well. This is a valuable insight. There was a time in my life when I suffered from paranoid delusions coupled with visual and auditory hallucinations. (Some might reckon I'm still delusional :-)). I had a great doctor who prescribed me as much time as I needed to do nothing of any significance except for to get well. And it worked, and all it needed was time. I would encourage you to look at your current situation as an opportunity to let nature take its course and bring you back into balance. For the moment, trust those around you with the care for your well-being, make no decisions on your own, and leave your faith in the Buddha to do its work (without your constant help, thank you very much :-)). Nothing wrong with developing a bit more patience, is there? I wish you well Herman I'm in dire need of help here. Thanks -AL 35617 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] flippin' off the moon Hi, Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I cannot resist it, sorry :-) But this follows on from what I wrote to > Sarah a little while ago. And I'm sorry, I can't resist this: > Jon wrote > > I appreciate the confidence you obviously have in the teachings. We are > all of limited understanding, with a long way to go. > > =========== > > Where are we going? You'll have to ask Duncan, it was his comment in the first place ;-)) Jon [Actually, Herman, I don't see the connection you're making to the earlier post. If you care to elaborate I'll have a shot at answering. Jon] 35618 From: Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/22/2004 4:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: >Hi, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >> Hi, Ken - >... >Howard: > I believe there are at least two senses to 'concept'. One of these >is a) a kind of thought or mental construct, and the other is b) the >alleged referent of the first. > >Jon: >But what is (b) other than a thought or mental construct? The whole point >is that there *is no* referent (and of course, no 'alleged referent' >either), there is only the thought or mental construct of a referent. > >I think the most we can say is that some concepts represent the names of >conventional objects and some concepts do not. But they are all thoughts >or mental constructs. ------------------------------ Howard: Jon, that is why I wrote *alleged* referent. What is *intended* to be the referent is some "thing" of some sort. The concept of "hardness" has as its intended referent hardness, which is a paramattha dhamma. In that case, the thought is merely a thought, and its intended referent is something other than the thought, and is, in fact, a paramattha dhamma. The concept of "tree" has as its intended referent something only *thought* to exist. In that case, the intended referent is an imagined but nonexistent "external object," whereas the actual referent, unrealized as such, is an entire sequence of related thoughts and rupas. ----------------------------- >As I said in a previous post, it is not correct to talk about a >dhammas/concepts dichotomy (although in discussion we no doubt do, >speaking loosely). To do so seems to reify concepts. The message I get >from the teachings (including the Abhidhamma) is that as far as this >present moment of experience is concerned, there *are* only the dhammas >that are the subject of the sutta references to khandhas, elements, sense >bases, etc. Anything else perceived as 'being' is only supposed (i.e., >mind constricted). > >Howard: > Now, in case b), the sense is not of concept as idea, as a kind of >mental event, but of concept as *referent* of an idea. So, there is the >idea or perception of a tree - a mental event, and there is the alleged >tree itself. ... > >Jon: >You say: "there is the idea or perception of a tree - a mental event, and >*there is the alleged tree itself*." There is no 'alleged tree' outside >the idea or perception of a tree. ------------------------------ Howard: That's why I say "alleged" or "intended". Jon, we agree on this. No need to push this one! ;-) ------------------------------- > >Howard: > The bottom line on all this, as I see it, is that there is more >than one sense of 'concept', that all senses of it have some illusory >aspects to them, but concepts are not entirely illusory in that they often >have a directly experienced phenomenon (such as hardness or heat or an >itch) as *intended* referent, and even when that is not so, they often >codify networks of actual relations among directly experienced phenomena, >and they serve as the means for us to grasp relations, to engage in >thought, and to communicate with others. > >Jon: >All concepts are, to use your terminology, a 'thought or mental >construct'. They are mind-created, that is the definition of a concept. >To say that there are different classes of soncept, or that some are less >'illusory' than others, is something of a distraction, I believe ;-)). >The focus of the teachings is not concepts but dhammas. ----------------------------- Howard: If everone on the list were to use 'concept' to just mean "thought", I'd have no need to speak of more than one sense of concept, Jon. But some people will say that "The tree in my garden is just a concept". They are not referring to a thought, but to an intended but not existent refernt of that thought! I would say, instead, that we have a "tree in my garden thought," but, in reality, there is no singular referent for that concept/percept. There is, instead, a complex pattern of interrlated experiences to which we attach the thought and name of "tree in my garden," and which we then reify. ---------------------------- > >Jon ======================== With metta, Howard 35619 From: Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi again, Jon - I incorrectly inserted quotation marks in the following: << I would say, instead, that we have a "tree in my garden thought," but, in reality, there is no singular referent for that concept/percept. >> What I should have written was: << I would say, instead, that we have a "tree in my garden" thought, but, in reality, there is no singular referent for that concept/percept. >> BTW, it had always been my opinion that 'concept', 'idea', and 'thought' all meant the same thing. I had *never* meant by "concept" anything other than a thought in the mind. I only speak of another sense of 'concept' as a result of how I've seen the term used on DSG. I will be perfectly happy to use 'concept' to mean nothing but "thought". But even with this usage, there is yet some complexity: Some concepts reference dhammas, whereas others, that are constructed from a host of interelated, but usually multi-sense-door, experiences, are intended to reference alleged entities that are never actually experienced and are only presumed to exist. Of this latter class of concept/percept, some are "well grounded" in that they encode, so to speak, a complex pattern of truly related actually experienced dhammas, whereas others are not well grounded at all, such as the concept of "self" or "self-existent entity" or "circular square." Adopting the usage of 'concept' as "thought" only, when I say that "This keyboard is pa~n~natti" or "This keyboard is concept only," I am using perfectly correct speech, but speech requiring interpretation. What is meant is something to the effect: There has been a coherent pattern of interelated touch and sight dhammas with which I have associated the phrase and thought 'This keyboard' which views that cluster of dhammas as a unity and which seems to reference a self-existent external entity, but, in fact, does not, because there is no such entity, or, at least, none that is directly apprehended. Now, the status of various concepts as thoughts of differing sorts is a separate matter. Our actual thoughts are paramattha dhammas, specifically mind-door dhammas. But others, such as a so called "thought of a tree" are illusions: What there actually is is a whole sequence of elementary thoughts and other paramatthic experiences which the mind, through a culminating thought, takes to be a unity that is the intended referent of that culminating thought. That culminating thought is the thought "tree concept," as if "tree concept" were a single mental event. But it is not - it is a complex sequence, and thus that culminating thought, while itself possibly a single mental event, is delusive. ========================= With metta, Howard 35620 From: Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Jon - A drop more. There was the following between Ken and Eric: KH: Concepts are illusions, and so they are not included in the five khandhas. ----- E: Huh? A concept is a thought which is a mental formation which is one of the 5 khandhas which are affected by clinging. ------------------------- Now, you see here, Jon, that Eric is taking 'concept' and 'thought' to have the same meaning, which is my perspective as well, and an actual thought is, indeed, a dhamma which is a mental concomitant from the abhidhammic perspective and a mental formation from the suttic perspective. Ken, on the other hand, when he says that "concepts are illusions" is not talking about thoughts but of their intended referents. That has to be so, because thoughts, per se, *do* occur, whereas their intended referents rarely do. Now, I will be happy to entirely drop the usage which takes intended concept-referents as "concepts," and to restrict the term 'concept' to mean the same as 'thought'. And as I see it, a concept which is an actual thought is, indeed, a mental formation, but a so called concept that is not a single mental event but a series of experiences is not itself a direct element of experience, it is not a reality, and such a "thought" is not actually a thought at all, but is a purely imagined mental event. (If one wanted to call it a "mental process," that would be closer to correct as I see it, but even then, viewing it as a unity is entirely due to a sankharic grouping operation.) ========================= With metta, Howard 35621 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:35am Subject: Jhana journey ( 02 ) Dear Members, The jhana practitioner has now started the journey. He is looking at the centre of ''kasina circle'', which has already been made. His will is so clear that he will only concentrate on kasina circle. He will not be doing any other thing but attending at kasina circle. As he is looking at the centre of the circle, citta depends on cakkhu vatthu ( visual receptors ). Citta concentrates on colour WHITE or ''Odata''. That vision is arammana ( sense ) of that citta. Attention is given to look at the centre. Even though he is looking at the centre of white circle, what he must be doing is ''WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE...'' or ''Odata Odata Odata Odata ...'' in his mind. They must arise in continuous succession without any interruption. With a very long practice, the practitioner becomes stuck on WHITE. His mind is totally on WHITE nothing but WHITE. All his mind is WHITE. All his surroundings are WHITE as well. So, in this practice there is no chance to arise akusala dhamma and kusala dhamma except the rupa kusala dhamma of jhana if it has been developed. This is not the way to nibbana. Because there is no recognition of anicca, dukkha or anatta. Anyway, if jhana is attained with this practice, mind will become much much more purer and then it can be switched on to mahasatipatthana later to discern real dhamma instead of pannatta kasina nimitta. Now the practitioner is on the move to journey of jhana. All he has and is doing is just WHITE. His mind is on WHITE. The kasina circle of WHITE which he is looking at is called parikamma nimitta. It is initial arammana of kasina. It may be in the eye or may be in the mind. If someone is practising along with these posts he might experience something soon.I do encourage all who have enough time to do so. Now the practitioner has just started the journey. It is just initiation. May you all have initiated jhana journey to join nibbana journey soon. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35622 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 0:13pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 045 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The 33rd citta of 89 cittas is called.. 'somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika citta'. This citta is called kamavacara sahetuka kusala citta. It is dvihetuka citta. It has alobha and adosa as hetu dhamma. But there is no amoha cetasika or panna which is also known as nana. Somanassa sahagatam. This citta is associated with joy but does not have nana as in case of 31st citta. But this citta is asankharika citta. That is there is no need to be prompted. The wish to do kusala arises and just does it but the doer is not penetratively know what he is actually doing except his own action. He does not know how deep kusala is and he does not have nana when he does kusala. The 34th citta is 'somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika citta. In this citta, the action is needed to be prompted in some way. This may be from own will or from other outside influences. A child offers food to a monk because he is urged to do so by his parents. But when he does offering, he is happy of his action. 35th citta is similar to 31st citta but it is upekkha sahagatam citta. There is no joy. 36th is like 32nd but no joy. 37th is like 33rd but no joy. 38th citta is similar to 34th. But it does not have any joy. 35. upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika citta 36. upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika citta 37. upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika citta 38. upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika citta 39th to 46th cittas are the resultant cittas because of kamma that was done in the past as 31st to 38th citta. 31st citta results in 39th kamavacara sahetuka mahavipaka citta. 32nd citta can give rise to 40th vipaka citta. 33rd citta can give rise to 41st vipaka citta. 34th to 42nd, 35th to 43rd, 36th to 44th, 37th to 45th and 38th to 46th citta. These 8 mahavipaka cittas have their full names. 39.somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika mahavipaka citta 40.somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika mahavipaka citta 41.somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika mahavipaka citta 42.somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika mahavipaka citta 43.upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika mahavipaka citta 44.upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika mahavipaka citta 45.upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika mahavipaka citta 46.upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika mahavipaka citta These 8 mahavipaka cittas are our human beings' patisandhi cittas. They also serve as bhavanga citta. We will die in as cuti citta while one of these 8 mahavipaka citta which arose as patisandhi citta also arises as the last citta in this life. These 8 mahavipaka cittas can also function as retention consciousness or tadarammana citta. Tadarammana citta has been discussed in previous posts long time ago. But they will again be discussed later in this thread. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS:Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 35623 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > Hi Al, > > > > Just take it easy -- the problem is the desperation for particular > results > > and what you write about concentration. It's arising aleady at each > > moment. Forget about being aware of everything.....or trying to catch or > > recognize any special dhammas -- this kind of attachment won't help at > > all. > _____________ > Sorry Sarah I beg to differ. IMO, awareness of all that's going on in > the psycho-physical complex is key, hence the four foundations of > mindfulness. Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though, but > I still think, from what I've read, that that level of concentration > is necessary to watch the rise & fall of phenomenon. > > ++++++++++++++= Dear Andrew, The crucial factor is understanding. And right understanding knows that dhammas are conditioned, uncontrollable and not self. Why does ignorance arise, why does desire arise? Becuase the conditions for these factors are deep and have been accumulated over aeons and aeons. Thus it is the most natural thing that they must arise- If desire and ignorance are known they become an object for insight, but insight is always detached, it is more like letting go than trying to have. Right Concentration is refined - it doesn't come from trying to focus, it arises from tranquility and the tranquility of letting go can be developed anytime, if there is enough understanding. RobertK 35624 From: Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? Hi, Robert (and Andrew) - In a message dated 8/22/2004 4:56:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "rjkjp1" writes: >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" > wrote: >> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott >> wrote: >> > Hi Al, >> > >> > Just take it easy -- the problem is the desperation for >particular >> results >> > and what you write about concentration. It's arising aleady at >each >> > moment. Forget about being aware of everything.....or trying to >catch or >> > recognize any special dhammas -- this kind of attachment won't >help at >> > all. >> _____________ >> Sorry Sarah I beg to differ. IMO, awareness of all that's going >on in >> the psycho-physical complex is key, hence the four foundations of >> mindfulness. Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though, >but >> I still think, from what I've read, that that level of >concentration >> is necessary to watch the rise & fall of phenomenon. >> >> ++++++++++++++= >Dear Andrew, >The crucial factor is understanding. And right understanding knows >that dhammas are conditioned, uncontrollable and not self. Why does >ignorance arise, why does desire arise? Becuase the conditions for >these factors are deep and have been accumulated over aeons and >aeons. Thus it is the most natural thing that they must arise- If >desire and ignorance are known they become an object for insight, >but insight is always detached, it is more like letting go than >trying to have. ----------------------------- Howard: It is true. Relinquishment is primary. ----------------------------- >Right Concentration is refined - it doesn't come from trying to >focus, it arises from tranquility and the tranquility of letting go >can be developed anytime, if there is enough understanding. ------------------------------ Howard: Ahh, but here we have a catch-22 situation, Robert. Understanding, calm, and concentration are interdependent. A little bit of one supports the others. We would be well advised, and I believe the Buddha to have taught us, to do what we can where and how we can, of course in as relaxed and non-clinging fashion as possible. When calm is available, further it. When understanding is clear, follow its lead. Cultivate wholesome concentration and calm whenever possible, and most of all, be attentive and mindful. Guard the senses as consistently as possible, and always keep in mind non-clinging. Though I favor an ongoing practice of formal meditation, especially cultivating calm and suppressing the hindrances as a background, I also realize that much of what "needs to be done" will occur semi-automatically provided that one carefully studies and contemplates the Dhamma, and keeps it at the threshhold of awareness at all times. -------------------------- >RobertK ========================== With metta, Howard 35625 From: Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Vism.XIV 96 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 96. Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. (35)-(38) 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and cognizing sounds, and so on. Their functions are to have only sounds, etc., as their [respective] objects. They are manifested as occupation with [respectively] sounds, and so on. Their proximate cause is the departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has [respectively] sounds, etc., as its object. 35626 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:40pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > per se. > ----------------- > > KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is not > what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at > best, they are conventional designations that refer to the five > khandhas (paramattha dhammas). Only paramattha dhammas have the > inherent characteristics known as anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so > only they are to be investigated and known with right understanding. > But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by > other dhammas. And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite > or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to > hear and understand the words of the Buddha. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ >Eric: The reference to rites and rituals in the suttas > are to the old sacrificial rituals of slaughtering > animals to the gods and not refereneces to sitting > meditation or other practices the Buddha gave as > instructions! >++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Eric, Silabbataparamasa - clinging to sila and ritual can be as gross as what you mention above or it can be very refined indeed. The Sammohavinodani (page227): "The ordinary man is like a madman and without considering 'Is this right or not' and aspiring by means of clinging ...he performs any of the kinds of kamma (good or bad)... Thus silabataparamasa (clinging to rules and rituals)is a condition for all three, namely the sense desire world, fine material and immaterial kinds of existence (attained by jhana) with their divisions and what they include" We see that silabataparamasa can lead to both good and bad states, it can lead even to the highest pleasant feelings experienced in jhana but it cannot lead out of samsara. All ways of kusala (wholesome) can support the development of insight, but they won't if they are clung to or mistaken as the path. RobertK 35627 From: connieparker Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi again, AndrewL, I looked at the MFH wasted empire lyrics and feel somewhat ashen myself. I have been alone with my own company, not appreciating that "All our hate is a product of a world... We created"; "We have to face up to the truth Relinquish every grudge or bruise". No injustice when we've been born, receiving fruit and blindly planting. My nonviolent prayer we all live long enough to mend our ways, forgive each other and ourselves, no regrets, no forever justifying because "There's no peace for the one who can't know peace". Hate is never love, and one thing never turns into another but they're both strong shackles and the key is understanding. The lock will not be forced. No one else can threaten me, I have no [other] enemy. "Unquenchable addictions call"; intoxicated, I stumble cursing over clues and don't "Break down the cycle Of errors past". I keep alive the effect of the moment that has died, giving it power so I can live in denial of my own choosing. I am the garbage Recycled. We are drinking copper when we're fuming, just a matter of mind-states and momentary lives. When we wish for things we don't have, we're petas. When we snarl within our prisons, we're animals. Right or wrong, that is our practice; whether we think we're ready or not it's already done gone and went. Around and around, practicing the common realms like we can perfect them. peace, connie 35628 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:59pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi Jon, Thanks for your considered reply. ====================== ... > I think with the more frequent arising of an understanding of reality in > line with the Teachings, there will be a natural tendency towards a loss > of appetite for the world, which is not to be confused with an > increasing aversion to the world. J > Well put. As I see it, however, this 'loss of appetite for the world' is a lessening of clinging to sense-objects and of craving for rebirth, and this is something that occurs gradually and naturally as insight into the true nature of reality is developed. I would not equate it with, for example, moving towards a life of (conventional) seclusion; that, as I understand it, is something that may occur for a variety of reasons not necessarily connected with the development of insight into the true nature of reality. ================ Being a Westerner, I tend to assume sense-objects as being the five classical senses. You are probably including mental objects as sense objects, which I would agree with heartily. I read the Buddhist path of renunciation going as far as renouncing the supports for consciousness. I think conventional seclusion acts as a support for a pleasant mental abiding for those with reducing appetite for the world. I am sure that it is a theoretically correct statement that once having reached a degree of dispassion one is not likely to get reinfected to that level of passion again, in any situation. But this process of acquiring immunity from the world is a gradual one, and there is no benefit to bathing in a pool of those contaminants to which one has developed immunity. So why camp with the gypsies if one doesn't dance anymore :-) ? ====== > I read the Suttas and Vinaya as being in promotion of the holy life to > end the round of rebirths, so a trend of unforced/unprompted > renunciation would be an indication of increasing understanding. J > While it's fair to say the holy life is promoted, we need to also consider whether it is given as an indispensable part of the path for all, and on that point I think the evidence clearly points to a "No" answer (for example, there are many instances of enlightenment occurring outside those particular circumstances). ============== I agree. I do not see the holy life as the only means to an end, but it can be an end of the means :-) Thanks and Regards Herman Jon 35629 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? Dear Andrew L, You want to go too fast as Sarah says. By study the foundation knowledge can be built up, but better not try too much. We should we *catch* all cittas and cetasikas in daily life? That is lobha again, wanting too much. Meanwhile, is there any part of the book, even one sentence you like to be clarified? But just a little at a time, one word or one sentence at a time is better. To study one cetasika is already a lot. Nina. op 22-08-2004 13:43 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > So basically I'm not sure that I'm reading the works put together by > Nina on cita and cetasikas in a way that will effectively allow me to > practise these four foundations of mindfulness in the proper fashion > when the time comes. Sarah has told me that I shouldnt expect > understanding to be great the first time around, but I wouldn't even > say I'm studying the cetasikas, more like reading. I'm just unable to > read it in an effective mode to put together some kind of > understanding. I may or may not be able to recognize these citas and > cetasikas in daily life, but I want to be assured that I can. 35630 From: matt roke Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:03pm Subject: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Nori, __________________ N> However to act in this existence we must have some kind of view or "concept" of reality of which we act by, and this view, I think, will ultimately have to be a guess since I see no way there can be any certainty in this (If you guys do see some method then I would be happy to hear it). N> Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is experienced. N> I also understand the idea of Nagasena's chariot. "Chariot" is a concept, yes, OK. However, this still does not dismiss the independent existence of this conglomeration of matter. _________________ The conglomeration of matter, whether it is the Chariot or its components are concepts and so they are not real. The individual components of the chariot have their own characteristic but when put together they create something quite different. The chariot story points out that the concept we have of a world, a self and life is made up of components, and that the components are real but the concept is not. Citas, which experience nama and rupa, are those components. They arise and fall away one after the other so that at any single moment the only thing that exists is a cita (with its accompanying cetasikas). That's all there is. And yet because of citas there is this amazing complex concept of a world and a self in it. People think that they experience, through their senses, a huge rupa world comprised of everything from minute atomic particles to an infinite universe. In reality there is nothing more than what cita experiences, which is hardness, temperature, pressure, smell, tastes, sound and colour (along with nama). When cita arises and experiences hardness, at that moment there is nothing but hardness. The world is hardness. There is no colour, no sound, no lobha, no religion, no people, no world and no self in that moment. The cita that follows likewise has only its characteristic. And so, in no one cita can there be found a self or the world. Each cita arises and then falls away completely . . . . it cannot stay and it will never arise again. The moment of hardness falls away, the moments of sound, taste, smell and colour fall away. In each of these fleeting impermanent moments there is no world or self to be found. There are concepts and realities whether there is ignorance or wisdom. When there is ignorance there is no understanding of the realities so there are only concepts. . . of a self, of others, of a life and of a world. Wisdom, however, knows what is real. It knows the characteristics and impermanence of realities and it knows that there is no self or world in concepts. MattR 35631 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:05pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner Hi Andrew L (& All), We’ve discussed the value of studying ‘Cetasikas’ a little more formally here and I think you asked for my suggestions on this. We’ve also had one or two discussions on dana and sharing and I’m wondering if they can be linked up here. What would be really helpful for the group (imho) would be if we could all start together from the beginning (from the intro or even the preface). Would you be willing to post a small section, say one or two paragraphs, daily or every few days (excluding days you’re too busy or not feeling up to it)? If you would then (in the same post or better still in a separate post), add any comments or brief qus, we’d all benefit further. If you’re interested in this as a kind of dana, I’d suggest you use this version at RobK’s website as the Zolag ones are a little difficult to access. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html Some time back, thanks to Larry, we went through Abh in D.Life and then the Satip. Sutta commentaries in this way. It may take a year or two, but that doesn’t matter. Larry and Nina are also currently working through Vism - cX1V onwards (Understanding section) and expect it to be a lifetime work! (They’d be very glad if you or anyone else chips in anytime too). Back to Cetasikas - to get an idea of a reasonable length and way ADL was done, I’ve just picked out 2 random posts of Larry’s for you to look at. I think he dropped the numbering of paragraphs after a while - keeping it simple and easy: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/13028 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/13047 He’d just press on regardless of whether there was feedback or not which obviously varies at different times and I was and am extremely grateful to him for this. Even if you just posted one a week, I’d be glad. I’ve had this book in mind for a study corner for a long time. Let me know what you think. Nina, I and others will be glad to contribute, I know. Metta, Sarah p.s I can also help post the extracts if it helps, but would prefer it to be someone else really;-) =================== 35632 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg]Dhammas only? Hi Jon and anyone, Jon wrote: The focus of the teachings is not concepts but dhammas. ========== What category do paccaya/conditions/relations go in? Are they concepts or dhammas? And what would you call anicca, anatta and dukkha? Concepts or dhammas? Is there no room for any other ontological states? Kind Regards Herman 35633 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:42pm Subject: Re: Signs of progress? (was, Anapanasati Sutta) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > ... > > All that you list above seems to me like good signs which I would be > > in accord with. I would add that one might also develop a sense of > > peace, or well-being, or subtle happiness not based on conditions, as > > one moved towards greater unattachment and more refined states of > > perception. I would think that if one continues to be miserable and > > feel oppressed and reactive while practicing Buddhism for many years, > > one might not be taking a skillful approach. > > I'm not sure about this, Rob. There are numerous references in the suttas > to people who are sotapannas and who are still 'reactive'. As far as I'm > aware, there is no certain link between the development of insight and a > (perceived) decrease in the level of one's kilesas. > > This may seem strange at first, given that the goal is the eradication of > all kilesas, but I think it is consistent with our observation that the > nature and intensity of a person's set of kilesas changes over time anyway > as one goes through life. Many people become more mellow as they get > older, even without any understanding of the Dhamma, and a 'less reactive' > test would give a false positive in such cases. > > I think a more reliable guide would be the level of one's wrong view over > time, since it is this particular kind of kilesa that is eradicated at > stream entry. > > Jon you mean my extreme current achievement of mellowness is just due to aging and not to an advanced spiritual attainment?? Rob Ep. 35634 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:17am Subject: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi Howard, I have several posts in my `reply to' folder but I'll let yours jump the queue. You might remember I was apologising for having misunderstood your explanations of 'concepts, thoughts and their referents etc.,' all these years. But now I see I have not misunderstood them at all: you really do think thoughts are realities. They are not. Surely DSG's Abhidhamma students have made that point more often and more clearly than any other single point! On many previous occasions, I have asked you, "If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s are they?" I don't think you have ever replied. That led me to suspect my question was out of place and that you didn't really think thoughts were realities at all. But now I see that you clearly do, and so I will ask again, "Which paramattha dhamma is a thought (idea, concept)?" Kind regards, Ken H > > Now, you see here, Jon, that Eric is taking 'concept' and 'thought' to have the same meaning, which is my perspective as well, and an actual thought is, indeed, a dhamma which is a mental concomitant from the abhidhammic perspective and a mental formation from the suttic perspective. Ken, on the other hand, when he says that "concepts are illusions" is not talking about thoughts but of their intended referents. That has to be so, because thoughts, per se, *do* occur, whereas their intended referents rarely do. > Now, I will be happy to entirely drop the usage which takes intended concept-referents as "concepts," and to restrict the term 'concept' to mean the same as 'thought'. And as I see it, a concept which is an actual thought is, indeed, a mental formation, but a so called concept that is not a single mental event but a series of experiences is not itself a direct element of experience, it is not a reality, and such a "thought" is not actually a thought at all, but is a purely imagined mental event. (If one wanted to call it a "mental process," that would be closer to correct as I see it, but even then, viewing it as a unity is entirely due to a sankharic grouping operation.) > ========================= > With metta, > Howard 35635 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:02am Subject: Pleasantville (was Bagels etc) Hi Andrew L, Just a little more on your earlier message to me - the more personal bits. I've renamed the subject to distinguish it from the satipatthana/bagels thread. --- Andrew Levin wrote: Generosity ======== A:> And it has to be renewed consistently, which is something that is very > difficult > for me to do in my current circumstances, as I don't get to leave the > house very often and am do not easily develop good will towards myself > or others. .... S: Nothing has to be forced. Sometimes it’s just not the time. You mentioned ‘hiding out’, saying ‘in,out’ of your breaths etc,’ oblivous to everything around you’. People on this list have different reasons for following their breath and it’s a controversial topic, so what I say here is just my view. I think you should take it easy because of your present difficulties and forget all about your breath. It’s not helping you and the Buddha never encouraged anyone to take up breath as an object of samatha without deep understanding. For many people here, it may not do any harm, but for others who take up an intense focussing, thinking it will take them closer to enlightenment and cutting off from those around them, I think it can be very dangerous and end up being like a bad trip. We’ve known other friends and bhikkhus get into a lot of trouble too. Take a break from it for a while and see what happens later perhaps. I say this in spite of doing a lot of yoga and Tai Chi myself which of course focus on the breath, but I don't have any illusions about becoming enlightened this way. The good-will and kindness should be to others just when one has an opportunity -- again not forced. Like when you write here, I can tell there is good-will, or to other patients or staff or people you pass on that walk to the centre. You mentioned the perfections. One day, take a look at Nina’s excellent small booklet on these under ‘Perfections’. Again, they’re nothing that can be ‘forced’, but understanding these qualities to be developed can be very inspiring. Generosity is quite broad and we discussed before an unusual aspect of it, i.e forgiveness. Letting go of our animosity towards those that have harmed or hurt us in anyway in their ignorance is a kind of generosity. Idleness ========== I mentioned sloth and torpor(thina middha) last time, but afterwards I was reflecting on pamaada (idleness/heedlessness) and its opposite appamaada (heedfulness) as in Dhp167. Heedlessness always applies to the mental states without awareness, guarding of the sense doors and so on. Whenever there are unwholesome states arising, there is heedlessness. it’s good that you see this. I like this verse from Dhp 63 and it may be relevant: “That fool who knows his foolishness, Is in fact wise because of this; Whereas the fool who thinks he is wise, He indeed is called a fool.” [Yo baalo maññati baalya.m, pa.n.dito’vaapi tena so; baalo ca pa.n.ditamaanii, sa ve «baalo»ti vuccati.] Sleep ===== > And my energy is low. I've been > sleeping too much but when I wake I feel refreshed and able to handle > things better, but sleep should not be the solution to my problems. .... S: It’s not a solution, but we all need good sleep, Andrew. Whilst you’re on medications you’re bound to need more. If you wake refreshed, that’s the answer to whether it’s doing you good. I’m sure an arahant with no kilesa needs very little. but imitating an arahant is another disaster route. Slave ==== > I feel like a slave to this computer so often never mind being a slave > to the hospital. And personally, I don't feel like I'm being > consistent myself in my endeavors nor is there much good in my life as > it is. I don't know how to express myself, really. Especially in the > midst of other people, I lose myself easily. .... S: We all have difficulties expressing ourselves at times. You’ve been cut off and it’ll take time to build up your skills again. Patience again. There are bound to be ups and downs. Take breaks from the computer. Try to reconnect with your parents just a little each day, even if it’s just a friendly greeting or two in the beginning. Let me know if you saw your sister for more than a ‘hi’ this week too. Pleasantville & Going Along (butting in on your thread with Connie) ======================= Certainly if the guards were to report that a prisoner was always looking for escape routes,walking in strange ways or refusing to talk, it wouldn’t go down well with the parole board. Whilst wandering in samsara, Pleasantville is definitely a preferable way to live.....life is dukkha enough without looking for more. I liked Herman’s recent kind comments to you. Looking at the injustice of it all is just looking for more dukkha and shackles. Let it go. What is going right? ================ Your Abhidhamma studies, your keen reflections on the teachings, your participation here, getting on track, showing a little more good-will and understanding of those you spend time with....The authorities won’t listen to your goals because they won’t understand them. Your job is to learn to articulate them in the language and behaviour they do understand. Like when we go to a foreign country, we have to learn the cultural rules and some of the language to communicate. Discipline and Whims ================= We all fall over as I’ve said before. There will be lots of ups and downs to come. Herman mentioned difficulties he’s faced and I know many others here have as well. Some have faced the greatest hardships but time and patience are great healers. With right understanding developing, one comes through. Metta, Sarah p.s If I have time, I’ll try to get back on the satipatthana/bagels thread tomorrow, but anything else will have to be after I return next week. ========================================== 35636 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:12am Subject: Bangkok Dear Friends, We'll be in Bangkok for the long weekend this week, thx to some airline points we have to use up this month. If anyone has any questions they'd like us to raise with K.Sujin (Sat only) or if anyone in the region has a chance to join us all that day, let us know. Metta, Sarah ==== 35637 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Nori (& Howard). --- nori wrote: > I am under the impression from what you have written in your posts > (and agreement with Howard and MattR) that you do not believe in the > independent existence of enduring matter/'things' that > exist 'outside' of us. .... S: Nothing ‘endures’ inside or outside.....conditioned dhammas are non-enduring by nature. Rupas’outside’ rise and fall all the time regardless of whether they are ever experienced. On a non-inhabited planet, there are still rupas, but no conditions to be experienced. Of course, when we refer to the development of satipatthana, we’re referring to the awareness and understanding of what is being directly experienced. Nothing else can be known and therefore any theoretical knowledge, such as scientific knowledge about it, doesn’t lead to liberation. .... > I gave my example of phantom limbs and have concluded that even what > you believe to be "direct" experience of rupa sensations are > interpretations of the mind and so ARE NOT direct experiences of > reality. .... S: I’d like to add a little more on this interesting topic. Larry just quoted from Vism, Ch. XIV “96. Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data.” <....> “35)-(38) 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and cognizing sounds, and so on. “ In other words, just as there cannot be eye-consciousness without the eye or the particular rupa of eye-base, so too there cannot be body-consciousness at any part of the body without the rupa of body-base at that location. Now, when it comes to the experience of phantom limbs, I said last time that there may be conceptual imprints in the mind. Of course, there are also experiences of other ‘rupa sensations’ through other parts of body-consciousness and these may well be perceived as appearing in the phantom limbs. In other words, what I said was not meant to suggest that there isn’t the painful bodily feeling and that rupas are not being directly experienced, but that the mind door perceptions and perversions follow so rapidly that even without phantom limbs, we often mistake the location of such sensations. As Howard said 'but no 'limb' is there -only the various interrelated sense door impressions, quickly interspersed'. I'd add, 'sense door *and mind door impressions*, quickly interspersed'. .... N: > In my example, these subjects experience 'rupa sensations' in an arm > which does not exist. In this case the 'rupa sensations' is not > reality. However it is 'his' subjective reality. .... S: If it’s not reality, then it’s a concept of the reality. As I just suggested, probably a conglomeration of other ‘rupa sensations’ and memories and concepts which trick the mind into thinking the experience is in the phantom limbs. .... N:> It is interesting how you refer to the fact that we (our bodies) > being constructed of "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" > as being concepts and NOT realities. > > There it is. We can dissect a human and see and examine this with our > bare eyes, without concepts or thinking. .... S: But what is seen in actuality? Nerve pathways and cortex or visual object which the perception and memory classify in the mind as being ‘nerve pathways and cortex’? ... N: > It is as though you take the direct subjective experience (heat/cold, > hardness/softness, cohesion, etc.) to be the only reality, and > dismiss all else as concepts. ... S: These are the only realities experienced through the body-sense (‘rupa sensations’ as you refer to them). There are many other rupas experienced only through the mind-door and of course all the namas too. .... N:> It seems as though you do not want to recognize what one can see and > observe, such as "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" as > reality. > > ... but then when you get sick or injured, you will go to the doctor > who rightly employs these "concepts", which have developed from many > observations, and make you better. ... S: ;-) Of course, the visual object whilst looking at a dissected body is not the same as whilst looking out of the window at Howard’s tree;-) Still, we can test and prove that it’s only visual object that’s seen and it is in the following mind-door processes that the details and shapes and forms are perceived and conceptualised. Visual objects are not blank sheets of paper or dots - they are just what is seen at this very moment when there is “'eye-consciousness'....supported by the eye and cognizing visible data.” And yes, we’re all grateful that doctors rightly use concepts following on from many experiences of visual objects and right use of conventional reality. There’s a lot more to ask on this, so please keep raising these good points Nori. I’m glad to see others have joined in too. Metta, Sarah ====== 35638 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of Hi Agrios, Good to see you posting again and raising important qus like this one : --- agriosinski wrote: > Hi Sarah (and Nori), gotta jump here with my 2 cents. > > How do I know there is right understending (pariyati), > since there is no direct realization (patipatti)? ... S: I think there has to be a beginning of awareness of realities in order to know whether what one hears about them is right or wrong. Back to the spiral analogy Howard likes to use. In the beginning such direct awareness (and any understanding of it) is bound to be very weak and infrequent, but it's there. So when we hear that 'seeing consciousness sees visual object' or 'hearing hears sound only', not a car, a train or a person, it depends on whether there is any occasional glimmer of awareness of these characteristics as to whether it'll make sense and whether the understanding will be reinforced when we read and hear more. If we don't hear it in the first place and if there isn't any intellectual comprehension, awareness cannot develop. ..... > All I can see with direct but personal realization, > right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. > I would really like to know profit of it. .... S: No need to hunt for them at all. As soon as you open your eyes, rupa is appearing. As soon as you hear, rupa is appearing. Unavoidable. If there's any attempt to hunt or experience them in a special way, not only is there no profit,but one's going off-course again. No 'hunt and seek' for rupas;-) Just begin to understand what is appearing right now. You asked about the unwise speculations in Sabbasava Sutta, MN2. Any attending or speculation which leads to the arising of more unwholesome states and especially of self-views should be understood and abandoned. The error is not in 'the naming' or conceptualising as such -- as Nori said, we still like the doctor's help --, but the wrong clinging to an idea of such a concept or thing or self as actually existing and being experienced as a reality. So when I write 'Hi Agrios', there many or may not be any wrong view about a person called Agrios at this time. It's not the greeting that is wrong or to be changed, but the 'manner of attending' or comprehending whilst going about our daily lives. Look forward to more of your qus. Others may have a better reply to the first one. Metta, Sarah ====== 35639 From: matt roke Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:50am Subject: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi Ken (and Howard), _______________ Ken H> You might remember I was apologising for having misunderstood your explanations of 'concepts, thoughts and their referents etc.,' all these years. But now I see I have not misunderstood them at all: you really do think thoughts are realities. They are not. Ken H> If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s are they? _______________ Actually, thoughts are realities. If there were no realities then there would be no thoughts (concepts). I know that you meant to imply that Howard believes that a thought is a reality or that thoughts are real. But after reading Howard's posting I am not sure what point he is making. Is it that thoughts (concepts) are real or that they are realities? MattR 35640 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Dear Nina (& Ken H), I hope you had a good trip. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > As to accumulations, do I understand it rightly like this: accumulations > are > included in pakatuupanissaya, but it is not the inverse: all > pakatuupanissaya are accumulations. Thus, the sentence could be read > into > two different ways. .... S: I had this on tape when I wrote. K.Sujin stressed that accumulations are pakatuupanissaya -- much broader than our usual definitions of accumulations. She then said “So accumulations includes everything including concepts and rupas conditioning at this moment. Who knows the accumulations of each person and how anyone will respond at any moment?”. I raised several examples and she said they were all included in the accumulations. For example, the tasting and liking of soup an aeon ago or any experience of any kind. It was the Buddha’s omniscience that could see and understand all these details or whatever he put his mind to. Anything from the past can effect the arising dhammas now -- this is how broad pakatuupanissaya condition is. .... > Lobha in former times conditions lobha now. The latent tendency of > lobha is > going on all the time and conditions again lobha now. Here we speak of > accumulations, accumulated lobha. .... S: Yes, .... Pleasant climate can condition lobha, > but > I would not use the word accumulations here. Although we can say: I have > accumulated a liking for a mild climate. Perhaps the word accumulations > could be easily misunderstood. .... S: The way K.Sujin was using it, any of these examples would be included. Even kamma needs pakatuupanissaya or accumulations to bring its result. ... >We also speak of accumulated kamma that > produces result. Lodewijk finds it a very difficult word, he stumbles > over > it. .... S: We can raise it again in India. So one person reacts badly to the air-conditioner and the other finds it comfortable or Christine’s example of painful feeling. Kamma cannot act without paatuupanissaya including all accumulated tendencies and responses. It’s very deep. She was very emphatic that everything is included. Ken H & Co, When we talk about the climate or the mango which was tasted last year, we know as Ken H seemed to stress that these are only namas and rupas. When it comes to object condition, as Nina said, I don’t think it’s so complicated. Any reality or concept can be the object of citta by object condition and there cannot be thinking without a concept experienced, such as a person as object of metta. Of course, there are may other conditions conditioning the thinking at this time too, inc. pakatuupanissaya. Pakata and pakati - the Thai speakers will tell you that this is a coomon word in Thai - naturally as in living or practising naturally, I think. Pakati-sila, yes, interesting - some people naturally follow good sila. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, thank you so much for sending the series on the sutta to Vince. I liked your comment ‘the Buddha who gave good advice did not reproach him with the words: you should not have such thoughts’. Also, I thought the Tika passages to the Vism on restlessness and doubt (# 35318) were fascinating, esp. the aspects which touch on discussions on kamma-patha. You mentioned the Tika continues further by way of Q and A. I’m sure this is interesting too. ============================== 35641 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:22am Subject: RE: [dsg] Bangkok Hi Sarah and everyone, While on the topic of traveling, we'll be away from Wednesday this week till Wednesday next week in order to better examine some of the ski slopes on the South Island of New Zealand. Still more unreality, I know :-) Kind Regards Herman ================= We'll be in Bangkok for the long weekend this week, thx to some airline points we have to use up this month. If anyone has any questions they'd like us to raise with K.Sujin (Sat only) or if anyone in the region has a chance to join us all that day, let us know. Metta, Sarah ==== 35642 From: agriosinski Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: [...] > > How do I know there is right understending (pariyati), > > since there is no direct realization (patipatti)? > ... > S: I think there has to be a beginning of awareness of realities in order > to know whether what one hears about them is right or wrong. Back to the > spiral analogy Howard likes to use. In the beginning such direct awareness > (and any understanding of it) is bound to be very weak and infrequent, but > it's there. So when we hear that 'seeing consciousness sees visual object' > or 'hearing hears sound only', not a car, a train or a person, it depends > on whether there is any occasional glimmer of awareness of these > characteristics as to whether it'll make sense and whether the > understanding will be reinforced when we read and hear more. If we don't > hear it in the first place and if there isn't any intellectual > comprehension, awareness cannot develop. thank you for this explanation Sarah. seems that you call "awareness of realities" what I call direct realization. would you show me the difference? > > All I can see with direct but personal realization, > > right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. > > I would really like to know profit of it. > .... > S: No need to hunt for them at all. As soon as you open your eyes, rupa is > appearing. As soon as you hear, rupa is appearing. Unavoidable. If there's > any attempt to hunt or experience them in a special way, not only is there > no profit,but one's going off-course again. No 'hunt and seek' for > rupas;-) Just begin to understand what is appearing right now. I do understand. But I am aware it is five senses consciousness I am aware of, and not rupa. That's why I am drilling this subject... I only know rupas from other people saying it. > You asked about the unwise speculations in Sabbasava Sutta, MN2. > Any attending or speculation which leads to the arising of more > unwholesome states and especially of self-views should be understood and > abandoned. The error is not in 'the naming' or conceptualizing as such -- > as Nori said, we still like the doctor's help --, but the wrong clinging > to an idea of such a concept or thing or self as actually existing and > being experienced as a reality. well, one profit of reading this sutta is, that there is no way to belive that it is me who has all this opinions, views etc. Seems mind has them, one day this one, and another some other etc. It feels nice to see this as it happens. I am little afraid I am loosing my mind, but since it feels good.... ;) [...] metta, Agrios 35643 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/23/2004 3:17:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "kenhowardau" writes: >Hi Howard, > >I have several posts in my `reply to' folder but I'll let yours jump >the queue. You might remember I was apologising for having >misunderstood your explanations of 'concepts, thoughts and their >referents etc.,' all these years. But now I see I have not >misunderstood them at all: you really do think thoughts are >realities. They are not. Surely DSG's Abhidhamma students have made >that point more often and more clearly than any other single point! > >On many previous occasions, I have asked you, "If thoughts are >paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s are they?" I don't >think you have ever replied. That led me to suspect my question >was out of place and that you didn't really think thoughts were >realities at all. But now I see that you clearly do, and so I will >ask again, "Which paramattha dhamma is a thought (idea, concept)?" ------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I feel no need to compartmentalize thoughts - that is, real, individual thoughts - any further than to say they fall under sankhara and that, as objects, they are mind-door objects. I think that it may be you, most of all on DSG, who understands by 'thought' something imagined to be pointed to by the mind (like a tree or table). That is not what I mean by 'thought'. Thoughts arise in my mind all the the time, but trees don't and tables don't. (In fact, I don't believe that there are such things as trees or tables at all except in a manner of speaking.) What I mean by a thought is a kind of mental phenomenon - a mental operation. And these occur, just as much as fearing, hating, and loving do. The fact that they are not the same as what they reference and that often they lack an observable referent entirely makes them delusive, but not non-occurring. What is the story, Ken? Do you appreciate all the doors to your house except the mind door? I know you don't keep that door locked, because you do a lot of thinking. ;-) ------------------------------ > >Kind regards, >Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard > >> >> Now, you see here, Jon, that Eric is taking 'concept' >and 'thought' to have the same meaning, which is my perspective as >well, and an actual thought is, indeed, a dhamma which is a mental >concomitant from the abhidhammic perspective and a mental formation >from the suttic perspective. Ken, on the other hand, when he says >that "concepts are illusions" is not talking about thoughts but of >their intended referents. That has to be so, because thoughts, per >se, *do* occur, whereas their intended referents rarely do. >> Now, I will be happy to entirely drop the usage which takes >intended concept-referents as "concepts," and to restrict the >term 'concept' to mean the same as 'thought'. And as I see it, a >concept which is an actual thought is, indeed, a mental formation, >but a so called concept that is not a single mental event but a >series of experiences is not itself a direct element of experience, >it is not a reality, and such a "thought" is not actually a thought >at all, but is a purely imagined mental event. (If one wanted to >call it a "mental process," that would be closer to correct as I see >it, but even then, viewing it as a unity is entirely due to a >sankharic grouping operation.) >> ========================= >> With metta, >> Howard 35644 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Matt (and Ken) - In a message dated 8/23/2004 5:50:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "matt roke" writes: > >Hi Ken (and Howard), >_______________ > >Ken H> You might remember I was apologising for having misunderstood >your explanations of 'concepts, thoughts and their referents etc.,' >all these years. But now I see I have not misunderstood them at all: >you really do think thoughts are realities. They are not. > >Ken H> If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s >are they? >_______________ > >Actually, thoughts are realities. If there were no realities then there >would >be no thoughts (concepts). > >I know that you meant to imply that Howard believes that a thought is a >reality or that thoughts are real. But after reading Howard's posting I am >not sure what point he is making. Is it that thoughts (concepts) are real >or that they are realities? ------------------------------ Howard: Matt, I don't know what *you* mean. :-) I merely maintain that thoughts (though not clusters of thoughts that we mistakenly take for single thoughts) are actual elementary mental events. I mean no more and no less. Thoughts do occur. And a flow of interelated thoughts constitutes what we call thinking. ------------------------------ > >MattR ============================== With metta, Howard 35645 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:47am Subject: Re: Bangkok Dear Sarah, Where are you putting up there in Bangkok? :-) Just considering ? I think, I would be welcome if I could join you at this weekend which is a long holiday. But I have to avoid an area not to accumulate akusala while I may be trying to accumulate kusala if I were with you when meeting K Sujin. Connie knows what I mean. :-) Just kidding Connie, you can let this known. As I am delibrately ( delibrately ) sitting daily ( smile :-) again for both Sarah you and Amara ), I do not want to cancel my sections because of travelling. If there is a good reason, I will not delay to travel. Otherwise I won't travel with the reason to see scenery and enjoy sites and meet people which are actually not realities in terms of paramattha. But I may travel if I am especially invited for Dhamma discussion and constructive forum which should not end up with dosa, lobha, and moha because of who know more, who know exactly, who know according to the Tipitaka etc etc. When you are with K Sujin, please tell her that there are increasing number of people who become interested in Buddhism especially Theravada Buddhism becuase of the net. Some change their spiritual life completely. But as Dhamma are going on their own, there are people who are going to be in trouble because of the net even within Buddhists. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > > We'll be in Bangkok for the long weekend this week, thx to some airline > points we have to use up this month. If anyone has any questions they'd > like us to raise with K.Sujin (Sat only) or if anyone in the region has a > chance to join us all that day, let us know. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ==== > 35646 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:51am Subject: Re: Vism.XIV 96 Dear Larry, What is functional mind element? Thanks in advance Htoo Naing PS: Please include original Pali word for functional mind element. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 96. Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being > supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have > only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with > visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of (70) the > functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. > > (35)-(38) 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] > have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and > cognizing sounds, and so on. Their functions are to have only sounds, > etc., as their [respective] objects. They are manifested as occupation > with [respectively] sounds, and so on. Their proximate cause is the > departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has [respectively] > sounds, etc., as its object. 35647 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:02am Subject: Fwd: [TOB] Re: Implication of mahasatipatthana --- In TeachingsOfBuddha@yahoogroups.com, "Pure Faith" wrote: Greetings Htoo Naing, >>Any comment or any query are welcome. If I have time, I will be happy to answer. PF: I am indeed happy with your commitments towards the Buddha's teachings here. >>Once here, people used to discuss their thoughts. Now here it is like an old library with spider web. PF: Yes, it does seem like an old library now. But, wait...there are voices in the air (we do have a number of students here, following the teachings. Most of them are listeners & rarely do they speak out, due to the environment they come from, the cultures imbued into them..... And if you can make them speak out on their own accord, I shall be glad!) The silence, the stillness in the air is here now, may they all be at their daily practise, making use of this silence to contemplate upon the teachings. >>Still the materials here are good. I do not know why people are following their desire which is attached cravingly to sensuous matters. They do have bad habit. That habit makes this following. They will move from group to group and they are like fish who flock together where baits are there. That is the bait of their sensuous interest. PF: Well, people craves over controversies, therefore are attracted to it. Something that we have no control over on others, though we can have some control on ourselves as our practise progresses. >>I myself once discussed here. But why do I seem to be silent. Actually I am not silent. But I visit this site frequently. But people move to other site. PF: Yes, we all did in the past, but the important thing is we ARE still around to serve when necessary...... >> I will be available if there are questions raised. PF: Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! I appreciate your kind efforts immensely. >>If there is no questions I will happily read up the group mails like posted by the moderator. I do not reply these because they are very clear. PF: Thank you kindly ! I try to keep our Dhamma friends informed from time to time. >>Anyway, I can feel anicca here. PF: Yes, things will continue to change. May the goodness flows more strongly as days passes. >>May Dhamma friends follow Dhamma instead of following baits of interest. PF: Hahahahaaaa..... yes, may they all step on the correct path.... With much metta & a strong dose of karuna, pf --- End forwarded message --- 35648 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:18am Subject: Fwd: [TOB] Re: Implication of mahasatipatthana --- In TeachingsOfBuddha@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: --- In TeachingsOfBuddha@yahoogroups.com, "Pure Faith" wrote: Greetings Htoo Naing, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I sensed as ' a wise smile ' even though it is not a hasituppada citta. Is it? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>Any comment or any query are welcome. If I have time, I will be > happy to answer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: I am indeed happy with your commitments towards the Buddha's teachings here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I feel your calmness. I just voiced that I am here even if there are no messages from me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Once here, people used to discuss their thoughts. Now here it is like an old library with spider web. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Yes, it does seem like an old library now. But, wait...there are voices in the air (we do have a number of students here, following the teachings. Most of them are listeners & rarely do they speak out, due to the environment they come from, the cultures imbued into them..... And if you can make them speak out on their own accord, I shall be glad!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It will be a hard job, I am afraid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: The silence, the stillness in the air is here now, may they all be at their daily practise, making use of this silence to contemplate upon the teachings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Still the materials here are good. I do not know why people are > following their desire which is attached cravingly to sensuous > matters. They do have bad habit. That habit makes this following. > They will move from group to group and they are like fish who flock > together where baits are there. That is the bait of their sensuous > interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Well, people craves over controversies, therefore are attracted to it. Something that we have no control over on others, though we can have some control on ourselves as our practise progresses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Great. I can sense. I do not mix panatta and paramattha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>I myself once discussed here. But why do I seem to be silent. > Actually I am not silent. But I visit this site frequently. But > people move to other site. > PF: Yes, we all did in the past, but the important thing is we ARE > still around to serve when necessary...... > > >> I will be available if there are questions raised. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! I appreciate your kind efforts immensely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Excellent! You will know that I am not waiting for 'Sadhu' or 'Dear' or anything like that but just want to share Dhamma. But I can feel your Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu, which is unlike other people's such as 'anumodana with your studies' at a time but 'acumulate with your own akusala' at another time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>If there is no questions I will happily read up the group mails > like posted by the moderator. I do not reply these because they are > very clear. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Thank you kindly ! I try to keep our Dhamma friends informed from time to time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please continue at usual pace. They are good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>Anyway, I can feel anicca here. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Yes, things will continue to change. May the goodness flows more strongly as days passes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The mountain will not shake with the wind. The wise will not sadify with anything possible. May your practice merge you with Dhamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>May Dhamma friends follow Dhamma instead of following baits of > interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PF: Hahahahaaaa..... yes, may they all step on the correct path.... With much metta & a strong dose of karuna, pf --- End forwarded message --- 35649 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:24am Subject: Re: Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > ++++++++++++++= > Dear Andrew, > The crucial factor is understanding. And right understanding knows > that dhammas are conditioned, uncontrollable and not self. Why does > ignorance arise, why does desire arise? Becuase the conditions for > these factors are deep and have been accumulated over aeons and > aeons. Thus it is the most natural thing that they must arise- If > desire and ignorance are known they become an object for insight, > but insight is always detached, it is more like letting go than > trying to have. > Right Concentration is refined - it doesn't come from trying to > focus, it arises from tranquility and the tranquility of letting go > can be developed anytime, if there is enough understanding. > RobertK In my experience right concentration arises from meditation and applying ones attention to the meditation subject. As I understand it, tranquility is supposed to follow, this is why shamatha meditation is sometimes called tranquility or serenity meditation. This concentration, when sustained, allows one to see the true nature of phenomenon as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and devoid of self. AL 35650 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon I Hey Jon, Jon> The commentaries are a compilation of this wisdom, and have the endorsement of the Great Councils. They are regarded as the generally accepted views of the arahants of the time, rather than the views of the individual compilers. So the commentaries go. Dont you think this is a bit circular though. #1 >The word in the book is true. #2 > How do you know this is true? #1 > It says so in the book. --- > J> Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving > enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be > interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea. > E> Mind is the forerunner. I am saying if the > sign you have placed in front of your mind > says 'I will not be enlightened in this lifetime' > then that is pretty much what you will acheive. > Doubt, it is one of the hindrances. Does not > just effect Anapanasati meditators. J> ....since I don't think such speculation helps at all. Then why speculate one way or another? --- > J> Well that is a literal translation of the term [mindfulness of breathing]. Could you give an > example of what you mean? E> Any of the steps is to be practiced > with mindfulness of breathing in and out. > That is, cognizance of the breath > helps to 'keep it real'. > It is very easy to be deluded. If one is > aware of the breath while practicing > then there is less chance to fall into a > daydream and overestimate what is happening. J> I'm glad to learn from the above that you do not see mindfulness of breathing as being itself 'the practice', which until now had been my impression from reading your posts, but as something that goes with the practice. That is your interpretation of my posts. :-) I never said that. I fear you hear what you want to hear. J> What is your understanding of 'the practice'? In particular, is it something that can occur independent of mindfulness of breathing? The 'practice' is comprised of many practices. There are many inroads in which to take a stand and try and irradicate the defilemsnts or cultivate the wholesome. This can be done with or without mindfulness of breathing. But since the breath is always there, why not put it to good use? --- E > ... There is no superior > or inferior. Just those who practice and > those that don't. J> If only things were as simple as that! Unfortunately for us, among those who practice there are those who practice rightly and those who practice wrongly, and the consequences of wrong practice are worse than the consequences of no practice. Doesn't sound fair, I know, but ... That is one way to look at it. But like I said before, you only fail to walk when you quit trying. In this way, there is no 'wrong' practice. Just those who try and those who don't. Plus, it seems we become 'wiser' from our 'failures' more than from our 'successes'. I mean the Buddha was one wise teacher because he performed so many 'wrong' practices before his enlightenment. He knew from first hand experience what worked and what did not. He did not refer to second hand knowledge from some manual, etc. PEACE E 35651 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:01am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hey Rob, > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Eric: The reference to rites and rituals in the suttas > > are to the old sacrificial rituals of slaughtering > > animals to the gods and not refereneces to sitting > > meditation or other practices the Buddha gave as > > instructions! > >++++++++++++++++++++ > Dear Eric, > Silabbataparamasa - clinging to sila and ritual can be as gross as > what you mention above or it can be very refined indeed. > The Sammohavinodani (page227): > "The ordinary man is like a madman and without considering 'Is this > right or not' and aspiring by means of clinging ...he performs any > of the kinds of kamma (good or bad)... Thus silabataparamasa > (clinging to rules and rituals)is a condition for all three, namely > the sense desire world, fine material and immaterial kinds of > existence (attained by jhana) with their divisions and what they > include" > We see that > silabataparamasa can lead to both good and bad states, it can lead > even to the highest pleasant feelings experienced in jhana but it > cannot lead out of samsara. All ways of kusala (wholesome) can > support the development of insight, but they > won't if they are clung to or mistaken as the path. > RobertK Silabbataparamasa is often qualified with a 'wrong'. So, of course, anything with clinging can be qualified as 'wrong' (no duh). My point was that the original context in which the 'rites and rituals' comes from was in regards to brahminical sacrifices in which the belief was that you would get to heaven by killing livestock etc. The original reference was not in regards to sitting meditation or chanting. Pulling it out of context and applying it haphazardly to bolster ones view against something one is adverse too is not a skillful use of the term. PEACE E 35652 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hey Ken (and Howard), Ken> "If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s are they?" Vitakka and vicara. PEACE E 35653 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:10am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 046 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 8 kamavacara sahetuka mahakiriya cittas. They are very similar to kamavacara sahetuka mahakusala cittas that is from 31st to 38th citta. Their full names are 47.somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika mahakiriya citta 48.somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika mahakiriya citta 49.somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika mahakiriya citta 50.somanassa sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika mahakiriya citta 51.upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika mahakiriya citta 52.upekkha sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika mahakiriya citta 53.upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam asankharika mahakiriya citta 54.upekkha sahagatam nana vippayuttam sasankharika mahakiriya citta These 8 mahakiriya cittas are cittas of arahats when they are performing actions such as helping The Buddha, offering flowers to The Buddha or Buddha image, giving help other sangha members etc etc when they are just doing worldly thing as javana these 8 cittas arise. When there is a great joy, the first four cittas arise and when there is just equanimity, then the last four cittas arise. Even though they are arahats, nana may or may not arise while doing these actions and when without nana, then nana vippayutta cittas have to arise. Sometimes, the elders have to remind them to do things. At that time their cittas are sasankharika cittas. But as they all are arahats, the cittas arise in actions are all kiriya cittas. As they are all worldly thing, all these cittas are kamavacara kiriya cittas. Kiriya cittas are cittas who do not have any operational potential that is there is no co-arising kamma at the time of arising of kiriya cittas. In the other way to describe, they are not kammogenic or kamma-generating cittas as in case of mahakusala cittas. So far, we have reviewed on all kamavacara cittas. People these days do not have jhanas. So rupa jhana cittas and arupa jhana cittas are rare to arise. More rare are lokuttara cittas which are 4 magga cittas and 4 phala cittas. Therefore, at any given time there will be these 54 kamavacara cittas. Again, among these 54 cittas, 8 mahakiriya cittas are javana cittas of arahats. Arahats are rare puggala these days. So there will be 46 cittas left for most of us. These 46 cittas are actually what are arising at our eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind for all non-arahats and arahats. Let us see how these 46 cittas are our cittas and how they work. Example, when an arammana arises that is when an object arise, say ruparammana as an example that is vanno as object for eye- consciousness and when there is cakkhu pasada as base and there is attention there arise cakkhuvinnana citta or eye-consciousness. 0.bhavanguppaccheda citta ( 8 mahavipaka cittas of ours )_bhavanga 1.pancadvaravajjana citta ( 1 of 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas )_vithi 2.cakkhuvinnana citta ( 1 of 2 cakkhuvinnana cittas )_vithi 3.sampaticchana citta ( 1 of 2 sampaticchana cittas )_vithi 4.santirana citta ( 1 of 3 santirana cittas )_vithi 5.votthapana citta ( manodvaravajjana cittas, 1 of 3 ahetuka citta ) 6.javanacittas ( 12 akusala cittas, 8 mahakusala cittas )_vithi 7.tadarammana cittas ( 1 of 8 mahavipaka cittas and 3 santirana cittas ) Therefore there are 8 mahavipaka citta, 1 pancadvaravajjana citta, 2 cakkhuvinnana cittas, 2 sampaticchana cittas, 3 santirana cittas, 1 manodvaravajjana citta, 12 akusala cittas, 8 mahakusala cittas 8 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 12 + 8 = 37 cittas When we see an object of eye, these 37 cittas do arise. There are other 8 cittas, each 2 for sotavinana, ghanavinnana, jivhavinnana, and kayavinnana. So there will be 37 + 8 = 45 cittas. At eye, ear, nose, tongue, body there can arise a citta called hasituppada citta which is a citta of arahats. This citta does the job of javana. So we will possess 37 cittas at each time we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and overall we are nothing but arising and falling away of these 45 cittas unless we become arahats or become jhanalabhi when total cittas possible will change. In mind process of citta that is manodvara vithi or in our thinking or reasoning or in any mental activity, there will arise only these 45 cittas as long as we do not obtain jhanas or maggas or phalas. We are kama sattas. So all these 45 cittas are called kamavacara cittas. Some of these cittas can still arise in non-kama sattas like rupa brahmas and arupa brahmas. Otherwise these 45 cittas are very very frequently or almost always arise in kama sattas such as hell beings, animals, ghosts or peta, demons or asura kaya, manussa or human beings, and devas. This is the end of kamavacara cittas. In the following posts, rupa jhanas and arupa jhana cittas will be discussed. After that magga cittas and phala cittas will be discussed. These will be followed by combination of jhana and magga-phala cittas as an extra discussion. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS:Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. Hoping most Pali words have been explained in the previous posts. If there is anything to be re-explained, just reply this post. Htoo 35654 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:15am Subject: Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Dear E, Thoughts are paramattha dhamma. But more than vitakka and vicara. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > Hey Ken (and Howard), > > Ken> "If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s > are they?" > > Vitakka and vicara. > > PEACE > > E 35655 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Annatta teaching Hey Jon, Even though we go back and forth, I want you to know that I do enjoy your banter and do reply with a smile on my face! J> If I have read you correctly over our recent exchanges, Eric, you believe we should all rely mainly on our own intuitive perception of things as derived from or confirmed by our 'practice', with as little direct reference to the words of the teachings as possible. Have I got this right? Nope. You are interpreting again. :-) Maybe this will help. There are 2 types of navigators. Those that 'need' the map in order to make a decision and those that 'refer' to the map in order to 'help' make an 'informed' decision. I fall into the later group. You see, I quite enjoy getting lost and finding my way again. A confidence begins to form in ones inner compass from being lost and finding ones way. J > To my way of thinking that approach is fraught with danger, in that one's intuitive views are likely to be wrong views. It is of the nature of wrong views that they are perceived as being right. Must be hard to get thru life with all those manuals in your hands at all times Jon. You use a backback to carry them around in or a laptop with .pdf versions? ;-) Learn to trust yourself Jon. You can't be all bad! No one can be that unlucky! :-) Jon> In any event, I don't think there's anything in the Anapanasati Sutta about 'staking one's mindfulness to the breath'. That is because you dont practice it. The whole first tetrad uses the breath as object. For piti to arise there has to be a fair amount of ekaggata. This is staking your awareness at your breath. PEACE E 35656 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:30am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 03 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The jhana practitioner is concentrating on the kasina circle of WHITE. All he sees is WHITE. His mind is clear off anything except WHITE. Even though he is looking straight ahead to the centre of the kasina circle of WHITE, the sense WHITE is transmitted to his mind. With a very long practice, he can now view the kasina circle even his eyes closed. At such time, the origional kasina circle is no more in need and can be kept away out of the sight as the jhana practitioner can see it with his mind-eyes. Now what he sees is called uggaha- nimitta. This aramamana is totally the same as parikamma-nimitta except that it is seen in mind. Or the only difference is that it is seen at Manodvara. This concept is essential as all jhana work at manodvara. No jhana citta arises at eye or ear or nose or tongue of body but at manodvara or mind. The practitioner needs to continue his practice without interruption. If this uggaha-nimitta is destroyed ( disappear ) then he will need to look at the origional kasina circle of WHITE in order to obtain uggaha nimitta again. In all these, what the Jhana practitioner needs to notice is he must concentrate only on WHITE. There are a lot of enemy against jhana. It is a tough work to practice jhana. And most of todays people know that jhanas are hard thing to achieve. The practitioner needs to overcome all these difficulties. He must keep the precepts all the time which include abrahmacariya ( avoidance of practice of sex things and related matters). Immediate enemy of jhana are sex and dosa or hatred in any form such as dosa, issa or jealousy, macchariya or stinginess, kukkucca or repent. With these, jhana already acquired will disappear.And sometimes, it is quite difficult to build up jhana again. Bodhisatta Hermit who had pancama jhana and acquired abhinna once saw sex matter of the Queen,Mudulakkhana. Immediately he was not able to maintain his jhana and he had to descend to the ground from his sky journey, which he proceeded by his pancama jhana. The King was his friend ( his pupil or disciple ) and allowed what he wanted. Bodhisatta was married to the queen. Since then, he required endless worldly things such as a house to live. The king gave. The rice and other storage food. The king provided. Clothing for wearing. The king provided. But after a period Bodhisatta managed to overcome his difficulties and regain his jhana and went to Himalaya mountain ranges for his jhana dwelling. So,once the practitioner obtains his uggaha nimitta, he has to maintain it as long as possible. Without this further progression is totally impossible. Keep on practising ''WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE '' or ''Odata Odata Odata Odata ''. May you all be able to initiate your jhana by maintaining uggaha nimitta. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35657 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi again, Matt & Ken - Just a bit more clarification: Whatever mental events occur when I seem to be "seeing" a table or tree, or when I am thinking about such, constitute what I call "thoughts". And such events *do* occur, just as do feelings, emotions, memories, and other mind-door content. They are nama. But trees and tables are not nama, nor are they rupa. They are nothing at all - they are well grounded fictions. And to even call them fictions is off the mark, because there just are no such things at all! Yet it is not meaningless to speak of them, because to do so amounts to using shorthand speech to communicate relations among actual experiences - to communicate them to others and to ourselves for reasoning purposes and to make it possible for us to navigate the world of convention. Until enlightenment dawns, the world of convention *is* our world, and we need to deal with it. With metta, Howard 35658 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The rehearsal of the Co. Dear Sarah and Robert, Robert, thank you, but I still have trouble finding the text. You cannot get at your books, but in which part of the Intro is it. My edition is from 1958. I can also ask Jim, since discussions are on tradition at the Pali list. Nina. op 22-08-2004 11:35 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > In > the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse > "The ancient commentary therof was sang > By the First council, Mahakassapa > Their leader, and later again by seers, > Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote 35659 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:41am Subject: visual field Dear Sarah, I have a Q. for Bgk. on visible object. I read in the Tiika of Visuddhimagga that it is said that visible object could not be as tiny as a the 36th part of an a.nu which is very minute. This is refuted, it is said. Does what is visible consists of many groups, kalapas, containing colour, is there impingement of many such groups on the eyesense one after the other? One minute rupa that is visible object or colour would not be visible. I know that such thinking is not seeing, and not awareness of what is visible. I also know that we cannot count visible object rupas and that we have to attend just to the characteristic that appears. But what about the pariyatti? Perhaps Rob K and Matt can help me? Nina. 35660 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: visual field Hi Agrios, op 17-08-2004 22:06 schreef agriosinski op agriosinski@y...: > Yes it does make sense, but only intellectual. > Just one more memory for sanna to chew on. N: Yes, we have to accept that our understanding is mostly intellectual and that only when we are a sotaapanna doubt can be eradicated. As you saw from my Q. to Sarah, I also find some points difficult to understand. I can also brood on those and have doubts. But I realize where I go wrong: not enough patience to just be aware of what appears. We, all of us I think, want to know everything at once. Maybe you remember my discussion with Larry about doubts: doubt conditions dosa with unpleasant feeling, it feels so unpleasant to brood over something we do not understand. Very human. But it is always good to hear different view points. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains about khanti in his translation of the Perfections of the Bodhisatta. There is a kind of khanti, patience, that is reflective acquiescence in the Dhamma, dhammanijjhaanakkhanti. It is intellectual acceptance of doctrines that are not yet completely clear to the understanding. He says, it is a I think that there are sufficient points of the Dhamma we can verify now, so that we have confidence. Is it not true that there is a growing understanding of the different kusala cittas and akusala cittas that arise? That the different ways of kusala, the ten bases included in dana, sila and bhavana, can be developed and are beneficial? When there is this confidence I think we can be more patient and accept that it is not possible to understand everything at once. Doubt is no reason to reject the whole of the Abhidhamma, or think that the Abhidhamma is not correct. You raised later on a point concerning understanding and detachment. Understanding, any level, arises with kusala citta. Every kusala citta is accompanied by non-attachment and non-aversion. Thus, pañña is opposed to attachment. Whenever there is pañña there is a degree of detachment. At that moment you renounce ignorance and wrong view, there is a little detachment from the belief in self. Even a little helps, it can be accumulated. A: Seems, rupa is there apart of observing process as a paramata dhamma. > But from practice - nothing is there if observer is out of the picture. N: We have to check our own cittas: when we think of an observer, is there not an idea of self who observes? But we have to find out ourselves. We all fall into this trap now and then! A: It is quite easy to understand rupa as it suppose to be. > But there is nothing like this learnt rupa around. N: We learn that there are visible object, sound, etc, appearing one at a time through the relevant senses. But if we do not try too hard, some can naturally appear, just like sound now, or hardness now. If awareness is not natural, in daily life, without trying, it is not the right way. When there is trying, it is lobha again. A: So I had this idea of learning EVERYTHING about rupa, and maybe > one sitting will realize HEY? Isn't this hardness/softness ? > Bad idea? N: That would be too easy. We have accumulated so much ignorance in the cycle of birth and death. Theoretical understanding can gradually develop into right awareness and right understanding, by its own conditions, in its own time. We cannot push anything. And we should not only know rupa, also nama, the citta now. When there is thinking, it is a citta, not you. Also doubt, we have to understand it when it arises, it is nama and it is conditioned. Doubt arises with the citta that is rooted in ignorance. We also have to understand the unpleasant namas. I am glad about your Q., it helps me to consider patience in the development of understanding. Nina. 35661 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon I Hi, Jon - You wrote the following to Eric: "Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea." Admittedly, enlightenment in a single lifetime is quite a goal. Of course, whenever full enlightenment occurs, it occurs during some lifetime! ;-) In any case, Jon, one possible basis for this business, at least for the *possibility* of it, is the conclusion of the Satipatthana Sutta, which reads as follows: _____________________________ "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. "Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. "'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. ------------------------------- With metta, Howard 35662 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Htoo (and Eric) - In a message dated 8/23/2004 1:15:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "htootintnaing" writes: >Dear E, > >Thoughts are paramattha dhamma. But more than vitakka and vicara. > >Htoo Naing > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" > wrote: >> Hey Ken (and Howard), >> >> Ken> "If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s >> are they?" >> >> Vitakka and vicara. >> >> PEACE >> >> E ============================== Htoo, this is as I see the matter as well. With metta, Howard 35663 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:53am Subject: Wise enemy and stupid friend Dear Dhamma Friends, Whether wise or stupid I mean here is the presence of the cautious thoughts for the samsara. The wise know the samsara. The wise know the pros and cons of things while they are in operational matters. But the stupid do not know in depth what the implications of their actions are. This is my first thought. Enemy and friend here I mean companies who bring displeasure and companies who carry cheerful feeling. You may hate someone for some reasons. This person is who did me such a thing. This person destroyed my properties. This person destroyed my fame. This person spoiled all my plans and programmes. This person physically attacked me. This person destroyed my loved ones' properties, fame, diginity, obstruct good improvement, attacked physically, spoiled everything my beloved ones planned and so on. There are many causes of hatred. Anyway as long as personal identity or self-identity is still evident in the thinkers' mind these problems always arise. They will hate those people who do stated things. And those people will become their enemies. For example, if titthiyas are told that they are having wrong view and what they are doing do not have any good, those who hear such words may desert them. As they are losing disciples, the titthiyas will have hatred on those who tell the truth for the samsara. Here, the wise become enemies of the stupid. The opposite actions will make people love to the doers. This is the person who help me when I was in despair and in trouble. This is the person who gave me food. This is the person who gave me house to live. This is the person who gave me clothings. This is the person who announce my fame. This is the person who helped my friends and beloved ones and so on. You may love those who did good to you. But they may still be stupid when the future and the samsara is taken into consideration. Listening to the friends' words may or may not be worthwhile. On the other hand, even though you think that those people are enemies from your side, the wise will never do what the samsara implications are not good things. May you all be careful with all your actions. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35664 From: john duncan Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:55am Subject: flippin' off the moon Hello, Ben. Thank you for your post in reply to mine, neither of which were written by anyone. I agree with everything said, and though I am still finding my way through these posts in the limited time I have available, sometimes something strikes me and I comment. I hate when this happens, because then I end up babbling more and left hoping no one sticks to anything I say. Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to post a smile and a bow, so I am left with occasional fits of babbling. Sorry to everyone for the inconvenience. You can't see it, but I am smiling and bowing... With metta... Duncan... 35665 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hey Htoo, Sure, why not. I merely limited it to these two thoughts because these are incontrovertible. Unless you wish to define vitakka and vicara as not thought. Look, it is all thought and that is where we are caught. If it were not we would be naught and not be in this silly group to begin with!!! :-) PEACE E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear E, > > Thoughts are paramattha dhamma. But more than vitakka and vicara. > > Htoo Naing 35666 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon I Hello Howard, Interesting - the different understandings we arrive at from the same scriptural passages ... I've always seen these verses - the one place in the Suttas that the Buddha, unasked, brought up the subject of Time - as him teaching that Time had absolutely Nothing to do with the Path. There is just NOW ... nothing else. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > You wrote the following to Eric: > > "Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving > enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea." > > Admittedly, enlightenment in a single lifetime is quite a goal. Of course, whenever full enlightenment occurs, it occurs during some lifetime! ;-) In any case, Jon, one possible basis for this business, at least for the *possibility* of it, is the conclusion of the Satipatthana Sutta, which reads as follows: > _____________________________ > "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. > > "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. > > "Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. > > "'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. > ------------------------------- > > With metta, > Howard 35667 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Al, > > One more quick one -- you just happened to catch me.... > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > Sorry Sarah I beg to differ. IMO, awareness of all that's going on in > > the psycho-physical complex is key, hence the four foundations of > > mindfulness. > ... > S: Just one reality -one nama or rupa at a time without any expectation > about when or how often or how many...otherwise the expectations will > prevent any sati arising. I don't know about this, I think sati can be cultivated, I've been mindful of nearly all the feelings of a few of my sense doors at one time, even if they are not all experienced at the same moment. I'm pretty sure the Buddha meant to be mindful of body, feelings, mind, and dhammas and their sub-sections pretty concurrently, and as much as possible to practise within reason at once is good. > .... > >Not to be acheived all at once or in a hurry though, but > > I still think, from what I've read, that that level of concentration > > is necessary to watch the rise & fall of phenomenon. > ... > S: The key is understanding, not concentration. There will be momentary > concentration regardless. How so. From what I read that's the counterpart sign in breath meditation. Or if you're really good at some of the other meditations such as reflection on the four elements or what have you then access concentration will arise. > Forget about watching `the rise & fall of > phenomenon'. Understanding has to know first in theory what namas and > rupas are and then gradually sati will develop and be aware of one at a > time, depending on the `right' conditions. No watching, no special > concentration. I'm glad you appreciate the `Not to be acheived all at once > or in a hurry though'. How many aeons have' we' rolled round in ignorance > in samsara? Right. One point I do want to make is that for all the 'excellent questions' I have asked, my understanding of the Buddhadharma is still very weak. I may want to sit on the sidelines for a while until this takes a change for the better, I don't think it's going to grow naturally or anything, it's something that will just come in time. I suppose I can correlate my experiences to the different mental factors, eg yesterday I was out and I felt what could be phassa but I wasn't sure if that's what it was. There really could be the danger that I'm just loading my head with knowledge but not truly penetrating or understanding as much of it as I should be. > > > > > Take a break and forget about any expectations of results or fears of > > > unhappy rebirths. > > > > Why? Should I not fear the hellish torment I'm on path for?? > ... > S: Because such fear is harmful and is hurting rather than helping you on > the way. Fear is anticipation of pain. If you knew you had such pain before you you'd be afraid too. > .... > >That is > > what I am practising for, a rebirth in the lower realms. > .... > S: Al, this is just thinking only. We have no idea at all what past or > present kamma will bring what result. Developing understanding now is the > most beneficial. You're right on the second part, I'll give you that. But I don't know that I can develop understanding per se. Sometimes when I take really slow walks outside I can come home and have the capability to understand stuff from all my texts, otherwise I don't. But you are wrong on the first part. The Buddha taught laypeople why some people reappear in hell and some people reappear in heaven, he taught how mischief can bring one to the lower realms, and I know I'm not acting in accordance with the good path It's something that's pretty scary, especially considering my poor health. You could almost say I've apprehended and know too much for my own good through my spiritual practise. > ... > >Somehow > > whatever I'm doing is mischeivous or wicked, maybe it's because I'm > > selfish, I don't know exactly, but that coupled with my ever-present > > illness does not have me in good spirits for even the near-term > > future. > .... > S: Again this is just thinking with dosa (aversion). Cittas change so > rapidly. No, no. No, no. I've been told I'm wicked, scripture refers to evil-doers being born in the state of woe, and as evil being apparent as evil. I know when I"m evil, Sarah, and it's a -lot- of the time. Reflections on the Dhamma are certainly not `wicked' and > unwholesome cittas and selfishness are very common for us all. True but I don't know how much I'm truly able to reflect on the Dharma. Well, scratch that, I do, and it's not a lot. I'm more of a walking library. I only want to get some good vipassana meditation going and carry my (eventual) understanding of Abhidharma with me to practise Satipatthana. > >Only insight into why I'm wicked and reflection on my > > unwholesome actions will do any good. > .... > S: Understand that these are the briefest mental states (not `you') that > arise and fall away. In between are sense door cittas, bhavanga cittas and > wholesome mental states such as now when you reflect wisely. Instead of > looking into `why', just accept and understand with detachment. Otherwise > there's just more aversion to `my wicked states'. Don't think it's wicked mental states, think it's wicked actions and thoughts. Just "the evil way in thoughts, the evil way in words, the evil way in deeds" Even trifling evils, that's why it's called mischief. > > Thanks, Sarah, for your quick 'in the nick of time' reply. It's > > appreciated. > .... > S: Anytime if you catch me;-) I'll be away for a long weekend next week, > but call out if you're in trouble and someone will step in, I know. This > is a very supportive group, I find and you can send out a `help' call > anytime. You don't have to agree with what any of us say. > > Don't be afraid to have a little fun today as well, Al......there can be > awareness whilst listening to music, raiding the fridge, laughing with > friends or taking a brisk walk too. Sometimes I smile at all the > nonsensical and useless thinking too;-) > Love the walks, but listening to music, raiding the fridge, etc, I feel take away from my austerity and leave me faring worse off in the long run. peace, AL 35668 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Perhaps this is a good time to resolve something for yourself. > > I read your previous emails as expressing resentment at the authority > that is being imposed on you from outside. > > Nothing wrong with that. Every human being needs to feel a sense of > control in their life, and it sounds like you feel you have lost your > autonomy. > > In this current post, your urgency comes through. You are desperately > trying to achieve something, to avoid something, to control something. And I honestly don't have the mental strength to tell you what. things might work out in the intermediate-term future, ive had good premonition(s) > > Now, you can take it from me, and if not from me, there would be any > number of others in this group who will tell you the same, that Buddhism > is a path that points to/leads to acceptance of things being just the > way they are. I cannot do justice to this in a short paragraph, because > with acceptance of the way things are, the way things are changes > drastically. > > What might be important for you to resolve for the moment is whether you > want to pursue a path at this time that will lead you to an > ever-dwindling sense of self and control. I am saying this only because > you are in a struggle (understandably so) to maintain yourself in the > face of all those things you have no control over. Right, but I think I can take control of my life by simply 'accepting' the way *things* 'are' as I sit in my bedroom and not 'complying' with 'them'. And then just walk the path of mindfulness when I'm off the computer. Its really been my option, so far I've just gone along with things. Tell me if I'm wrong here, you did make this point pretty strongly. I do know that I have control issues and that letting things go is more the way to handle things, this is still a lesson that I could learn. > You understand that you are not well. This is a valuable insight. There > was a time in my life when I suffered from paranoid delusions coupled > with visual and auditory hallucinations. (Some might reckon I'm still > delusional :-)). I had a great doctor who prescribed me as much time as > I needed to do nothing of any significance except for to get well. And > it worked, and all it needed was time. > I don't know that I can get well and stay 'well'. I think my priorities are on my spiritual practise, because I view this life as next to nothing in importance when compared with the cosmic scale of things - I probably only care about my health to the degree necessary to keep myself able to practise. > I would encourage you to look at your current situation as an > opportunity to let nature take its course and bring you back into > balance. For the moment, trust those around you with the care for your > well-being, make no decisions on your own, and leave your faith in the > Buddha to do its work (without your constant help, thank you very much > :-)). Uhhh. "You should do the work yourself, for Buddhas only point the way" ring a bell? TBT, I'm in less "ease" now that I'm involved with treatment than the day I had my first evaluation leading through all of this, so I'm not inclined to take your advice. > Nothing wrong with developing a bit more patience, is there? > > Never. Only have to develop other things with it, or what are we wating for? I wish you well > Me too ;) take care, andrew 35669 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:02pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > > Dear Eric, > > Silabbataparamasa - clinging to sila and ritual can be as gross as > > what you mention above or it can be very refined indeed. > > The Sammohavinodani (page227): > > "The ordinary man is like a madman and without considering 'Is this > > right or not' and aspiring by means of clinging ...he performs any > > of the kinds of kamma (good or bad)... Thus silabataparamasa > > (clinging to rules and rituals)is a condition for all three, namely > > the sense desire world, fine material and immaterial kinds of > > existence (attained by jhana) with their divisions and what they > > include" > > We see that > > silabataparamasa can lead to both good and bad states, it can lead > > even to the highest pleasant feelings experienced in jhana but it > > cannot lead out of samsara. All ways of kusala (wholesome) can > > support the development of insight, but they > > won't if they are clung to or mistaken as the path. > > RobertK > >Eric: Silabbataparamasa is often qualified with a 'wrong'. So, > of course, anything with clinging can be qualified as > 'wrong' (no duh). +++++++++ Dear Eric, Could you give me the text references where silabbataparamasa is qualified with a wrong, then we can discuss it more. Robertk 35670 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:06pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Hi again, AndrewL, > > I looked at the MFH wasted empire lyrics and feel somewhat ashen myself. You're ashen? I've become vile, depraved, I don't know how this happened. It's like my moral discipline has been sucked into space by a giant vacuum. > I have been alone with my own company, not appreciating that "All our hate > is a product of a world... We created"; "We have to face up to the truth > Relinquish every grudge or bruise". No injustice when we've been born, > receiving fruit and blindly planting. My nonviolent prayer we all live > long enough to mend our ways, forgive each other and ourselves, no > regrets, no forever justifying because "There's no peace for the one who > can't know peace". Not familiar with any of the above save the first. > Hate is never love, and one thing never turns into > another but they're both strong shackles and the key is understanding. True that part was kind of weak. It's meant to inspire though. They are about love, eg 'love will be my rock, the rock that i stand on' I pretty much agree with it, the basic message that I can gather is that as I said we are living in a type of 'pleasantville' society when in reality the world is on fire, this nation is on fire, people's lives are being taken from them, and going along with the system may not even be an option if you think of the consequences in the long term. IE, its much easier to pretend nothing's wrong or something's only marginally wrong but if you take into account the aeons of hellfire that are at stake here you might just want to be 'non-compliant' as it were and walk your own path in the world. That path happens to be, in my case, in MH's, buddhism. My guess is that they practise vipassana meditation, and loving-kindness, and master themselves, whereas I want to practise the four foundations of mindfulness but I'm kind of weak on the loving-kindness. They also MAY be into some violence and 'wrong speech' but it seems they are confident enough that they will get attainments anyhow. Then again, if they're developed in contemplating the body in the body, those words won't really have too bad results. That's where I differ. Oh, and 'death is their sect.' You know, worldly pleasures, pursuits, nothing worthwhile except attainments. If there's any doubt, check this one from their earlier days. http://www.rlyrics.com/M%5CMachineHead/Colors.asp with the last line changed to "till all wars cease" I am feeling that, I've been walking sllooow to get understanding and the police use tricks to get me to stop and influence me to stay in the system... but thats just to scratch the surface of the deception involved... im out peace > The lock will not be forced. No one else can threaten me, I have no > [other] enemy. "Unquenchable addictions call"; intoxicated, I stumble > cursing over clues and don't "Break down the cycle Of errors past". I > keep alive the effect of the moment that has died, giving it power so I > can live in denial of my own choosing. I am the garbage Recycled. > > We are drinking copper when we're fuming, just a matter of mind-states and > momentary lives. When we wish for things we don't have, we're petas. > When we snarl within our prisons, we're animals. Right or wrong, that is > our practice; whether we think we're ready or not it's already done gone > and went. Around and around, practicing the common realms like we can > perfect them. 35671 From: nori Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi MattR, I've heard this all before. It seems as though everyone repeats these ideas, having faith in Abhidhamma scripture, like robots with no personal experience or insight into the matter. What is the reason, evidence and foundation for your conviction ? peace, nori --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matt roke" wrote: > Hi Nori, > __________________ > > N> However to act in this existence we must have some kind of view > or "concept" of reality of which we act by, and this view, I think, > will ultimately have to be a guess since I see no way there can be > any certainty in this (If you guys do see some method then I would be > happy to hear it). > > N> Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However > this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect > certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because > concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any > foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related > manner) of what is experienced. > > N> I also understand the idea of Nagasena's chariot. "Chariot" is a > concept, yes, OK. However, this still does not dismiss the > independent existence of this conglomeration of matter. > _________________ > > The conglomeration of matter, whether it is the Chariot or its > components are concepts and so they are not real. > > The individual components of the chariot have their own characteristic > but when put together they create something quite different. The > chariot story points out that the concept we have of a world, a self > and life is made up of components, and that the components are real > but the concept is not. > > Citas, which experience nama and rupa, are those components. > They arise and fall away one after the other so that at any single > moment the only thing that exists is a cita (with its accompanying > cetasikas). That's all there is. And yet because of citas there is > this amazing complex concept of a world and a self in it. > > People think that they experience, through their senses, a huge > rupa world comprised of everything from minute atomic particles > to an infinite universe. In reality there is nothing more than what > cita experiences, which is hardness, temperature, pressure, smell, > tastes, sound and colour (along with nama). > > When cita arises and experiences hardness, at that moment there is > nothing but hardness. The world is hardness. There is no colour, no > sound, no lobha, no religion, no people, no world and no self in that > moment. The cita that follows likewise has only its characteristic. And > so, in no one cita can there be found a self or the world. > > Each cita arises and then falls away completely . . . . it cannot stay > and it will never arise again. The moment of hardness falls away, the > moments of sound, taste, smell and colour fall away. In each of these > fleeting impermanent moments there is no world or self to be found. > > There are concepts and realities whether there is ignorance or wisdom. > When there is ignorance there is no understanding of the realities so there > are only concepts. . . of a self, of others, of a life and of a world. > Wisdom, however, knows what is real. It knows the characteristics and > impermanence of realities and it knows that there is no self or world in > concepts. > > MattR > 35672 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:40pm Subject: Re: Help? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > ++++++++++++++= > > Dear Andrew, > > The crucial factor is understanding. And right understanding knows> > Right Concentration is refined - it doesn't come from trying to > > focus, it arises from tranquility and the tranquility of letting go > > can be developed anytime, if there is enough understanding. > > RobertK > ++++++++++++++++++ Andrew: In my experience right concentration arises from meditation and > applying ones attention to the meditation subject. As I understand > it, tranquility is supposed to follow, this is why shamatha > meditation is sometimes called tranquility or serenity meditation. > > This concentration, when sustained, allows one to see the true nature > of phenomenon as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and devoid of self. > ++++++++++++ Dear Andrew, This idea does seem to have got popular among modern Buddhists. But when focussing on an object it is easy to develop a stronger sense of control and self. Right concentration is so sublime. In the Upanisa Sutta it says: "Gladness is the supporting condition for rapture; rapture is the supporting condition for tranquility, tranquility for happiness, happiness for concentration(samadhi)." Sometimes I think the right path is almost the opposite of what we initially take it to be. We rush in looking for results and try to concentrate. But all the time the real way is one of detachment. RobertK 35673 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon II Hey Jon, --- ericlonline wrote: ... > J> I have pasted at the end of this post the 2 tetrads we are > talking about.Do you find them easy to understand as they are? > > If you are trying to be a sculptor and > have never touched clay then it will be > hard to understand instructions about sculpting. > Make some stick figures and maybe a context > starts to spring out of your own 'playing' > that is capable of adding meaning to otherwise > meaningless words. J > Yes but the analogy is not appropriate to the task of developing understanding and overcoming wrong view. By definition, unless the 'practice' is correct from the outset, the result will simply be more wrong view, making the goal even more difficult to attain. That is assuming one does not learn from ones mistakes. If you are a slow learner, ask the teacher, bring them an apple, do the best you can! J>I think it's more like, as someone (KenH, Andrew?) said, setting off having misread the map, and so taking oneself further away from the intended destination. Oh I see, 'you can't get there from here'!? --- > J> Are you saying that it definitely doesn't refer to jhanas? E> Jhana is not mentioned therefore > jhana is not necessary to begin > to practice. J> Well, jhana is not mentioned by name, but that of course does not mean it is not being referred to. That is the beauty of it. It does not exclude anyone even the beginner! J> (Just a point of correction here, too. According to the passage I quoted, it is only in the second and third tetrads (not the first) that jhana is referred to. So there is certainly no suggestion of jhana being 'necessary to begin' here.) Exactly why I have said it is an OK practice for a beginner. I mean everyone breaths. So we agree for once! :-) --- > J> I'd be interested to hear your > explanation of these (and the other 2) tetrads. E> What do you want to know? J> I'm questioning whether the meaning of the second and third tetrads is as clear as you seem to suggest it is without outside assistance. I think it requires a little internal assistance to make it crystal clear. You know unwrap the packaging and look inside. Not just talk about or think about unwrapping the package. Who wrapped the package? But if we unwrap it in the wrong way we may damage the package. But didn't the package wrapper once insruct others to unwrap the package under a tree when no one else was around. Yes but those instructions were to union package unwrappers. Best not to touch the package for fear of being a bad package unwrapper doomed to forever never have a package wrapped again until another master package wrapper appears! J > So I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the following aspects (see passages set out at the end of this post): - as regards the second tetrad [19], what exactly is meant by 'rapture', 'pleasure' and 'mental fabrication', and what is the significance of this particular order of things. Likewise with the expressions 'sensitive to' mental fabrication and 'calming' mental fabrication; - as regards the third tetrad [20], what is meant by '*sensitive to* the mind', '*satisfying* the mind', '*steadying* the mind' and '*releasing* the mind', and what is the significance of this particular order? Lets start with the order of the tetrads in general. They go from Body> mind > spirit. That is from gross > subtle > causal. You pick the 3 levels that resonate with your understanding and write back. ... > J> Also, what do you understand by the reference in the > sutta to monks who were already devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out > breathing? > E> You would have to ask the person who > spoke those words what their intentions > were. Anything beyond that is at best > an educated guess and also meaningless > for our aims. J> I think if we are going to give importance to certain passages in the sutta (such as the often-quoted passages at [15] to [17]), we should have regard to the whole of the sutta and not just to selected passages in isolation. Back to this again! Look, it is the origin of the story. Like saying who was there to set the scene in plays. The same instructions were given to Ananda alone. What does that mean??? Was Ananda not at the other occasion? I thought he had a great memory? Or was he a slow learner? Needed to be told twice. Where is this leading us? Everywhere but where the sutta instructs. Jon, you really do wear your hindrances on your sleeve. PRACTICE WHAT IS IN THE SUTTA, then all these uber-man conspiracy theories and questions will fall away like ashes in the wind. Your whole line of reasoning in regards to this sutta is to keep you from practicing it. Which is fine. You have aversion to sitting meditation, no big deal, to each his own! But I ask, how are you practicing Right Concentration i.e. jhana? If you are not developing it then you are practicing a 7 fold path and not the path of the Buddha. Which is fine too. I dont care what you do or dont do. ... > J> You'd have to tell me how to get to the first tetrad to begin > with, Eric ;-)). E> Sit down, shut up, stop theorizing and > stake your awareness as best you can > at the breath. J> A colourful paraphrase of the Buddha's words, Eric ;-)). I think you havein mind the passage from the Anapanasati Sutta beginning 'There is the case ..." (see just below these comments*). >However, I don't think that passage should be read as an instruction to stop what we are doing now and do something else instead. Such a reading would not be consistent with the rest of the Tipitaka, especially the Satipatthana Sutta. Rather it should be read as setting the scene for the instruction that follows, that is to say, that what follows is for the person who fits that particular description. What type of person is that? An orange clad person? So I will wear orange when I meditate. Then all is good with the commentaries and the sutta but maybe the stars are not in line. Oh well, can't pracitice meditation when the stars are not in line. No good can result from that. Jon, are you a slacker type? Do you take the easiest way that requires little to no effort between two alternatives? I am serious! I know meditation is hard, I know it requires effort and tolerance but you are doing everything in your power not to do it! Seems if you took half the energy you are expending to convince yourself not do it and do it, you would be at the 4th jhana in no time! lol J > More to the point for you and me, Eric, is that at this very moment there is no wilderness, shade of an empty tree, or other similar environment. You forgot about an empty hut? Clear out a spare room and do the best you can Jon. I actually have a ficus tree in my house I sit under! No kidding! A friend was moving and had to give it away. It is huge! So, looks like 'I' have the perfect environment! I have the shade of a tree in an empty hut! lol J> My present environment is ordinary daily life (writing a message at the computer), and yours I imagine is the same (reading my message at the computer). Indeed, these and other similar 'non- meditative' moments make up by far the majority of our life. Now surely the teachings have as much application to these as to any other moments. So why aren't we discussing what is bhavana ('practice', if you like) at times like this? Because this thread is about Anapanasati Jon and not about PCsati. I actually try and keep some of my awareness at my breath as I work, type, excercise, etc. It is a good present moment practice you can do just about anytime. Keeps you relaxed and focused on the tasks at hand. Lowers the blood pressure, etc., etc. ----------- .E.. Dont let anyone get > in your way of this! Not even your > own naysaying, I can never do it > we are all doomed, doubtful > inclinations! ;-) J> I appreciate your concern for my spiritual development Eric, ;-)) but I have to say that if you think the path can be developed only under those particular circumstances (seated and silent, to paraphrase your paraphrase) then the Satipatthana Sutta was given in vain. My question to you would be, what about all the rest of the time? I never said at the exclusion of other practices Jon! This thread has been about Anapanasati. Now you wish to theorize about other practices too! For what? To analyze yourself a way not to do them also? PEACE E ------------- From the Anapanasati Sutta: [19] "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. [20] "[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. 35674 From: nori Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi mike, I don't know if you remember but you were the first person I ever had discussion with on a Buddhist discussion group. ... good to hear from you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Nori, > > Hope you don't mind my butting in-- ... of course not. > I take your point. We do live in a world of concepts and they are useful, > even the pariyatti is conceptual. The way I see it, the nature of existence > or 'reality' is an interesting philosophical question, but is beside the > point of Buddhadhamma. It's my view that the only important distinction > between paramattha and other dhammas is that the former can be the bases of > satipa.t.taana while the latter cannot. I've always found the use of the > expression 'ultimate realities' problematic for this reason--it suggests > physical/philosophical implications that are outside the purview of the Four > Noble Truths, unrelated to suffering and the end of suffering. > > By the way, I also think that the investigation or analysis of concepts can > be extremely valuable both as a means of gaining the understanding of the > Dhamma that is conceptual Right View, and as a means of temporarily > suppressing the defilements. I believe this is quite consistent with the > nikayas--not sure about the Abhidhamma, offhand. Just my opinions, of > course! > > mike I agree with you for the most part and I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote - "It's my view that the only important distinction between paramattha and other dhammas is that the former can be the bases of satipa.t.taana while the latter cannot." I think people, as you say, misinterpret the idea of "ultimate realities" and assume with no foundation "physical/philosophical implications that are outside the purview of the Four Noble Truths". I think the reason for many peoples conviction, and this extra step too far is the Abdhidamma which enumerates and defines reality. In the Abhidamma there are many ideas, which are introduced, that are not necessarily supported by the nikayas. However I question whether this issue is completely outside the purview of the Four Noble Truths since isn't understanding oneself and how we exist part of the path to end suffering ? Science and technology which buddhists distrust, allows us to perceive things (depending on one's view), things which cannot be perceived with our ordinary sense organs to gain deeper understanding. regards, nori 35675 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV 96 Hi Htoo, H: "What is functional mind element?" L: The functional mind element (kiriyamanodhaatu??? something like that) is 5-door adverting consciousness (pa~ncadvaaraavijjanacitta). It will be explained at Vism.XIV 107. Nina will have an introduction and commentary to 96 in a day or so. Vism.XIV 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of being the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing visible data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. Larry ---------------------------- "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 96. Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. (35)-(38) 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and cognizing sounds, and so on. Their functions are to have only sounds, etc., as their [respective] objects. They are manifested as occupation with [respectively] sounds, and so on. Their proximate cause is the departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has [respectively] sounds, etc., as its object. 35676 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:36pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Couple more pieces I wanted to add: from "Wipe away the tears" off TTAOE With my heart aimed at the world Destiny I watch unfurl This contrasted with the standard treatment of the psychiatric facility, when we can all pretty much agree the world is dying, to have you brush your TEETH so that when i come to the realization at home that i am still dying my TEETH are the prominent object as if i were going ot the dentist. some destiny this place has given me... and from Imperium existence, something to cherish true better than the standard treatment of sleep & food at the hospital but this ones a little more debatable ;) thats all for now, al 35677 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:39pm Subject: Precept to keep from useless speech Hi there, I took this precept at a one day retreat given by Venerable Rahula of the Bhavana Society when he was up here in NY. most of the time if i go out with someone ill feel awkward just being quiet so i'll speak minimally and some happiness will go away. well tonight instead of staying on irc and doing idle chatter i just kept to myself in my bedroom with the computer off part of the time and when i went out for a walk i was experiencing some minor goodness, happiness, so just wanted to relay that experience. there is sukkha out there if you let it come 35678 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Help? Hi Andrew, > You understand that you are not well. This is a valuable insight. There > was a time in my life when I suffered from paranoid delusions coupled > with visual and auditory hallucinations. (Some might reckon I'm still > delusional :-)). I had a great doctor who prescribed me as much time as > I needed to do nothing of any significance except for to get well. And > it worked, and all it needed was time. > I don't know that I can get well and stay 'well'. ========== Knowing that you are not well is a great insight. This is not just specific to you. Everyone is suffering from a mental condition. There are just those that know it, and those that don't. Those that don't know they are suffering from a mental condition cannot yet come to an acceptance of that condition. But you can. And accepting that you are unwell is a great release. You no longer have to struggle to reach how things should be, how you should be, how anything should be. You know it doesn't work. As a little exercise, when you are next in a group situation, look around and see each person as a suffering being. Ignore their conceits, ignore their pigeonholes, just see how unwell they are. You are just like them, they are just like you. Doesn't matter if they wear a uniform or a badge, underneath they are as naked and vulnerable as anyone else. They may well be folks catatonically entrenched in their rules and regulations, their definitions and deceptions, busily trying to force their world to be acceptable. But they are just like you, you and them and all of us, we are all in the same boat, together. This is the basis for lovingkindness and compassion. If you can accept that you are unwell then you can accept that they are unwell. Understanding that you are unwell, and understanding that others are unwell, is just about the healthiest perspective that anyone could come up with. ================== A> I think my priorities are on my spiritual practise, because I view this life as next to nothing in importance when compared with the cosmic scale of things - I probably only care about my health to the degree necessary to keep myself able to practise. > I would encourage you to look at your current situation as an > opportunity to let nature take its course and bring you back into > balance. For the moment, trust those around you with the care for your > well-being, make no decisions on your own, and leave your faith in the > Buddha to do its work (without your constant help, thank you very much > :-)). Uhhh. "You should do the work yourself, for Buddhas only point the way" ring a bell? ================= There is a puzzle in the daily paper here, nine scrambled letters arranged in a square of 3 x 3. The goal is to find what the 9 letter word is. There are a number of ways of solving it. One is to mentally take letters and rearrange them and come up with different words till you get the right one. It is very active, very conscious, very consuming, very frustrating. An other way is to look at the letters, walk away, and let your mind work it out without your conscious participation. Look at the puzzle momentarily from time to time, and whammo, the answer will jump out at you. It works, without frustration, without effort, without participation of an ego. Either way the work is being done. The mind works very well without being reflexive (referencing itself). ================== A > TBT, I'm in less "ease" now that I'm involved with treatment than the day I had my first evaluation leading through all of this, so I'm not inclined to take your advice. > Nothing wrong with developing a bit more patience, is there? > > Never. Only have to develop other things with it, or what are we wating for? ============== Very good question, and well worth asking. You can ask that question in either of the two ways that I wrote about solving the 9 letter word puzzle. Your thinking is not required to come up with the answer :-) Wishing you well Herman 35679 From: Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon I Hi, Christine - In a message dated 8/23/2004 3:59:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "christine_forsyth" writes: > >Hello Howard, > >Interesting - the different understandings we arrive at from the >same scriptural passages ... > >I've always seen these verses - the one place in the Suttas that the >Buddha, unasked, brought up the subject of Time - as him teaching >that Time had absolutely Nothing to do with the Path. There is just >NOW ... nothing else. > >metta and peace, >Christine ============================== Yes, interesting. I like the idea of timelessness, but I don't see that at all in this sutta. So, yes, what we bring to a sutta may be as important as what the sutta brings to us! ;-) With metta, Howard 35680 From: connieparker Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:48pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Sorry, Andrew L, I don't know how the music might change the way the lyrics sound to me, and maybe I misread them, but I don't share your appreciation of MH. Love might be their high moral ground but I don't trust what they're going to do with that rock in their fight other than turn into what they say they don't like. But you might try http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-chant.htm for Imee Ooi chanting METTA - mp3 and text files towards the bottom of the page. peace, connie 35681 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Cetasikas' study corner Dear Sarah, A good idea. I shall try to add a little something to the postings. I should have been more active in the past when we had such postings from Larry. You made me laugh about a life time work with the Vis. and Tiikas. I do not know I will outlive it :-)) But perhaps it can be a condition for long life, who knows. With the Vis. it will take 5 or 6 months before we are at formations khandha, there is also the time in India. If Larry and you have ideas about our tempo, or skipping paras? I do not mind, whatever. Another point: navatabba arammana (not so classifiable objects) , thus, also the sense object just fallen away that is taken up by the mind-door cittas? I try to look at texts to find this. Nina. op 23-08-2004 07:05 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > > Even if you just posted one a week, I’d be glad. I’ve had this book in > mind for a study corner for a long time. 35682 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Dear Sarah, I would prefer pakatuupanissaya or natural strong dependence condition to the word accumulation, which I would use in the case of nama. Citta accumulates. I see it more as mental. It may be a matter of language. See below. op 23-08-2004 11:57 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > I hope you had a good trip. N: Thank you, very good, because it was good for Lodewijk's health. We walked and had Dhamma reading at the dinner table and some discussion. Lodewijk said about Abhidhamma: > S: I had this on tape when I wrote. K.Sujin stressed that accumulations > are pakatuupanissaya -- much broader than our usual definitions of > accumulations. > > She then said “So accumulations includes everything including concepts > and rupas conditioning at this moment. Who knows the accumulations of each > person and how anyone will respond at any moment?”. N: This is clearer, the rupas and concepts condition the citta at this moment. S: I raised several examples and she said they were all included in the > accumulations. For example, the tasting and liking of soup an aeon ago or > any experience of any kind. It was the Buddha’s omniscience that could see > and understand all these details or whatever he put his mind to. Anything > from the past can effect the arising dhammas now -- this is how broad > pakatuupanissaya condition is. N: This is clear. > S: The way K.Sujin was using it, any of these examples would be included. > Even kamma needs pakatuupanissaya or accumulations to bring its result. N: I heard this before. > S: We can raise it again in India. So one person reacts badly to the > air-conditioner and the other finds it comfortable or Christine’s example > of painful feeling. Kamma cannot act without paatuupanissaya including all > accumulated tendencies and responses. It’s very deep. She was very > emphatic that everything is included. > p.s Nina, thank you so much for sending the series on the sutta to Vince. > I liked your comment ‘the Buddha who gave good advice did not reproach him > with the words: you should not have such thoughts’. Also, I thought the > Tika passages to the Vism on restlessness and doubt (# 35318) were > fascinating, esp. the aspects which touch on discussions on kamma-patha. > You mentioned the Tika continues further by way of Q and A. I’m sure this > is interesting too. N: The Q. and A. go on for a lon? time with discussions in the Tiika. I often find the Pali construction very difficult, I am not an expert and it is over my head. I try to get the essence and render it in my own words, or just translate part. The way it goes now seems good to me, because it will not work if I take a month on each para. People will lose the pace of it. I just cannot do it perfectly. But I only write what makes sense to me and if I understand the sense of it, checking the meaning with other texts I have. Dhammawise I do not want to make mistakes. Nina. 35683 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV 96 Dear Htoo, I am just butting in with respect. op 23-08-2004 17:51 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Dear Larry, > > What is functional mind element? > > PS: Please include original Pali word for functional mind element. N: Text: kiriyamanodhaatuuna.m apagamapada.t.thaanaani. the proximate cause is the departure from the mind-element that is kiriya. It is the kiriyacitta, also called mano dhaatu, mind-element, that is the adverting-conscviousness, the first citta of the sense-door process, after the stream of bhavangas has been interrupted, that adverts to the object. It is the proximate cause of seeing etc. since its falling away conditions the arising of seeing etc. Kiriyacitta is translated into English as functional. it is neither cause nor result, as you know. Nina. 35684 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok Dear Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > But I may travel if I am especially invited for Dhamma discussion and > constructive forum which should not end up with dosa, lobha, and moha > because of who know more, who know exactly, who know according to the > Tipitaka etc etc. ..... You are most definitely and especially 'invited for Dhamma discussion and constructive forum' and I know you would greatly appreciate it and we'd appreciate having your contributions. I don't think you will find any of the problems you indicate, though we can never guarantee freedom from dosa, lobha and moha for now;-). I'll drop you a note off-list later or tomorrow. Sukin, could you also kindly pass on your contact details and any Foundation info to Htoo off-list too? TIA. Metta, Sarah ======= 35685 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Still more Cooran Hi Sarah, You were making a couple of "quick comments" on my Cooran notes: > > 2) "The object of stealing is in another's possession." ... S: > I think it always comes back to the citta at the time and the intentions that count. It's like the taking baby birds, milk and other questions where there are so many factors involved. We can never know exactly which acts will be kamma-patha or what results will follow from our own, let alone others' behaviour. -------------------- So I can't know, for example, whether an item of lost property is still in the owner's possession. (Just as you couldn't know whether the men with the birds were acting wrongly.) Fair enough, thanks for putting it that way. ------------------- S: > Is it useful to speculate (fun though that can be) rather than know more about the presently arising cittas? When we're concerned about results of kamma-patha, is it because of attachments to self again, I wonder? -------------------- That brings us to understand the present moment, which, I'll admit, is what we are here for. It is still useful to talk about kamma- patha, though, isn't it? But when we are talking, there is only nama and rupa. :-) Moving on to 9.) Can a citta that takes the concept of oneself as object > possibly be kusala? > Thanks for giving some good (snipped) examples. They were more to the point than mine because mine was more of a 'thought of oneself that wasn't really a thought of oneself.' ---------- S: . . . In the [. . .] example you give, there could be kusala cittas when one reflects in such a way when there isn't metta. ----------------- Actually, when I asked the question at Cooran, I wasn't thinking of the brahma-vihara, but the conversation did come around to it. I'll let the others explain why they are so obsessed with having metta for themselves. :-) ------------- S: > Again, it's a question of really sincerely knowing the cittas for whatthey are and of course they are changing all the time. Only panna can know, not another person. ------------- Thanks. Remind me of that next time I go dhamma-spotting. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 35686 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Azita, Thanks for your encouragement and for your thoughts on `hearing and understanding the words of the Buddha': ----------------- Az: > While bush walking today, I was thinking about this understanding of the Buddha's teaching. Even tho we have to use conventional language to discuss the words of the Buddha, there seems to be a point where no concept can really describe the understanding of a reality. ------------------------- I agree, a conceptual explanation on its own would be bleak and uninteresting: there must be something more that makes it so compelling. Hopefully, that `something more' has been an occasional glimmer of awareness. I am thinking here of Sarah's comment to Agrios: (quote) "So when we hear that 'seeing consciousness sees visual object' or 'hearing hears sound only', not a car, a train or a person, it depends on whether there is any occasional glimmer of awareness of these characteristics as to whether it'll make sense and whether the understanding will be reinforced when we read and hear more. If we don't hear it in the first place and if there isn't any intellectual comprehension, awareness cannot develop." (end qoute) ------------------------- Az: > That moment of really knowing maybe cannot be described to someone who hasn't experienced 'knowing'. ------------------------ No, although I suspect all of us have experienced some form of `really knowing.' I am thinking of really knowing that kusala is different from akusala. I suspect we have all known that occasionally. If that is so, then we have all had some awareness of absolute reality - even if it is later refuted by wrong view (the view that there is no kamma or vipaka). ------------------------ Az: > Kind of an existential event - 'of or grounded in existence' [english dictionary] however in this event the 'existence' is ever so transitory, likewise the experience. What do you think? ------------------------- Do you mean a moment of really knowing creates some sort of existential difference that affects the way we hear the Dhamma? I suppose the difference lies in the conditions that have been accumulated. Does it get any deeper than that? :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > Dear KenH, > Have been reading and enjoying your posts: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > > > ...snip.... > > > > KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is > not > > what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at 35687 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The rehearsal of the Co. Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > op 22-08-2004 11:35 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > > In > > the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse > > "The ancient commentary therof was sang > > By the First council, Mahakassapa > > Their leader, and later again by seers, > > Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote .... S: It’s After the table of contents is the Intro discourse, p2 in the 1976 text. If you can access U.P. at this link, scroll down to ‘Commentaries’ and ‘Vinaya- commentary’, and you’ll find some messages with quotes and details about how they date from the 1st Council. Also look under: ‘Abhidhamma - origins’ for more quotes about how the Abhidhamma nucleus was rehearsed at the First Council. Do you have Malalasekera’s book ‘the Pali Literature of Ceylon’? The following comments and quotes are from the posts I wrote before based on the Baahiranidaana. I think Malalasekera explains the origins of the commentaries very well. If you’d like any other refs or passages I’ve quoted before, let me know and I’ll check after I return from our trip. 1. Sarah: >G.P. Malalsekera ‘The Pali Literature of Ceylon’, ....says that “the need for an accurate interpretation of the Buddha’s words, which formed the guiding principle of life and action of the members of the Sangha, was felt from the very earliest days of the order. When the master was alive there was always the possibility of referring disputed questions direct to him. But even during the master’s lifetime - at the Buddhist centres formed at various places under the leadership of one or other of the famous disciples - discussions, friendly interviews, and analytical expositions used to take place, and the raison d’etre of the commentaries is to be traced to these discussions. Sometimes it happened that accounts of these discussions were duly reported to the Teacher, and some of them were approved by him, and he would then ask the monks to bear the particular expositions in mind as the best that could have been given.....”< ..... 2. Sarah: > With regard to the commentaries (as we read them)., Malalasekera in ‘The Pali Literature of Ceylon’ suggests they were: “not compiled in the modern sense of the word...so that, when Buddhaghosa mentions, in the opening stanzas of the ‘Sumgangala-vilaasinii’, that the commentary to the Digha-Nikaya was at the first council rehearsed by 500 holy Elders, we may assume that he means, that at this meeting the ‘meanings’ to be attached to the various terms - particularly to those that appear to have been borrowed from Hindu philosophy - were discussed and properly defined....Such definitions and fixations of meaning formed the nucleus of the later commentaries. The Elders had discussed the important terms at the First Council, and had decided on the method of interpreting and teaching the more recondite doctrines.” ...... In fact (according to this book) it seems that they were the utterances of disciples that had received particular approval from the Buddha that were ‘esteemed’ and ‘honoured as much as the words of the Buddha himself’. “These formed the nucleus of the commentaries. Often, when the Buddha preached a sermon in concise form on some aspect of the doctrine, the monks used to repair to one of the chief disciples and get the points explained in greater detail. Such was Maha-Kaccayana, for example, who was foremost in reputation for his power in giving detailed expositions of what the Buddha said in brief. ..” ..... If these monks who had heard the words from the Buddha required extra (commentarial) assistance, who are we to think that maybe we can manage without it? I mentioned before that according to Buddhaghosa, the origin of the Mahavihara commentarial tradition goes back to the time of the First Coucil. The commentaries were, he writes: “....rehearsed at the very outset, for the purpose of elucidating the meaning, by the 500 (who were) endowed with self-mastery, and were likewise rehearsed even afterwards were subsequently brought to the island of the Sihalas by Maha-Mahinda (who was) endowed with self-mastery...”< ..... 3. Sarah:> I quoted last time that sometimes the Buddha preached ‘a sermon in concise form’ and then one of the chief disciples would explain in greater detail. Malalasekera continues (The Pali Literature of Ceylon); "When later the text of the canon came to be compiled, arranged, and edited, some of the expositions found their way into the Pitakas and were given a permanent place therein. Thus we have the Sangiti-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya, ascribed to Sariputta and forming a complete catechism of terms and passages of exegetical nature. Such was also the Sacca-vibhanga (an exposition of the four Noble Truths) of the Majjhima, which later found its proper place in the second book of the Abhidhamma-Pitaka, and also the Madhu-pindika-sutta of Maha-Kaccayana, included in the Majjhima Nikaya. "It sometimes happened that for a proper understanding of the text, explanations of a commentarial nature were quite essential; and in such cases the commentary was naturally incorporated into the text and formed part of the text itself.......Then there is the Niddesa, a whole book of commentary on texts now included in the Sutta-nipata; and there are passages clearly of a commentarial nature scattered throughout the Nikayas.” < Metta, Sarah p.s We'll look forward to reading your intro to the MahaRahulavada Sutta and commentary. ======= 35688 From: matt roke Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 0:11am Subject: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Nori, Nori> I've heard this all before. It seems as though everyone repeats these ideas, having faith in Abhidhamma scripture, like robots with no personal experience or insight into the matter. ______________________ It is true that there are people who have great knowledge of Abhidhamma but have little or no insight into Dhamma. But that does not mean all people are void of insight. If you cannot grasp the point that people are trying to make then you may not be in the best position to judge their understanding. Unless of course you have a greater insight into the Dhamma. ______________________ Nori> What is the reason, evidence and foundation for your conviction? ______________________ The reason, evidence and foundation for my conviction is REALITY. I go by a simple rule given by the Buddha. Don’t believe just because the person or what you hear seems or sounds wise. Only believe what you can experience to be real and truthful. I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or motives for doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear people talk about hardness being a reality and then I experience hardness, then I am going to embrace hardness as a reality. The Tripitika, which includes the Abhidhamma, is a good place to find knowledge about things that are real. So it is not unlikely that I will be using Abhidhamma terms to explain what I understand to be true. Not always however, as I do not have a broad knowledge of Abhidhamma terms. What is important is not the name we give to a reality but that we know it is a reality. MattR 35689 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 0:11am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Eric, --------------------- E: > From the Introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya, p.27 "The formations aggregate (sankhara) is an umbrella term that includes all volitional, emotive, and intellective aspects of mental life." Bhikkhu Bodhi. What am I not understanding Ken? Are you saying that concepts and thought are not part of the intelect as V. Bodhi describes above? > --------------------- I will admit the BB quote does seem to be saying concepts are included in sankhara-khandha. I don't know what he means by that but he certainly doesn't mean concepts are cetasikas. His accurate translations of the Abhidhamma make it plain there are only fifty cetasikas that can form the sankhara-khandha and two other cetasikas (sanna and vedana) that form two other khandhas. None of those cetasikas is a concept. Sarah has had discussions with Ven Bodhi on this topic and he has agreed that a similar statement was made in error. See message 33803. It is claimed on Access-to-Insight that concepts (or ideas as they call them) form part of the ultimate reality described in the Sabba Sutta. Sarah has comprehensively set out the proof that this is a mistranslation of the sutta. (See, for example, message 22188) Aside from any opinions Bhikkhu Bodhi may or may not hold, it is important to know that the Tipitaka excludes concepts from the list of realities taught by the Buddha. And it is important to know why. You have said to me that concepts should be investigated, but that is not the Middle Way. With the best will in the world, the investigation of concepts will only come up with more concepts. And even then there will be disagreement (based on religion, culture, philosophy, personal opinions etc.). On the other hand, the investigation of realities leaves no room for disagreement. At a moment of right understanding there is direct contact with a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma. The experience is entirely independent of personal opinion. By way of example, consider a person who investigates a chair to see if it is permanent or impermanent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory, containing a self or devoid of a self. It would be quite nonsensical. If he sits looking at it long enough, he may conclude that a chair changes over time, but even then, is there any proof it is continuing to change now? He may (or may not) conclude, "This chair is unsatisfactory," but what would that mean? Mere words! Unlike a chair (or any concept), a paramattha dhamma has intrinsic characteristics (sabhava). The sabhava of all conditioned dhammas include anicca, dukkha and anatta. It is unlikely that you or I have ever directly known those characteristics, but I'm sure if we did, the experience would be totally different from our commonplace ideas of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and soullessness. I see this thread has progressed with more messages from you, Howard, Matt and Htoo. I will do some homework and get back to you. Kind regards, Ken H 35690 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:05am Subject: RE: [dsg] What is hard? Hi Matt, ================== M > I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or motives for doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear people talk about hardness being a reality and then I experience hardness, then I am going to embrace hardness as a reality. =============== The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, even a stupid baby lying on its back. The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, the real mccoy hardness? Kind Regards Herman 35691 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca...Nibbana & Discussion ( 01 ) Dear Htoo, Thank you for your feedback to my comments. I’d like to add a little more. If we meet, we can discuss it further too. --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your clarity-finding questions. I can sense what you asked. > Regarding 'jhana' series, it is pure jhana. it may or may not be > within the boundries of Buddhism. .... S: All dhammas are within the ‘boundaries of Buddhism’. There is no such thing as a ‘Buddhist jhana’ or ‘non-Buddhist jhana’ in the sense that the realities, the cittas, have their characteristics and functions regardless of how they are described or any views about them. I'm glad you share your posts with us and we have a chance to discuss further. Thank you for this. I asked you the questions about concentration because it might be easy for your readers to think that by concentrating of a particular object of samatha (and following other steps that you suggest) that they may attain jhana. Perhaps you might consider stressing that if there is merely concentrating on an object and wanting to develop more concentration, there is no detachment at these times from clinging, conceit and other unwholesome states. Samatha can only be developed when there is understanding more and more how much attachment there is to sensuous objects as I understand. In other words, it’s not just the object that’s important, but for it to be a moment of samatha bhavana, there must be right understanding (at the level of samatha) at that moment. In other words, it has to be right from the very beginning and there has to be some direct knowledge of how very brief and infrequent the wholesome and calm moments are. In this way samatha bhavana can be developed by knowing which object can be a condition for calm. This knowing is by understanding, not by just ocussing or concentrating on an object such as a kasina. For example, by understanding more about the value of wholesome cittas and reflections about others with metta or by wise reflection on death, one can see that these can be objects of samatha now as we speak. Of course it depends on individual tendencies whether metta or maranasati (recollection on death) or even reflections on earth or solidity will condition calm and kusala cittas, but the understanding has to be there. For example, we may reflect wisely on the importance we attach to ‘earth’ or the objects around us and it can condition calm or we may see the value of metta now, being friendly and ready to help when we have a chance. But if we select breath or a kasina or any particular object, it suggests a wanting of that object. We have to know what the purpose is of concentating on it. Without panna, it merely conditions attachment as I see it. I made some notes before from a discussion with K.Sujin in which she was stressing some of these points and mentioning that the development of samatha ‘has to be normal like now, with sati sampajanna’. As soon as we look for a special object, there is lobha for sure. She asked us to look at the fan overhead and say whether there were kusala or akusala cittas. How seldom do we know. She said: “There must be great panna to know when there is attachment and when there is kusala after seeing. When panna is very keen, it can tell now. Right now there is breath and there is seeing (consciousness). Can one know whether there is lobha after the breath....after the seeing.....? ....For the development of samatha, the danger of even the very subtle attachment after seeing must be known.” She also stressed that both samatha and vipassana must be developed with detachment. Without this detachment, one may have the intention to concentrate on the breath or a kasina, thinking there will be more and more calm later. Instead there will be mor eand more attachment. There will only be less attachment by developing more understanding. ..... H: >.... the series on jhana. It will not be exactly like samatha of > buddhism. Samatha in buddhism are all intended for development of > panna or insight. My jhana series is not for that. Just pure jhana. .... S: There cannot be jhana without the development of samatha with panna (not vipassana). If anyone thinks so, it is not a correct understanding of jhana, whether ‘Buddhist’ or ‘non-Buddhist’. .... Metta, Sarah p.s I know you try to help many people in many places, Htoo. We can only help those who request or wish for our help. Otherwise it may have the opposite effect. Sometimes we may be attached to trying to help and then disappointed when it doesn’t work out. It’s very common and there can be awareness at these times too!! Sometimes the best we can do is to have metta, karuna and upekkha and not say more. ====== 35692 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Ken, You wrote to Eric: You have said to me that concepts should be investigated, but that is not the Middle Way. With the best will in the world, the investigation of concepts will only come up with more concepts. And even then there will be disagreement (based on religion, culture, philosophy, personal opinions etc.). ================== I disagree with your findings re investigation of concepts. When I investigate concepts I find intentionality to lie at all their foundations. Concepts are made by intention. What is thought is what is meant, and what is meant is what is thought. I find it priceless and oh-so paramattha. Perhaps we investigate differently. Kind Regards Herman 35693 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] I'm back... Hi Rob and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > You may, for the sake of clarity, wish to preface your work with the > proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional context,not an historical one. A apology to Herman for naming his contribution (a traditional versus a historical introduction to the Abhidhamma) funny. Now I think he is right. Still I have another opinion: What we need is a historical introduction in which the history doesn't stop a thousand years ago but will continue till now and the future. The last days I have read a essay if Bhikkhu Sujata in which he mocks the pretensions of some abhidhammikas, that was really funny. I think Nori will like it too. www.santiforestmonastery.com/writings/The%20Mystique%20of%20the% 20Abhidhamma.pdf Still his conclusion is "Whatever is good and true in the abhidhamma will stand the test. When abhidhamma is removed from the class on `What the Buddha Taught' and placed in the class on `The Evolution of Buddhism Through the Ages' we will at last be able to assess it on its true merits." Metta Joop 35694 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca, ...Nibbana & Discussion ( 02 ) Dear Htoo, Again, before I continue with our other discussion here, I want to tell you that I’m reading your series on cittas and really appreciating it. I think it’s excellent the way you present it for example ‘Dhamma thread (042)’ , post 35519 is a gem. My comment is not to worry about those averse to Pali or Abhidhamma. You explain the terms beautifully.It’s not an easy subject so people may well find it difficult or have aversion. Small qu on 043 (post 35574): ‘asankharika means there is no sankhara. Sankhara here is cetana cetasika. Asankharika means there is no special volition in arising this citta. This means there is no prompt. No stimulation.’ Of course there is cetana arising with the citta (a universal), but no special prompt as you say. I understand it’s just a weaker citta. Does asankharika really mean there is no sankhara? I find it rather confusing in spite of all the discussions we’ve had from the Vism and elsewhere. Back to our main discussion: --- htootintnaing wrote: > H: > Kayanupassana satipatthana is 'looking at bodily things in > detail'. Kaya means 'body' or 'combination'. Anupassana means ( anu- > in detail + passa- to look ). This is a form of vipassana. This is > breath, it is long, it is short, it is in it is out, it is calm, this > is such position, such is this movement which is preceeded by thought > and such is such content, such is such element, such is such foulness > etc etc and all are connected and combination. Such contemplation is > vipassana. > .... > S: As we've agreed before, only realities -- namas and rupas -- > can > be the objects of satipatthana. So when you say `this is > breath'....'this is such position', what are the namas > and rupas > known by the development of > satipatthana? > .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > You have shifted to paramattha. I think we are going into the same > cycle. First you disagree then you agree next you disagree and then > again you agree. :-) ... S: ;-) Does seem like that doesn’t it? When I discuss paramattha dhammas, such as in your citta series, with you, we have no disagreement and if we were to analyse what you mean in your comments such as those above, again we have no problem. However, I think that when you write about being aware of everything or being aware from when you wake up, get dressed until you go to sleep, or be aware of bodily movements and so on, your readers are not going to have any idea that there can only be awareness of namas and rupas occasionally if all the conditions are in place. They’re going to go away with the idea that ‘they’ can really be aware of breath, bodily movements and all actions in the day. In other words, your descriptions of ‘practice’ don’t quite seem to be in accord with your descriptions of dhammas. What do you think? ... H: > I would suggest you ( this is not I am taking the position of guru or > anything like that. Sarah, you know me well. This is my pure wish. ) > not to mix pannatta and paramattha. .... S: Hmm - I think the theory and practice must be in accord. ... H:> Mahasatipatthana is the only method and the only way to nibbana. I > would say it is the only way and the only method for attainment of > enlightenment. If there was another way, that way must be just a cut- > and-copy-alternative-appearenced way. ... S: Agreed. <...> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > The object of vipassana is anything. It may be kaya. It may be > feeling. It may be citta or mind. It may dhamma. It may be nature. > And anything. ... S: Can a bodily postion or getting dressed, for example, be the objects of vipassana? By kaya, do you mean rupa? By nature, do you mean citta, cetasika and rupa here? I know you understand what the paramattha dhammas involved are, but your readers may not. Anyway, I’ve quibbled enough and I hope any slowness on my part to appreciate what you’re saying hasn’t conditioned too much dosa, lobha or moha;-). We’ll either see you in Bkk or I’ll continue this and other threads on our return. Thank you again for sharing your posts with us. Metta, Sarah ======= 35695 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Herman, Thanks for telling us you’re going to be away too. Have a good trip! A few ends to tidy up here: --- Herman Hofman wrote: > H > There is seeing consciousness without awareness there is seeing > consciousness. But knowing that in itself is inference, otherwise known > as our good friend thinking. .... S: It depends. Usually it is thinking and inference as you say. The point of the teachings, however, is that they can be checked and known directly. When there is awareness of seeing consciousness, it is not by inference as Matt is explaining to Nori I think. ... >The only realities that are known are the > known ones. Awareness of seeing is different to seeing, no? To me, > awareness of seeing is already conceptualized. ... S: Yes, awareness of seeing is different to seeing. One moment of seeing (visible object) and another moment of being aware of seeing consciousness. At this moment, seeing consciousness is the object of the consciousness with awareness. Different moments, but it’s not by inference. This may be followed by conceptualized processes as you describe and because any awareness is bound to be so weak in the beginning, there may not be any understanding or awareness of when there is and isn’t awareness. So afterwards, there may be thinking and wondering. Good points. .... > It may well be that we are totally in agreement on the concepts v > reality issue, but that I am just using different words to you. How to > go about testing this I have no idea, but I'm open to suggestions..... ... S: I think we just need to keep discussing and considering to know if we’re on the same track at any time. For my part, I’ve found your comments and questions to be more and more on my track recently;-) It’ll be no time before newcomers are accusing you of being one of the ‘paramattha gang’, especially after you meet Ken H;-). I really appreciated your recent kind posts to Andrew L as well with many good points in them. I know you don’t like anumodanas, otherwise I might be handing one out here;-). .... > Herman > What are the conditions under which full comprehension arises? > If the hearing of the Teachings is a precondition than the Teachings > must have always existed, which sounds very non-Buddhist. I reject that > insight and understanding will sprout under just any old condition. We > are all a living testimony to that, no? .... S: Full comprehension develops from the growth of wisdom. The Truths have always existed,but the Teachings only exist during a Buddha sasana when there is the opportunity, like now, to hear them. Even a bodhisatta has to have heard the Teachings before from a previous Buddha. I agree with you that insight and understanding will definitely not sprout ‘under just any old condition’. And the right conditions are intricate. Even listening live to a Buddha does not guarantee the arising of any wisdom. There may not be any right attending or there many not be the ability to comprehend. .... > H> I don't understand how an accumulated tendency is different to > repeated action (kamma). How does a tendency accumulate but by repeated > action? ... S: Attachment now whilst looking at the computer screen will condition more attachment in future. An accumulated tendency. We can say there is cetana (kamma) at each moment of accumulation but there is no kamma-patha or completed action that will bring a result at that moment. Actually, this is a more intricate topic than I have time for here. If you look at Nina’s excellent book ‘Conditions’ on Zolag website, under kamma, it would explain in more detail. Or ask me again when we get back from our trips. .... > S > particularly the perversions of consciousness, perception > and view. > > H > What conditions these perversions to occur ? ... S: Ignorance, attachment, wrong view, aversion.....maybe see ‘vipallasa’ in U.P. or again ask for more details on return. These qus are very much on my track;-). .... > H > Developing understanding, how does this occur? Hearing the dhamma, > association with the wise etc etc? How long does one need to associate > with the wise before a lack of development of understanding forces the > realisation that you've been hanging around with the wrong crowd, or > hearing the wrong dhamma? :-) .... S: it’s not a question of ‘how long’ but whether there are conditions for panna to arise and appreciate the truths that ‘the wise’ are telling us;-). Again, only panna will know when we’re hanging around with the wrong crowd, but even with the wrong crowd, there are still all those realities to be known.....After all, whichever crowd we’re with, it’s by conditions already..too late to change this moment;-). Metta, Sarah p.s Posture ========= I know what you’re saying about proprioception. You say that ‘in a healthy body, posture is known without reference to concepts, without thinking.’ I disagree. As I’m discussing with Nori and Howard, the sense-door processes and mind-door processes with concepts as objects (not necessarily at all in words), follow each other very quickly. 35696 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:04am Subject: Bhikkhu Sujata article (was Re: [dsg] I'm back...) Hello Joop, Thanks for this very interesting article/booklet. It appears, along with others, in the Writings section of the website below. Bhikkhu Sujata, the author, is an Australian Monk who lives and teaches at: "Santi Forest Monastery. This is a Buddhist community located on 150 acres of eucalyptus forest, cliffs, waterfalls, and caves adjoining Morton National Park in the rugged landscape of Australia's Southern Highlands, about halfway between Sydney and Canberra. It has been established with Ajahn Brahmavamso, the abbot of Bodhinyana Buddhist Monastery in Western Australia, as its Spiritual Director. Presently Ajahn Chandako and Ajahn Sujato are the senior resident monks. Santi Forest Monastery is owned by Citta Bhavana Incorporated, which also has the goal of establishing a forest nun's monastic community." http://www.santiforestmonastery.com/home.htm But most interesting of all (for me), is the article "Full Acceptance" regarding the issue of ordination for women. This essay examines, from one bhikkhu's perspective, the significance of full acceptance within a hallowed spiritual community. http://www.santiforestmonastery.com/writings/Full%20Acceptance.pdf I wasn't previously aware of this community or its website. Thank you. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > Hi Rob and Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > You may, for the sake of clarity, wish to preface your work with the > > proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional > context,not an historical one. > > A apology to Herman for naming his contribution (a traditional versus > a historical introduction to the Abhidhamma) funny. > Now I think he is right. Still I have another opinion: > What we need is a historical introduction in which the history > doesn't stop a thousand years ago but will continue till now and the > future. > The last days I have read a essay if Bhikkhu Sujata in which he mocks > the pretensions of some abhidhammikas, that was really funny. I think > Nori will like it too. > www.santiforestmonastery.com/writings/The%20Mystique%20of%20the% > 20Abhidhamma.pdf > Still his conclusion is "Whatever is good and true in the abhidhamma > will stand the test. When abhidhamma is removed from the class > on `What the Buddha Taught' and placed in the class on `The Evolution > of Buddhism Through the Ages' we will at last be able to assess it on > its true merits." > > Metta > Joop 35697 From: plnao Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:30am Subject: kusala cittas thus wise attention? Hello everyone I hope you've all been well. Back from my holiday, which I'd like to write about on another occasion as there were some very interesting bumps along the road. . For now I'd like to ask about a sentence in Abhidhamma in Daily Life (94) "If one realizes that killing is akusala and one abstains from killing, there are kusala cittas and thus there is yoniso manasikara. (Wise attention)" I'm particularly interested in that "thus." Is there always wise attention when there are kusala cittas? Thanks in advance Metta, Phil p.s Thanks to Jon and sarah for your help in geting the e-mails to me. My internet access is not working. I hope this message will reach the group board. p.p.s Hello to Nina. ADL was my constant companion this summer and bolstered my confidence during a couple of sad/scared stretches. Thank you. Well, as always the thanks goes upstream as well! 35698 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:12am Subject: RE: [dsg] I'm back... Hi Joop, There is no need to apologise, but I do want to thank you for the link to the essay. I have devoured the essay, and loved it. Besides being a very sharp account of the problems that follow uncritical abhidhammism, it is written in a very funny style. If every time you make fun of something I write you post a link like this, I invite you to poke fun at me as often as you like :-) I agree with you that the development of Buddhist thought hasn't stopped, and that such thought needs to take the discoveries of the natural sciences into account. The West is hungry but educated. Speculative philosophy and metaphysics, whether Christian or Buddhist, will be vomited up. Kind Regards Herman Hi Rob and Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > You may, for the sake of clarity, wish to preface your work with the > proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional context,not an historical one. A apology to Herman for naming his contribution (a traditional versus a historical introduction to the Abhidhamma) funny. Now I think he is right. Still I have another opinion: What we need is a historical introduction in which the history doesn't stop a thousand years ago but will continue till now and the future. The last days I have read a essay if Bhikkhu Sujata in which he mocks the pretensions of some abhidhammikas, that was really funny. I think Nori will like it too. www.santiforestmonastery.com/writings/The%20Mystique%20of%20the% 20Abhidhamma.pdf Still his conclusion is "Whatever is good and true in the abhidhamma will stand the test. When abhidhamma is removed from the class on `What the Buddha Taught' and placed in the class on `The Evolution of Buddhism Through the Ages' we will at last be able to assess it on its true merits." Metta Joop 35699 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bangkok Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your warmest welcome and invitation. For the time being, I am being busy. I hope, next time I may probably join in you. I got messages from you and Sukin. Thanks again for being Dhamma friends. With regards, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Dear Htoo, > > But I may travel if I am .... and moha > > because of who know more, who know exactly, who know according to the > > Tipitaka etc etc. ..... You are most definitely and especially 'invited for Dhamma discussion and constructive forum' and I know you would greatly appreciate it and we'd appreciate having your contributions. I don't think you will find any of the problems you indicate, though we can never guarantee freedom from dosa, lobha and moha for now;-). > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 35700 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV 96 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your explanation. Now I am clear what Larry was saying. Mind-element means manodhaatu. Out of three manodhaatu, pancadvaravajjana is kiriya citta and other two are vipaka cittas. Sometimes, I do not feel anything when Dhamma are written in plain English without Pali. Examples are those of Bhikkhu Samahita's posts which are from Milinda Panna. The other problem is that when posts are full of Pali people may lose interest. But for me, I repeat them till words are used to the English-speakers mind. Sometimes non-Pali words are inaccurate to describe Dhamma taught in Pali. You are most welcome whenever you have to say something. I do not assume any butting. This is the area of Dhamma discussion and Dhamma study. Is that not right? I like the Tiika posts that you forward me and I stored them in a file. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: When I saw ' functional mind element ' I really did not feel anything that these are dhamma words. But after reading your post, now I am clear that it is 'kiriya manodhatu' that is pancadvaravajjana citta. I think this is the power of Pali. I know manodhaatu and there are three. One is kiriya and the other two are vipaka cittas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Larry, > > What is functional mind element? ..... > Kiriyacitta is translated into English as functional. it is neither cause > nor result, as you know. > Nina. 35701 From: matt roke Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:40am Subject: [dsg] What is hard? Hi Herman, ================ M > I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or motives for doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear people talk about hardness being a reality and then I experience hardness, then I am going to embrace hardness as a reality. H> The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, even a stupid baby lying on its back. The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, the real mccoy hardness? ====================== Concepts are such tricky things, not like those boring realities that are always the same. Somewhere in the transfer of the concept, from what I understood I was saying to what you interpreted me as saying, I went from experiencing hardness (like everyone else) to claiming that I have experienced hardness and only hardness It’s probably my English again. Should I have said *based on what I understand is real or not*? Everyone experience hardness because it is a reality. But only a few know that hardness IS a reality and that it is different to concept, which is not real. It may only be thinking and it may not be insight wisdom but it is not the same as a stupid baby lying on its back experiencing hardness. If it were, then it wouldn’t say much for the teaching. MattR 35702 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:46am Subject: [dsg] Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca...Nibbana & Discussion ( 01 ) Dear Sarah, Were Devimala, Alara and Udaka Buddhists? What about their jhanas? Did they do any vipassana? With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: I just snipped nearly all because they are not used here in this reply. If I may, I will forward to dsg a post that Tep and I discussed that is on samma-samadhi. It is jhana and vipassana matters. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Htoo, > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s I know you try to help many people in many places, Htoo. We can only > help those who request or wish for our help. Otherwise it may have the > opposite effect. Sometimes we may be attached to trying to help and then > disappointed when it doesn't work out. It's very common and there can be > awareness at these times too!! Sometimes the best we can do is to have > metta, karuna and upekkha and not say more. > ====== > 35703 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:18am Subject: Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca, ...Nibbana & Discussion ( 02 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Htoo, Small qu on 043 (post 35574): `asankharika means there is no sankhara. Sankhara here is cetana cetasika. Asankharika means there is no special volition in arising this citta. This means there is no prompt. No stimulation.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Sarah, Sankhara and sankharika are not the same. When I wrote at that piece, I noticed that there might be unclarity and you might ask me rather than pass unnoticed. Cetana cetasika arises in each citta. But asankharika citta does not mean it does not have cetana cetasika. I should have written as 'no sankharika' but I chose sankhara instead because I may answer if questions arise. Sankhara here is cetana cetasika_this sentence is right and further 2 sentences are also right. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: As we've agreed before, only realities -- namas and rupas -- > ... > S: ;-) Does seem like that doesn't it? When I discuss paramattha dhammas, > such as in your citta series, with you, we have no disagreement and if we > were to analyse what you mean in your comments such as those above, again > we have no problem. However, I think that when you write about being aware > of everything or being aware from when you wake up, get dressed until you > go to sleep, or be aware of bodily movements and so on, your readers are > not going to have any idea that there can only be awareness of namas and > rupas occasionally if all the conditions are in place. They're going to go > away with the idea that `they' can really be aware of breath, bodily > movements and all actions in the day. In other words, your descriptions of > `practice' don't quite seem to be in accord with your descriptions of > dhammas. What do you think? ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I catch the point. Amara of DSList would also say this as you said. This is because you both miss the main point. We are discussing in the setting of Dhamma. There are three layers of study. First theory or pariyatti. Next practical or patipatti. And finally realisation or pativedha. When moving on the practice, some important points have been understood. I know mere mindfulness means nothing. A cow may constantly know he is touching with weighty wood in a bullock-cart. What I have been trying to say is that to strive with ardent and diligent effort along with mindfulness and wisdom. Someone may go to the retreat and practice for 10 days. He may be happy for his action. After a month he is in his routine where there is hardly any dhamma if ever. Someone may practise formally that is in formal sitting for an hour or so. After rising from that going and joining in TV watchers is not that correct for the practitioner. Actually, I write most of the time centred on me. That is why once one of the members at Teaching Of Buddha asked me is that you Htoo. Even though centred on me some facts are added for the benefit of readers. Wake up. Even before eye open, mindfulness arise and practice starts. Do the routine along with sampajanna and do routine in the shrine. And then sit for an hour. Through out the day, any events are taken into as object of vipassana meditation. Even when trying to speak or during speaking sati is there. But there might be some period that sati is not there. I can count when sati is not there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H:> Mahasatipatthana is the only method and the only way to nibbana. I would say it is the only way and the only method for attainment of enlightenment. If there was another way, that way must be just a cut-and-copy-alternative-appearenced way. ... S: Agreed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is the best agreement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > H: > The object of vipassana is anything. It may be kaya. It may be > > feeling. It may be citta or mind. It may dhamma. It may be nature. > > And anything. ... S: Can a bodily postion or getting dressed, for example, be the objects of vipassana? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is vayophotthabba. So it is yes. Getting dressed involves patthavi-photthabba and tejo-photthabba. So it is yes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S:By kaya, do you mean rupa? By nature, do you mean citta, cetasika and rupa here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. Kaya here means combination. You can take any part what you think is your body as your kaya. Nature there is actually I meant Dhamma. That Dhamma include citta and cetasikas such as nivarana dhamma etc etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S:We'll either see you in Bkk or I'll continue this and other threads on our return. Thank you again for sharing your posts with us. Metta, Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have replied the post Bangkok and offline as well. I have been here because of Sukin and thank Sukin. Discussing is my pleasure. But I have not had enough discussion with Sukin. With Metta, Htoo Naing 35704 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV 96 Dear Larry, Thank you very much for your reply. I also have read what Nina said regarding this. Now, I am clear what ''functional mind element '' means. With respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > H: "What is functional mind element?" > > L: The functional mind element (kiriyamanodhaatu??? something like that) > is 5-door adverting consciousness (pa~ncadvaaraavijjanacitta). It will > be explained at Vism.XIV 107. Nina will have an introduction and > commentary to 96 in a day or so. > > Vism.XIV 107. Herein, (70) the 'mind-element' has the characteristics of > being the forerunner of eye-consciousness, etc., and of cognizing > visible data, and so on. Its function is to advert. It is manifested as > confrontation of visible data, and so on. Its proximate cause is the > interruption of [the continued occurrence of consciousness as] > life-continuum. It is associated with equanimity only. > > Larry > ---------------------------- > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 96. Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being > supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have > only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with > visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of (70) the > functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. > > (35)-(38) 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] > have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and > cognizing sounds, and so on. Their functions are to have only sounds, > etc., as their [respective] objects. They are manifested as occupation > with [respectively] sounds, and so on. Their proximate cause is the > departure of (70) the functional mind-element that has [respectively] > sounds, etc., as its object. 35705 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 In a message dated 8/23/04 8:10:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: Ken, I feel no need to compartmentalize thoughts - that is, real, individual thoughts - any further than to say they fall under sankhara and that, as objects, they are mind-door objects. I think that it may be you, most of all on DSG, who understands by 'thought' something imagined to be pointed to by the mind (like a tree or table). That is not what I mean by 'thought'. Thoughts arise in my mind all the the time, but trees don't and tables don't. (In fact, I don't believe that there are such things as trees or tables at all except in a manner of speaking.) What I mean by a thought is a kind of mental phenomenon - a mental operation. And these occur, just as much as fearing, hating, and loving do. The fact that they are not the same as what they reference and that often they lack an observable referent entirely makes them delusive, but not non-occurring. What is the story, Ken? Do you appreciate all the doors to your house except the mind door? I know you don't keep that door locked, because you do a lot of thinking. ;-) ------------------------------ Howard and all, This subject interests me. My reading of the suttas leads me to try to see the process of all phenomena that arise at sense doors as the same. I try to treat a sound the same as I treat a thought. When meditating I occasionally see them as temporary, not self and not satisfactory. I can sometimes see the affect of karma, Dependent Origination, 4 Noble Truths, etc. At my best I see the process and not the content. It would seem that at my point of development making a distinction between a thought and a physical sensation such as hardness, for example, would not be worthwhile and distract me away from seeing the process. On the other hand, reducing a situation to ultimates does leave suffering behind. Using an example I used before, I have reduced the fear of sitting in a dentist's office by doing a 4 elements meditation and seeing that the actual situation is not threatening; the fear is caused by imagination. This making the distinction between what is real and what is imagination is very useful to me What use to you (and anyone else) is making the distinction between nama and rupa? I think I know what the Abhidhamma couched answer to this would be and am only interested in non Abhidhamma responses. jack > 35706 From: robmoult Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:03am Subject: Scope and Focus Hi Joop and All, I am consolidating replies to a couple of your posts into a rather long piece that I suspect you will find interesting. If you want to fix your car, you would not refer to a book on carpentry. Though the book may be the world's best reference on carpentry, the scope and focus is different from what you are looking for. I give this silly example to make the point that the Buddha's teaching had a very specific purpose and it is not valid to extend the Buddha's teachings to subjects outside their scope and focus. Keeping the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings front of mind helps put what we read in perspective and keeps us from wandering into areas where we have no business being (even though they may be interesting). So what is the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings? In the Culamalunkya Sutta (Mn 63) and again in the Simsapa Sutta (SN LVI.31), the Buddha explains the purpose of the teaching: "Why have I left [answers to speculative questions] undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have left it undeclared. And what have I declared? 'This is suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the origin of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the way to the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have declared it." In brief, the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings are ethical (belonging to the fundamentals of the holy life) and soteriological (leading to Nibbana). Ontology concerns itself with defining reality. The scope and focus of ontology is definition and classification. Though parts of the Tipitaka (particularly the Abhidhamma) sound ontological, the scope and focus of the Tipitaka is ethical and soteriological. I see phenomenology as a form of ontology that defines realities as those things which appear through the senses. In other words, if a tree falls in a forest with none to hear it there is no sound. Clearly many of the Buddha's teachings have a phenomenological flavour, but to pigeonhole the Buddha's teaching as phenomenological misrepresents the scope and focus of the Buddha's teaching. There are some fascinating parallels between modern natural sciences and the Buddha's teachings. I have a book in my library titled, "Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity". I bought this book because, though I am an engineer, I studied elementary particle physics and quantum mechanics at university. I have another book which draws parallels between the Buddha's teachings and Darwin's theory of evolution. Both of these books make interesting reading, but I do not feel that these books help me to better understand the Buddha's teachings (nor do they improve my understanding of Einstein or Darwin). The scope and focus of modern natural sciences is clearly neither ethical nor soteriological; I fear that drawing parallels between the two does an injustice to both. Physics, chemistry and biology create models of "things" to explain (and often to be able to control) how these "things" operate. This is not the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings. What is the relevance of rupa (given the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings as being ethical and soteriological)? Firstly, as an object to a sense door that acts as a condition for a series of mental states to arise. Secondly, as one of the five components in what is commonly called a "being". Since the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings are ethical and soteriological, we do not need to expand the treatment any further. In the Suttas, I have not come across any example of rupa being mentioned except as a sense object or as one of the aggregates (the only exception is that Jon has mentioned to me that there is one example where the Buddha said that rupa had the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta). How two rupas might interact is outside of the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings (but how matter interacts is central to natural sciences). The Patthana goes into excruciating detail on how one thing can interact with another thing. The Abhidhammatthasangaha groups the ways in which: - mind can be a condition for mind - mind can be a condition for mind and matter - mind is a condition for matter - matter is a condition for mind - concepts, mind and matter are a condition for mind - mind and matter is a condition for mind and matter Of course, we all know that matter is a condition (i.e. can influence or impact) other matter, but the Tipitaka is completely silent on this subject because it is outside the scope and focus of the Buddha's teachings. One of the commentaries lists the "laws of nature" as follows (without any further details): - Utu-niyama: Natural laws regarding temperature, seasons and other physical events - Bija-niyama: Natural laws regarding plant life - Kamma-niyama: Natural laws regarding the working of kamma - Citta-niyama: Natural laws regarding the sequence of the functions of consciousness in the citta-process - Dhamma-niyama: Natural laws regarding certain events connected with the Dhamma such as typical events occurring in the lives of the Buddhas What we call physics and chemistry would be grouped under utu- niyama; the ancients acknowledged that laws governing how matter interacts with other matter exist, but only allocated one sentence to this subject (among tens of thousands of pages). Why did I say that nama is more important than rupa in the Buddha's teaching? It is because when we are discussing ethics and soteriology, nama is central to the theme and rupa is almost irrelevant. In my text, I described how rupa arise in groups called kalapas. From the diagram on page 61 of my text, one might think of individual rupas as being like atoms in a molecule. This interpretation is incorrect. Note that ALL things that are not alive are made up only of pure octads. They ALL have the same set of rupas. This is because ALL things that are not alive: - have mass (earth element rupa detected by body-sense) - have temperature (fire element rupa detected by body-sense) - have rigidity (wind element rupa detected by body-sense) - can be seen (have visible object rupa detected by the eye) - can be tasted (have flavour rupa detected by the tongue) - can be smelled (have odour rupa detected by the nose) - have nutritional valve (have nutrition rupa) - have cohesion (water element rupa) In other words, from the Abhidhamma perspective, all non-living things are equivalent. I will be interested in your feedback on my comments. I suspect that the discussion will be lively :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 35707 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:27am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hey Rob, > >Eric: Silabbataparamasa is often qualified with a 'wrong'. So, > > of course, anything with clinging can be qualified as > > 'wrong' (no duh). > +++++++++ > Dear Eric, > Could you give me the text references where silabbataparamasa is > qualified with a wrong, then we can discuss it more. > Robertk I looked for it last night in two places and could not find it. But do a search in google for "(wrong) silabbataparamasa" and you will find many references. PEACE E 35708 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:36am Subject: Re: Precept to keep from useless speech Hey Andrew, > there is sukkha out there if you let it come Maybe we could say, there is sukkha in there if we let it come out. I think what you found last night is a good hint to where the teaching is taking us. To that quiet place inwards that is not based on outer circumstance. Sukkha arises naturally when objects are let go of and the minds innate wholesomeness begins to shine forth. Then any 'object' met with can be met with a smile or an open hand, with acceptance. PEACE E 35709 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Herman (and Ken, and Eric) - In a message dated 8/24/2004 4:20:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Herman Hofman" writes: >Hi Ken, > >You wrote to Eric: > >You have said to me that concepts should be investigated, but that >is not the Middle Way. With the best will in the world, the >investigation of concepts will only come up with more concepts. And >even then there will be disagreement (based on religion, culture, >philosophy, personal opinions etc.). > > >================== > >I disagree with your findings re investigation of concepts. When I >investigate concepts I find intentionality to lie at all their >foundations. Concepts are made by intention. What is thought is what is >meant, and what is meant is what is thought. I find it priceless and >oh-so paramattha. > >Perhaps we investigate differently. > >Kind Regards > > >Herman =================================== It seems to me that what is unclear is exactly what Ken means by 'concept'. As I have said, I mean a kind of mental event/phenomenon/dhamma. It seems to me that Ken must mean that the term 'concept' is empty; i.e., that there are no concepts at all. Ken I would be edified if you would explain what you mean by the word 'concept'. With metta, Howard 35710 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] What is hard? Hi, Herman (and Matt) - In a message dated 8/24/2004 4:05:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Herman Hofman" writes: >Hi Matt, > >================== > >M > I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or >motives for doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear >people talk about hardness being a reality and then I experience >hardness, then I am going to embrace hardness as a reality. > >=============== > >The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, >even a stupid baby lying on its back. > >The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only >hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential >hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, >the real mccoy hardness? > >Kind Regards > > >Herman =============================== Ask me, Herman! ;-) Actually, I believe I do experience hardness and only hardness at the time that I experience it. I really do not think that, for example, we feel hardness and see at the very same time. But my attention is not so precise, and it often seems that multiple sense objects arise (in awareness) at the same time - but I think that simultaneity is illusion due to limited attentional ability. I truly believe that there is rapid alternation among the various sense doors - a flitting back & forth. I also believe that deep meditation can enhance our attentional performance so that the flow of dhammas appears to slow - and this is a likely point of disagreement between me and some of the non-meditators here. With metta, Howard 35711 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Jack - In a message dated 8/24/2004 10:49:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: >In a message dated 8/23/04 8:10:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... >writes: > >Ken, I feel no need to compartmentalize thoughts - that is, real, individual >thoughts - any further than to say they fall under sankhara and that, as >objects, they are mind-door objects. I think that it may be you, most of all on >DSG, who understands by 'thought' something imagined to be pointed to by the >mind (like a tree or table). That is not what I mean by 'thought'. Thoughts >arise in my mind all the the time, but trees don't and tables don't. (In fact, >I don't believe that there are such things as trees or tables at all except >in a manner of speaking.) What I mean by a thought is a kind of mental >phenomenon - a mental operation. And these occur, just as much as fearing, hating, >and loving do. The fact that they are not the same as what they reference and >that often they lack an observable referent entirely makes them delusive, >but not non-occurring. What is the story, Ken? Do you appreciate all the doors >to your house except the mind door? I know you don't keep that door locked, >because you do a lot of thinking. ;-) >------------------------------ > >Howard and all, > >This subject interests me. My reading of the suttas leads me to try to see >the process of all phenomena that arise at sense doors as the same. I try to >treat a sound the same as I treat a thought. --------------------------- Howard: I think that is valid. All experience is just that: experience. (However, distinctions are useful too, for different sorts of events have different functions, some of which are useful, but many of which pose danger. So it is never bad to know "what is what," I think.) ------------------------------ When meditating I occasionally see > them as temporary, not self and not satisfactory. I can sometimes see the >affect of karma, Dependent Origination, 4 Noble Truths, etc. At my best I see >the process and not the content. It would seem that at my point of development > making a distinction between a thought and a physical sensation such as >hardness, for example, would not be worthwhile and distract me away from seeing >the process. ------------------------------ Howard: The thing is, though, that thoughts seem to point to other things, and sometimes they really do, but often times they really do not. I do think that being clear about our thoughts is terribly important, for it there that delusion lies. ------------------------------ > >On the other hand, reducing a situation to ultimates does leave suffering >behind. Using an example I used before, I have reduced the fear of sitting in a >dentist's office by doing a 4 elements meditation and seeing that the actual >situation is not threatening; the fear is caused by imagination. ---------------------------- Howard: I agree with the foregoing. These "ultimates" are quite impersonal. ---------------------------- This making >the distinction between what is real and what is imagination is very useful >to me > >What use to you (and anyone else) is making the distinction between nama and >rupa? I think I know what the Abhidhamma couched answer to this would be and >am only interested in non Abhidhamma responses. --------------------------- Howard: Well, as I've said before, distinguishing mental experiences from physical ones seems largely quite clear and obvious to me. Of course, that is what someone - I think it was Ananda - foolishly said about dependent origination to the Buddha, so I might well be deluded in thinking that that I can make this distinction so easily. There is no doubt that I must often confuse a paramattha dhamma with my tacked-on concept of it. But, for the most part, distinguishing nama from rupa seems easy to me, and that puts me in a difficult position for understanding the deficit in not being able to easily distinguish the two. I would suppose that what is most problematical in being unable to distinguish the two is in missing the distingusihing characteristic of concepts which is their referential function. Our "world" is a world of concept; it is mind constructed, and it is not what we directly observe. And if we do not distinguish nama from rupa, then we may be well stuck in our own mind-made world. --------------------------- > >jack ================================= With metta, Howard 35712 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:32am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 047 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed many things about cittas and have gone into some details about kamavacara cittas. So far 54 cittas of 89 cittas have been discussed. In loki cittas which are sobhana cittas that is beautiful consciousness, there always are three classes of cittas. These are call jati or origin. They are kusala cittas, vipaka cittas, and kiriya cittas. In kama bhumi, there are frequently arising cittas. They are called kamavacara cittas. Among them 24 cittas are sobhana cittas. These 24 kama sobhana cittas are divided into three groups according to their origin or jati. They are 8 mahakusala cittas, 8 mahavipaka cittas, and 8 mahakiriya cittas. These have been discussed in the previous post. Likewise, as kama loka, there are another two loka. They are rupa loka and arupa loka. These three lokas are also called three bhumis. They are kama bhumis, rupa bhumis, and arupa bhumis. All these three bhumis are collectively called 'tebhumi' and anything happening in these three bhumis or these three lokas are called 'tebhumaka'. As in kamavacara cittas, rupavacara cittas are also divided into three classes of cittas. They are 5 rupakusala cittas, 5 rupavipaka cittas, and 5 rupa kiriya cittas. Kusala cittas are those cittas which operate actions and giving rise to kamma, which again have the potentials of giving rise to resultant cittas when appropriate and conditions are fulfiled. Each rupakusala citta has corresponding rupavipaka citta. Vipaka cittas are resultant cittas and they have to arise according to conditions. If a satta is reborn as brahma, he will be reborn with rupavipaka patisandhi citta. This is because when in the immediate past life last moment, the corresponding satta was in rupakusala javana cittas. As soon as he died, his kamma which is rupa kusala kamma and very very heavy called garuka kamma then immediately gives rise to rupa patisandhi and he is reborn as rupa brahma. There are 5 rupakiriya cittas. These are rupa jhana javana cittas of arahats. Here even though the names are rupavacara which means 'frequently arising in rupa brahma bhumi', these rupakiriya cittas can also arise in manussa bhumi or human beings who are arahats. If rupa brahmas become arahats their jhana cittas when in vithi vara will all be rupakiriya cittas. These kiriya cittas are inoperational and they will not give rise to any kamma effect. So at the end of the life when maranasanna javana have to arise these rupakiriya cittas arise and at the end of cuti citta, there is no more citta as there is no more patisandhi citta and no more rebirth. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS:Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 35713 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:52am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 04 ) Dear Dhamma Freinds, The jhana practitioner is now on the move of his jhana journey. Now he has got a nimitta called ''uggaha''. Nimitta means an image which has the specific idea. At this stage, he can practice wherever he goes and whenever he wants as the Arammana of WHITE Kasina is fixed in his mind. This means in his practising WHITE room and he does not need to look at the physical object. This is very very important stage. If a woman has got an early pregnancy say about a week or two old, she will have to be very very careful not not have miscarriage and mishappening. If not careful, the achieved pregnancy may be aborted such as due to slipping and falling to the ground and injuries to her womb. Likewise, those who have just attained uggaha nimitta have to be very careful not to lose their uggaha nimitta that is the mental image that is the same as parikamma nimitta which is image of physical visual object. Now he has the mental image of kasina object. he nore more needs to see the original kasina object of WHITE. The practice right now need caution. Because as usual there always are enemies whenever special achievement is going to be obtain. The enemies are nothing but nivarana dhamma or hindrances. They are kamacchandanivarana or sensuous thoughts like 'want to watch such and such things and want to see so and so, want to listen such and such things, want to smell such sweet smell, want to taste such delicious food, want to feel or touch such and such matters like sex and so on. Another enemy is ill will. This may arise in any form. This ill will may be in anger or fury or hatred, or it may come in the form of jealousy or in the form of stinginess. As he has got firm arammana without delibrately looking at the kasina circle, his practice becomes at ease and may becomes facilitated if he can improve it much more. At this stage he should not lose his achieved nimitta ( WHITE sense in his mind ) or mental image and he should continue to practice it again and again. This may take very long or may be short depending on the individual's past practice which can be called as ''parami''. With diligent practice, the practitioner will become notice that what he formerly achieved becomes changed a bit which is different from the previous nimitta ( arammana of WHITE ). This is a new arammana. It will be seen as clearer than Arammana of uggaha nimitta. There will not be any mishappening, any discolouration, any distorsion, and the new arammana will be the most attracting arammana that he has ever perceived. This is ittharammana or object of pleasurable thing. This arammana is called ''patibaga nimitta ''. This is ready to be aborted if the practitioner is not mindful enough and not practising continuously. This stage is also a difficult stage to pass but with diligent practice and a good insight into all he has the practitioner will be able to manage his '' patibaga nimitta ''. May you all initiate your jhana practice to feel peace. With unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35714 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 6. The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 6. The Commentary explains that if he still cannot abandon unwholesome thoughts, he can take out things such as matches from his shoulderbag and can think of another object, considering: this is a match that is above, and this is one that is underneath. Or else, if this does not help, he can take out a small box from his bag and consider: this is a needle bag , this is a small knife, and this a nailcutter. Or else, if this does not help he can mend his robe that is torn in order to pay attention to another subject. If he by performing those kusala kammas can abandon unwholesome thoughts, he can continue his meditation subject. N: If the bhikkhu would merely think of the contents of his shoulderbag without kusala citta, it would be of no avail. His shoulderbag and the things in it he has for his daily use can remind him of his life of fewness of wishes. He owns nothing, all the things that were given to him for his daily use actually belong to the Sangha. When he was ordained as a monk he renounced his worldly life of sense pleasures. To become a bhikkhu is like a new birth as is said elsewhere in a Commentary. It is the monk¹s siila to review with mindfulness all the things he uses. His goal is following the Master¹s instruction, to lead the life of the bhikkhu in all its purity and to eradicate defilements. Whatever work the monk is doing, such as sweeping his dwelling, washing and dying his robes and mending them, he should develop understanding of nama and rupa. The ³Visuddhimagga², in the Chapter on Virtue, Síla, gives the following fourfold classification of purity of síla (pårisuddhi síla): the restraint of ³Påtimokkha² including 227 rules of discipline for the monk, the restraint of the sense faculties (indriya saóvara síla), the purity of livelihood (åjíva pårisuddhi síla), the use of the four requisites of robe, dwelling, food and medicines, that is purified by reflection (paccaya sannissita síla). With regard to the restraint of the Påtimokkha, we read in the ³Book of Analysis² (Ch 12, 244): Herein a bhikkhu dwells restrained and controlled by the Påtimokkha restraint, endowed with (proper) behaviour and a (suitable) alms resort, seeing peril in (his) slightest faults, observing (the precepts) he trains himself in the precepts.... As regards restraint of the sense faculties, there are different levels of restraint. We read in the ³Middle Length Sayings² (no. 27, Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant¹s Footprint) that the Buddha spoke to the brahman Jånussoni about the monk who has restraint as to the sense-faculties: ... Having seen visible object with the eye he is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over the organ of sight.... The same is said with regard to the other senses and the mind-door. When awareness arises of visible object, sound or the other sense objects, there is no opportunity for the arising of akusala citta. At such a moment one does not harm anybody else through body or speech. When we understand which paramattha dhamma síla is, namely, citta and cetasika, it will be clear that there can be síla, even when one does not act or speak. Satipatthåna is the Buddha¹s teaching, and thus, satipatthåna should not be separated from the other ways of síla the monk should observe: the restraint of the ³Påtimokkha², the purity of livelihood and the use of the requisites which is purified by reflection. As to the monk¹s livelihood, he should not try to obtain the requisites by hinting, by scheming or hypocrisy. As to purification of the use of the requisites by wise reflection, he should not have attachment to them but see them as a means to protect his body and to continue his life as a monk, developing paññå which leads to arahatship. We read in the ³Visuddhimagga² (I, 124) about the ³reviewing² of the requisites by the monk: Herein, reviewing is of two kinds: at the time of receiving requisites and at the time of using them. For use is blameless in one who at the time of receiving robes, etc., reviews them either as (mere) elements or as repulsive, and puts them aside for later use, and in one who reviews them thus at the time of using them. When we read in the Sutta on the Removal of Distracting Thoughts : Without understanding of the Abhidhamma we may misunderstand this Sutta and the Commentary. One may believe that the bhikkhu merely has to think of the contents of his bag in order to avoid paying attention to unwholesome thoughts. However, we should remember that when the citta is not engaged with daana, siila or bhaavanaa, all thinking is done with akusala citta. When the bhikkhu¹s objective is siila he thinks with kusala citta. But when he merely thinks, this is a match, this is a needle, and defines different objects without mindfulness of naama and ruupa his thoughts are akusala, he is merely replacing unwholesome thoughts by other unwholesome thoughts. This can remind us that whenever we define what we see or hear there are mostly akusala cittas arising in mind-door processes. These cittas are often accompanied by indifferent feeling, and therefore we may believe that they are not akusala cittas. While we define different things after seeing or hearing we do not harm others, but we forget that thinking is either kusala or akusala, and that it is mostly akusala. This can remind us of the urgency to be aware of visible object, of seeing, and also of thinking. **** 35715 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness, no 1. Hi Howard, you asked for the Abhidhammic take. Meanwhile you wrote more posts and again on reality and concept. Where shall I begin? I do a lot of snipping. op 14-08-2004 16:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: to Herman: .... what one shall take to mean "the moment". > It was you, I believe, who raised the issue of whether all "mind > moments" have the same duration. I've been thinking a bit about this, and I > think > it quite likely that the question is properly answered in the negative, with a > mindstate not being a simple, instantaneous event, but, rather, an event with > some structure to it and occurring over a period of time. N: abh: all cittas have the same duration, they arise just for a moment, then fall away and condition the next citta by way of proximity condition, anantara paccaya, no pause in between. In a sense-door process and mind-door process there are usually seven javanacittas, impulsion, of the same type. These are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas, and each one condiitons the next one by way of proximity and also by way of repetition (asevana). See Narada and Ledi Sayadaw. Cittas are momentary, impermanent is very impermanent. Seeing is only one short moment, but the seven javana cittas also experience visible object, and then it may seem to you that this is one lasting moment. In fact, there are seven of them. In other mind-door processes you define what was seen, name it, etc. The seven javana are doing this, and they are either kusala or akusala, but mostly akusala cittas. I touched on this in my series about the Removal of Distracting Thoughts. Truly distracting such moments, and a real pitfall. It seems very innocent, just thinking of a tree, and the cittas are usually accompanied by indifferent feeling. We do not hurt anybody else, what harm is there. But, akusala javana cittas think, and the accompanying sañña, remembrance, is perversity of sañña. I think i cannot remind myself enough of this fact, but, we cannot catch such moments. Only when there is awareness sati goes straight to the characteristic of reality. H: Not all visual rupas are identical. We can and do distinguish them. > How do they differ? Well, it seems that they differ in that one has various > colors and shades in particular "locational" relation to each other, and > another > visual rupa has different colors and shades in different locations. A visual > rupa is not monolithic, and we do distinguish visual rupas all the time. N: Correct, they are not the same. Sounds are not the same. H: How is the distinguishing done? It must be by a (rapid) pattern matching "compare and > contrast" operation; i.e., it must consist of sa~n~nic functioning that > involves a complex operation of pattern recognition and memory. N: when you see perspective or a pattern, it is already done by mind-door process cittas. Sañña accompanies each citta, but I have a feeling that you may over emphasize sañña. There is also contact, attention, one-pointedness. H: Now surely > such > sa~n~na is enormously complicated and sophisticated, and must occur over time. > Moreover, the more complex the rupic pattern, the more time the sa~n~na must > take. So, it seems to me that a mindstate with visual form as content must be > anything but instantaneous, and different mindstates must have different > durations. I would very much like to hear the Abhidhammic understanding of > this issue. N: They are all momentary and of the same duration. Why is that a problem? H: Why the need to take what may well be > continuous and view it as discrete? I question the discrete vs continuous > distinction as a basis for distinguishing "real" from "unreal". N: See above. (will be continued) Nina. 35716 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 0:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: So Called Momentariness, no 1. Hi, Nina - Thank you for the detailed reply. I will reply to just a little of your post: In a message dated 8/24/2004 1:54:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nina van gorkom writes: >Hi Howard, >you asked for the Abhidhammic take. Meanwhile you wrote more posts and again >on reality and concept. Where shall I begin? I do a lot of snipping. >op 14-08-2004 16:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >to Herman: .... what one shall take to mean "the moment". >> It was you, I believe, who raised the issue of whether all "mind >> moments" have the same duration. I've been thinking a bit about this, and I >> think >> it quite likely that the question is properly answered in the negative, with a >> mindstate not being a simple, instantaneous event, but, rather, an event with >> some structure to it and occurring over a period of time. >N: abh: all cittas have the same duration, they arise just for a moment, >then fall away and condition the next citta by way of proximity condition, >anantara paccaya, no pause in between. >In a sense-door process and mind-door process there are usually seven >javanacittas, impulsion, of the same type. These are either kusala cittas or >akusala cittas, and each one condiitons the next one by way of proximity and >also by way of repetition (asevana). See Narada and Ledi Sayadaw. Cittas are >momentary, impermanent is very impermanent. >Seeing is only one short moment, but the seven javana cittas also experience >visible object, and then it may seem to you that this is one lasting moment. >In fact, there are seven of them. In other mind-door processes you define >what was seen, name it, etc. The seven javana are doing this, and they are >either kusala or akusala, but mostly akusala cittas. I touched on this in my >series about the Removal of Distracting Thoughts. Truly distracting such >moments, and a real pitfall. It seems very innocent, just thinking of a >tree, and the cittas are usually accompanied by indifferent feeling. We do >not hurt anybody else, what harm is there. But, akusala javana cittas think, >and the accompanying sañña, remembrance, is perversity of sañña. I think i >cannot remind myself enough of this fact, but, we cannot catch such moments. >Only when there is awareness sati goes straight to the characteristic of >reality. > > H: Not all visual rupas are identical. We can and do distinguish them. >> How do they differ? Well, it seems that they differ in that one has various >> colors and shades in particular "locational" relation to each other, and >> another >> visual rupa has different colors and shades in different locations. A visual >> rupa is not monolithic, and we do distinguish visual rupas all the time. >N: Correct, they are not the same. Sounds are not the same. > >H: How is the distinguishing done? It must be by a (rapid) pattern matching >"compare and >> contrast" operation; i.e., it must consist of sa~n~nic functioning that >> involves a complex operation of pattern recognition and memory. >N: when you see perspective or a pattern, it is already done by mind-door >process cittas. Sañña accompanies each citta, but I have a feeling that you >may over emphasize sañña. There is also contact, attention, one-pointedness. >H: >Now surely >> such >> sa~n~na is enormously complicated and sophisticated, and must occur over time. >> Moreover, the more complex the rupic pattern, the more time the sa~n~na must >> take. So, it seems to me that a mindstate with visual form as content must be >> anything but instantaneous, and different mindstates must have different >> durations. I would very much like to hear the Abhidhammic understanding of >> this issue. >N: They are all momentary and of the same duration. Why is that a problem? ------------------------------- Howard: I do not understand an operation such as the comparing and pattern matching required of sa~n~na requiring zero time for its execution. That makes no sense to me. As I see it, in zero time, nothing whatsoever happens. Events require duration, and the more complex the event, the greater the duration required. Even the commentaries bow a bit in this direction when they consider a citta to have three aspects, an arising stage, a maintaining stage, and a declining stage. Also, I find a degree of artificiality in taking a citta as reality and a process as not. It is during a process that events occur. What might well be the result of conceptualizing is the breaking up of processes into cittas. It strikes me that viewing instantaneous, zero-duration events as separate realities is a kind of artificial breaking up of the stream of experience into self-existent "things" - a form of atomic reification. I personally find much sense in speaking of the various rupas and cetasikas, such that on various occasions some of these are present and others are not, with their "presence" constituting experience, but I find less sense in the chopping up of what is basically a continuous stream of experience into non-durational mental atoms called cittas. In zero time, zero happens. ------------------------------ >H: Why the need to take what may well be >> continuous and view it as discrete? I question the discrete vs continuous >> distinction as a basis for distinguishing "real" from "unreal". >N: See above. >(will be continued) >Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard 35717 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 In a message dated 8/24/04 9:39:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: This making >the distinction between what is real and what is imagination is very useful >to me > >What use to you (and anyone else) is making the distinction between nama and >rupa? I think I know what the Abhidhamma couched answer to this would be and >am only interested in non Abhidhamma responses. --------------------------- Howard: Well, as I've said before, distinguishing mental experiences from physical ones seems largely quite clear and obvious to me. Of course, that is what someone - I think it was Ananda - foolishly said about dependent origination to the Buddha, so I might well be deluded in thinking that that I can make this distinction so easily. There is no doubt that I must often confuse a paramattha dhamma with my tacked-on concept of it. But, for the most part, distinguishing nama from rupa seems easy to me, and that puts me in a difficult position for understanding the deficit in not being able to easily distinguish the two. I would suppose that what is most problematical in being unable to distinguish the two is in missing the distingusihing characteristic of concepts which is their referential function. Our "world" is a world of concept; it is mind constructed, and it is not what we directly observe. And if we do not distinguish nama from rupa, then we may be well stuck in our own mind-made world. --------------------------- === Howard, Do you think the distinction I made above between what is real and what is imagination is the same as between rupa and nama? I'm not sure I do. For instance, a belief in devas is both nama and, if I did believe this, due to imagination since I have never seen one. The belief that that I woke up this morning is nama but not due to imagination and does refer to something real. An Abhidhammist, Mirko Fryba, made the following distinctions. He divided experiencing into four levels that I found more useful. It takes your concept of referent one more step. Level 1 is experiencing of events and states that are present now. For example, looking out the window I see a tree. Right now I feel worried about x. Level 2 is experiencing mental formations (representations) of real events and states. For example, I remember waking up this morning. I remember feeling sorrow about something that happened last week. Level 3 is conceptual thinking tied to present experience. For example, looking at the tree outside my window reminded me that I have to trim some of its branches. I don't have time this week but think I have time this weekend. Level 4 is conceptual thinking not tied to present experience. For example, everything I have written about so far in this post. At one time I would take a part of my day and try to note the level of experiencing, i.e., 4,4, 1,2,1, etc. I think I can distinguish the difference between nama and rupa most of the time. For me, this distinction is useful at times. Making the distinction between reality and imagination is useful almost all the time. The point I am making is that any phenomena arising at any sense door is real and subject to the same mental laws. According to Buddhism, a thought of a unicorn is subject to Dependent Origination, to use one Buddhist formation, in the same manner as feeling the hardness of the chair against my bottom. I don't think Buddhism handles the mental sense door as inferior as compared to the physical sense doors. This is not to say it does not consider concepts as "inferior" and not real. I think the last two sentences above are confusing but have to get back to work. jack 35718 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Jack - In a message dated 8/24/2004 3:12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > >In a message dated 8/24/04 9:39:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... >writes: > >This making >>the distinction between what is real and what is imagination is very >useful >>to me >> >>What use to you (and anyone else) is making the distinction between nama >and >>rupa? I think I know what the Abhidhamma couched answer to this would be >and >>am only interested in non Abhidhamma responses. >--------------------------- >Howard: >Well, as I've said before, distinguishing mental experiences from physical >ones seems largely quite clear and obvious to me. Of course, that is what >someone - I think it was Ananda - foolishly said about dependent origination to >the Buddha, so I might well be deluded in thinking that that I can make this >distinction so easily. There is no doubt that I must often confuse a >paramattha dhamma with my tacked-on concept of it. But, for the most part, >distinguishing nama from rupa seems easy to me, and that puts me in a difficult >position for understanding the deficit in not being able to easily distinguish the >two. I would suppose that what is most problematical in being unable to >distinguish the two is in missing the distingusihing characteristic of concepts >which is their referential function. Our "world" is a world of concept; it is >mind constructed, and it is not what we directly observe. And if we do not >distinguish nama from rupa, then we may be well stuck in our own mind-made world. >--------------------------- > > > >=== >Howard, > >Do you think the distinction I made above between what is real and what is >imagination is the same as between rupa and nama? I'm not sure I do. ------------------------------- Howard: I think that not distinguishing between nama and rupa is an aspect of confusion/ignorance/unknowing. They are in fact distingishable. As far as distinguishing real from only imagined is concerned, that is crucial but difficult and multi-leveled. In a sense, horses are real and unicorns only imagined. But in a deeper sense, horses are also only imagined. This is why I maintain that there are levels and contexts to the real vs unreal dichotomy. The bottom line is that we need to see clearly what is what. If we do, we needn't worry too much about what to call "real" and what to call "unreal". ----------------------------- For >instance, a belief in devas is both nama and, if I did believe this, due to >imagination since I have never seen one. The belief that that I woke up this >morning is nama but not due to imagination and does refer to something real. ----------------------------- Howard: Beliefs are better described as "delusive" or "non-delusive" than "real" or "unreal". A belief is a thought or a patterned sequence of thoughts. It is simply something that occurs. ----------------------------- > >An Abhidhammist, Mirko Fryba, made the following distinctions. He divided >experiencing into four levels that I found more useful. It takes your concept >of referent one more step. Level 1 is experiencing of events and states that >are present now. For example, looking out the window I see a tree. --------------------------- Howard: That may or may not be a single state. I suspect not, whereas experiencing a visual field, a field which includes a pattern that is subsequently identified as "tree", is a single experiental state/event. --------------------------- Right now I >feel worried about x. Level 2 is experiencing mental formations >(representations) of real events and states. For example, I remember waking up this >morning. ------------------------------ Howard: Again, that is likely not a single state, but a whole sequence of related states. So *much* is included in what we think is a single mental event. ------------------------------ I remember feeling sorrow about something that happened last week. Level >3 is conceptual thinking tied to present experience. For example, looking at >the tree outside my window reminded me that I have to trim some of its >branches. I don't have time this week but think I have time this weekend. Level 4 >is conceptual thinking not tied to present experience. For example, everything >I have written about so far in this post. At one time I would take a part of >my day and try to note the level of experiencing, i.e., 4,4, 1,2,1, etc. --------------------------- Howard: I'd have to hear more about Fryba's theories, I'm afraid, before I could give any input worth giving. At this point I don't really have an opinion on them. --------------------------- > >I think I can distinguish the difference between nama and rupa most of the >time. For me, this distinction is useful at times. Making the distinction >between reality and imagination is useful almost all the time. The point I am >making is that any phenomena arising at any sense door is real and subject to >the same mental laws. According to Buddhism, a thought of a unicorn is subject >to Dependent Origination, to use one Buddhist formation, in the same manner >as feeling the hardness of the chair against my bottom. I don't think Buddhism >handles the mental sense door as inferior as compared to the physical sense >doors. This is not to say it does not consider concepts as "inferior" and not >real. ------------------------------- Howard: Well, I already gave my opinion on the distinguishing between nama and rupa. I think, in general, it is useful to see things as closely as possible to how they really are. I particularly think it is important to distinguish directly experienced from conceptualized as clearly and consistently as possible, because our conceptual faculty is defilement's primary stomping grounds. It is Mara's playground. --------------------------------- > >I think the last two sentences above are confusing but have to get back to >work. > >jack ================================= With metta, Howard 35719 From: plnao Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:21pm Subject: Putting aside greed and distress Hello everyone I'm interested in the expression "putting aside greed and distress with respect to the world" which we find in several suttas (such as Gelanna Sutta SN XXXVI.7 and the Satipatthana Sutta) to describe the mindful monk: "And how is a monk mindful? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is how a monk is mindful." I assume "greed and distress" are referring to lobha and dosa. If that is the case, why wouldn't the mindful monk also "put aside" the third unwholesome root, ignorance? (moha) Is there something more"put asideable", if you will, removable perhaps, about dosa and lobha? Is ignorance too deeply engrained, too subtle, too imperceptible, to be able to think about "putting aside?" Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put aside" greed and distress if he or she had right understanding that lobha and dosa rise and fall away again in a conditioned way? Does "put aside" refer to the four efforts, two of which are preventing the arising of unwholesome factors and removing unwholesome factors which have arisen? Instead of removing unwholesome factors, wouldn't we be better off being aware of them with right understanding that they will rise and fall according to conditions? I expect I'll be throwing a lot of these kind of questions at the group in the months to come. I have a feeling I'll be more in an asking mode rather than the speculative babbling mode I was in before, but who knows? :) Thanks in advance for any feedback. Metta, Phil 35720 From: plnao Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:53pm Subject: a moment of gratitude Hello everyone This morning rereading Nina's "Perfections" I found this passage from the introduction: "If the Buddha had not attained enlightenment and taught us the truth of all realities we would live in complete darkness, not knowing the way to develop right understanding, not knowing what is right and what is wrong. It is a blessing that the Buddha taught us the way to develop right understanding. It is a blessing that there still is opportunity to hear the Dhamma "which only becomes manifest at rare intervals covering immeasurable aeons." This summer, away from this group, back home in Canada with old friends and family, I had many opportunities to reflect on the blessing of having come across the Dhamma. I wished I could share it with people, but I knew it doesn't work that way. When I indulged in some extremely unwholesome behavior on the penultimate night of my trip, awareness that unwholesome factors arise because of conditions saved me from spending a lot of time stewing in pointless, unwholesome worry and regret. (Though there is wholesome shame that prevents me from telling you about the bad stuff that went on that night!) And I remember as I took the train from Montreal to Toronto, feeling miserable at first, I felt gratitude arising to the Buddha for his teaching that will eventually lead me to eradicating defilements. There was also more specific gratitude to Nina because I had my copy of ADL in my lap at the time. I found this idea of gratitude to the Buddha in moments of awareness of defilements echoed in Perfections from the chapter on Equanimity: "We discover many defilements and also learn to know the more subtle ones. Instead of being distressed about them there can be gratefulness to the Buddha who taught us the wisdom that can eradicate them. When we come to realize our defilements we may remember at once that this is due to the Buddha's teaching and then there can be recollection of the qualities of the Buddha (Buddhanussati) Also a moment of gratefulness to the Budda is a conditioned moment and it can be object of mindfulness so that it can be known as not self." It is so encouraging to gradually come to see all the ways in which what we think, say and do are conditioned. Friends in Canada thought this sounded very pessimistic and fatalistic and limiting, but it is not, because we can develop wisdom that leads to the conditions becoming wholesome and productive for the well-being of ourselves and others. Metta, Phil 35721 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:42pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > > Sorry, Andrew L, I don't know how the music might change the way the > lyrics sound to me, and maybe I misread them, but I don't share your > appreciation of MH. Love might be their high moral ground but I don't > trust what they're going to do with that rock in their fight other than > turn into what they say they don't like. But you might try > http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-chant.htm for Imee Ooi chanting METTA - mp3 > and text files towards the bottom of the page. > peace, > connie connie, but can't you appreciate the rendering of reality i'm trying to propose that machine head bases their philosophy around? 35722 From: agriosinski Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:33pm Subject: Re: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 6. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote:= >However, we should remember that when the citta is not engaged > with daana, siila or bhaavanaa, all thinking is done with akusala citta. > When the bhikkhu¹s objective is siila he thinks with kusala citta. But wh= en > he merely thinks, this is a match, this is a needle, and defines differen= t > objects without mindfulness of naama and ruupa his thoughts are akusala, = he > is merely replacing unwholesome thoughts by other unwholesome thoughts. > **** Hi Nina, what if monk is unable to be really mindfull of naama and ruupa? is just investigative thinking with intention to awake akusala? metta, Agrios 35723 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] What is hard? Hi Howard, ===================== >The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, >even a stupid baby lying on its back. > >The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only >hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential >hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, >the real mccoy hardness? > >Kind Regards > > >Herman =============================== Ask me, Herman! ;-) Actually, I believe I do experience hardness and only hardness at the time that I experience it. I really do not think that, for example, we feel hardness and see at the very same time. But my attention is not so precise, and it often seems that multiple sense objects arise (in awareness) at the same time - but I think that simultaneity is illusion due to limited attentional ability. I truly believe that there is rapid alternation among the various sense doors - a flitting back & forth. I also believe that deep meditation can enhance our attentional performance so that the flow of dhammas appears to slow - and this is a likely point of disagreement between me and some of the non-meditators here. =================== Please correct me if I'm misreading you. I agree with you on the same basis as yours (experience). At the level of awareness/attention there is rapid alteration and there is no simultaneity of multiple awarenessess. But there is never, in my experience, a knowing of unity, or distinctness, or sameness as another occurence about whatever awareness is attending to, concurrent with that indistinct awareness. (and I presume this is simply because unity, distinctness, sameness are concepts applied in the cognitive process well after bare awareness) By inference based on what is experienced I must assume that below the level of awareness, there is a massively parallel, concurrent sentience of every acknowledged and unacknowledged avenue, and that whatever pops into awareness does so by a process unaccesable to awareness. To cut a long story short, I have never been aware of a paramattha dhamma as paramattha dhamma, but have conceptualized about them much. Happily, that is in decline :-) Of course, others may well be aware of paramattha dhammas as paramattha dhammas. Kind Regards Herman 35724 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:29pm Subject: RE: [dsg] What is hard? Hi Matt, I am sorry if I misread or misrepresented you. ================ M > I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or motives for doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear people talk about hardness being a reality and then I experience hardness, then I am going to embrace hardness as a reality. H> The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, even a stupid baby lying on its back. The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, the real mccoy hardness? ====================== M > Concepts are such tricky things, not like those boring realities that are always the same. Somewhere in the transfer of the concept, from what I understood I was saying to what you interpreted me as saying, I went from experiencing hardness (like everyone else) to claiming that I have experienced hardness and only hardness It's probably my English again. Should I have said *based on what I understand is real or not*? Everyone experience hardness because it is a reality. But only a few know that hardness IS a reality and that it is different to concept, which is not real. It may only be thinking and it may not be insight wisdom but it is not the same as a stupid baby lying on its back experiencing hardness. If it were, then it wouldn't say much for the teaching. ================== I agree with you :-), but only in part. We differ as long as you equate reality with experience only. I see no difference between experience only and how a stupid baby might conceive of what is experienced. You are bound to deny the reality of conditionality / causality because it is not experienced. The Buddha's teachings are nothing without dependent origination. You will never experience dependent origination, but if you cannot see its reality you will not see the dhamma, much like the baby. Kind Regards Herman 35725 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:20pm Subject: General post Hi there. I'm back. As you can probably tell, I've been reading a heck of a lot about Buddhism, including Buddhist scripture and have had generally not much communication about it up till now. IE I'm eccentric. But I'm going to try to change that with Dhammastudygroup (/me smirks, something about dhamma that's just better than dharma) Also, I have been in a lot of pain, and I think I'm going to try to use it to my advantage if I can manage to do that. Go through it with meditation and even use it to back myself up, put it behind me as determination. Anyhow, on with it: Some general changes I think I'm going to make: - keep absolutely quiet in real life - do computer work instead of practising evil (build myself a 'shelter from anguish' as it were before old and and death come rolling in) - (want to do this one but dont know how it will go) practise genuine good will for others before each meditation session (especially to hinder/cancel out negative karma) in case I don't make attainments in this life. Also should work for my anger and hate problems. - take less of the drugs New York state mandates me on, regardless of its possible effect. Dhammapada says, "Better to do nothing than to do what is wrong, for whatever you do, you do to yourself" so I shall Some changes I would like to make: - stop being a lunatic (any help on this one is appreciated, this does tie in with the Linux operating system ;) - re-committ myself to a regular sitting practise in which I am at least halfway serious about getting results. Some concerns and thoughts: - I have been reading Ven. U. Silananda's "Four Foundations of Mindfulness" and thinking of practising that one book instead of going between others in my collection. In fact I've given away some of the books by mail to lessen the load. Anyhow, those four foundations have recently come back to the fore when taking a walk as a semi-major life event just happened today, but I'm not so sure whether I want to take this as my refuge, or make use of a really solid practise guide I have, Matthew Flickstein's "Swallowing the River Ganges, a Practise Guide to the Path of Purification". This is because he goes through the seven stages of purification clearly and even guides you through the insight knowledges, something about that that makes me feel more safe and secure than walking the streets in mindfulness. Only thing is, even though I sit here in my room with nothing but a computer in books, and knowing I have to go to a mental hospital program tomorrow, I still don't have the motivation to sit and practise and take it to the end. So I really don't know what to do, maybe I'll just continue with the four foundations of mindfulness, and the key here is gaining a knowledge of Abhidharma so I can do contemplation on consciousness. Understanding is very hard for me, if you give me a mathematical or scientific task, I might be able to carry it out very quickly, but applying things to reality and making sense of things is where I am slow. So, especially with the cetasikas I've been reading about, I don't know how practical it is to expect that I can apply this to daily life without some amount of difficulty. Also on my insanity: as I was walking I saw a computer on someone's head, this may mean that I view myself as part of my computer, (computerhead) and expect that I should be interacting with other computers, which is really quite absurd, or maybe I'm just a computer person along with many others who live online. Nonetheless, that's what I saw. Regarding this Machine Head vs the System fiasco, I am willing to concede that the 'shackles' are not real, that 'freedom' has to be taken by us, created by us, or acheived by us. But I still assert going to this program is like being a slave, and I have my reasons. Furthermore, I will be reducing my medication dosages to the amount that I see fit, and will continue to do so in the face of a society that denies the truth of the matter. The Dhammapada quote applies here. Now some borderline worries/concerns , all in line with Dhammapada sayings: - The person who lives carelessly jumps from lifetime to lifetime like a monkey in a mango tree. - I've been living carelessly but it's never too late to stop it, right? This is why I want to do good. So my next life is good. - The Kashta reed dies when it bears fruit. So the fool, Scorning the teachings of the awakened, Spurning those who follow the law, Perishes when his folly flowers. Similarly with a verse I'm paraphrasing "All feel the touch of death, but while fools lies slain by their folly, the sage is forever unperturbed" Well I have felt the touch of death while being caught up in mischief and folly. I want reassurance that I can still follow the way and do good work to bring me good results in the next life. That's all folks. 35726 From: Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:26pm Subject: RE: [dsg] What is hard? Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/24/2004 7:57:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Herman Hofman" writes: >Hi Howard, > > >===================== > >>The point is not experiencing hardness. Everyone experiences hardness, >>even a stupid baby lying on its back. >> >>The question is the claim that you experience hardness and only >>hardness. Have you experienced only hardness, pure hardness, essential >>hardness, unmixed hardness, undiluted hardness, nothing but hardness, >>the real mccoy hardness? >> >>Kind Regards >> >> >>Herman >=============================== > Ask me, Herman! ;-) > Actually, I believe I do experience hardness and only hardness at >the time that I experience it. I really do not think that, for example, >we feel hardness and see at the very same time. But my attention is not >so precise, and it often seems that multiple sense objects arise (in >awareness) at the same time - but I think that simultaneity is illusion >due to limited attentional ability. I truly believe that there is rapid >alternation among the various sense doors - a flitting back & forth. I >also believe that deep meditation can enhance our attentional >performance so that the flow of dhammas appears to slow - and this is a >likely point of disagreement between me and some of the non-meditators >here. > >=================== > >Please correct me if I'm misreading you. I agree with you on the same >basis as yours (experience). At the level of awareness/attention there >is rapid alteration and there is no simultaneity of multiple >awarenessess. But there is never, in my experience, a knowing of unity, >or distinctness, or sameness as another occurence about whatever >awareness is attending to, concurrent with that indistinct awareness. ----------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. When experiencing hardness, that is all there is. So there is no knowing at that time that that is all there is. Such knowledge has to follow afte the fact. ----------------------------- >(and I presume this is simply because unity, distinctness, sameness are >concepts applied in the cognitive process well after bare awareness) > >By inference based on what is experienced I must assume that below the >level of awareness, there is a massively parallel, concurrent sentience >of every acknowledged and unacknowledged avenue, and that whatever pops >into awareness does so by a process unaccesable to awareness. ------------------------------ Howard: I have no comment on that. ------------------------------ > >To cut a long story short, I have never been aware of a paramattha >dhamma as paramattha dhamma, but have conceptualized about them much. >Happily, that is in decline :-) > >Of course, others may well be aware of paramattha dhammas as paramattha >dhammas. ------------------------------ Howard: At best after the fact, I think. Though what the experience of an arahant may be I can't say. ------------------------------ > >Kind Regards > > >Herman =============================== With metta, Howard 35727 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Re: Putting aside greed and distress Dear Phillip, at any moment of awareness - including awareness of lobha or dosa- the monk has put aside greed and distress. Robk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > Hello everyone > > I'm interested in the expression "putting aside greed and distress with > respect to the world" which we find in several suttas (such as Gelanna Sutta > SN XXXVI.7 and the Satipatthana Sutta) to describe the mindful monk: > > "And how is a monk mindful? There is the case where a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on > feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & > of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. This is how a monk is mindful." > > I assume "greed and distress" are referring to lobha and dosa. If that > is the case, why wouldn't the mindful monk also "put aside" the third > unwholesome root, ignorance? (moha) Is there something more"put asideable", > if you will, removable perhaps, about dosa and lobha? Is ignorance too > deeply engrained, too subtle, too imperceptible, to be able to think about > "putting aside?" > > Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put aside" greed > and distress if he or she had right understanding that lobha and dosa rise > and fall away again in a conditioned way? Does "put aside" refer to the four > efforts, two of which are preventing the arising of unwholesome factors and > removing unwholesome factors which have arisen? Instead of removing > unwholesome factors, wouldn't we be better off being aware of them with > right understanding that they will rise and fall according to conditions? > > I expect I'll be throwing a lot of these kind of questions at the group in > the months to come. I have a feeling I'll be more in an asking mode rather > than the speculative babbling mode I was in before, but who knows? :) Thanks > in advance for any feedback. > > Metta, > Phil > 35728 From: nori Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi MattR, Its not the case that I am trying to accuse you or anyone of having no basis in reality for your convictions. ... but it is the case that nobody gives any explanation or any reasons for their convictions. What could it possibly be about the 'hardness' or whatever other rupas you experience that leads you to believe that is all that exists ? That there is no 'thing' out there which is giving you this impression of hardness? Just as you may believe I don't exist here, where I am, writing to you. You believe the only reality is the rupas you experience; but here I am ... writing. ... And you don't experience a single rupa of me doing so. Regards, nori --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matt roke" wrote: > Hi Nori, > > > Nori> I've heard this all before. It seems as though everyone repeats these > ideas, having faith in Abhidhamma scripture, like robots with no personal > experience or insight into the matter. > > ______________________ > > It is true that there are people who have great knowledge of Abhidhamma but > have little or no insight into Dhamma. But that does not mean all people are > void of insight. If you cannot grasp the point that people are trying to > make then you may not be in the best position to judge their understanding. > Unless of course you have a greater insight into the Dhamma. > > > ______________________ > > Nori> What is the reason, evidence and foundation for your conviction? > > ______________________ > > The reason, evidence and foundation for my conviction is REALITY. > > I go by a simple rule given by the Buddha. Don't believe just because the > person or what you hear seems or sounds wise. Only believe what you can > experience to be real and truthful. > > I have made a point of questioning whether my understanding or motives for > doing things is based on what is real or not. If I hear people talk about > hardness being a reality and then I experience hardness, then I am going to > embrace hardness as a reality. The Tripitika, which includes the Abhidhamma, > is a good place to find knowledge about things that are real. So it is not > unlikely that I will be using Abhidhamma terms to explain what I understand > to be true. Not always however, as I do not have a broad knowledge of > Abhidhamma terms. > > What is important is not the name we give to a reality but that we know it > is a reality. > > MattR > 35729 From: plnao Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hello Rob K, and all. Happy to see you here again, Rob.. I hope we'll have a chance to meet up again in Tokyo some day this autumn.. Please come and stay with us for a few days! Rob: > at any moment of awareness - including awareness of lobha or dosa- > the monk has put aside greed and distress. I see. So the "putting aside" is a result of the awareness rather than something to be done to have awareness. That makes sense. Thanks. I wonder why the words "greed and distress" are used instead of "attachment and aversion?" Translator's choice? Greed and distress might be seen as gross forms of attachment and aversion? It is always hard to know without being able to read the suttas in Pali. I wonder if we can identify dosa and lobha as gross or subtle and what the value of doing so is? I guess we can, because now I remember that when we had our talk, you told me that latent (I think that's the word you used) lobha is inevitable for us worldlings, and it is awareness of gross forms of lobha that prevent us from doing really awful things. I am still feeling curious if there is any reason the translator uses "distress and greed" instead of "aversion and attachment" since the former pair sounds so much more intense and recognizable. I am feeling a desire to study Pali so I could answer these sort of questions for myself! A greedy desire or an attachment to the idea of it? Hmm.... Please don't feel obliged to respond, Rob, but if anyone is interested thanks in advance. Metta, Phil 35730 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The rehearsal of the Co. Dear Sarah, thank you very much. I do not have Malalasekera, and appreciate your quotes very much. Meanwhile Jim pointed to the Atth text and gave me Tiikas that state the importance of commentaries. I was very short about it in my Intro to Raahulaa, thinking of space. Nina. op 24-08-2004 07:31 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: >>> In >>> the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse >>> "The ancient commentary therof was sang >>> By the First council, Mahakassapa >>> Their leader, and later again by seers, >>> Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote 35731 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:asankharika, sasankharika Dear Sarah, I found the Vis. Tiika clear on this. In this connection also the words keen and sluggish are used. They are conventional terms but they describe the different degrees of kusala that are accumulated and arise due to different conditions. More text: And for akusala that is sasankharika: N: When it is prompted it is said to be sluggish, but it is not certain whenever it is sluggish that it is always prompted. Nina. op 24-08-2004 11:07 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Does > asankharika really mean there is no sankhara? I find it rather confusing > in spite of all the discussions we’ve had from the Vism and elsewhere. 35732 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:12pm Subject: FW: Intro Co. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:41:44 +0200 Aan: Ong Yong Peng Onderwerp: Intro Co. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. Introduction to the Commentary on the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. The Great Commentator Buddhaghosa, who lived in the first half of the fifth century A.D. , translated from Singhalese into Pali the ancient Commentaries he found in the Mahaavihaara in Anuraadhapura. These original Commentaries which no longer exist stem from the oldest doctrinal tradition; Buddhaghosa referred to them as the ³poraa.nas, the teachers of old². The Mahaaraahulovaadasutta is part of the Majjhima Nikaaya, and the commentary to the Majjhima Nikaaya is called the Papañcasuudanii. The Commentary to each of the suttas is called va.n.nanaa, an explanation. Thus, in the case of this sutta, we have the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta va.n.nanaa. The Commentary brings the sutta nearer to our daily life. It is encouraging and uplifting, demonstrating the power of the Dhamma which can lead us to the final liberation of dukkha, of the cycle of birth and death. The Commentary tells us about Raahula's defilements and very human tribulations; he was attached to the beauty of his body and he was hoping for a position of honour from his father, the Lord Buddha. The Buddha knew that he was almost succumbing to his defilements, but he did not reproach him, he did not tell him that he should not have such thoughts. He also knew Raahula's potential for wisdom, accumulated for aeons, and, for this reason, he taught him Dhamma, explaining the five khandhas. When Raahula asked him whether he should know only ruupakkhandha the Buddha said that he should know all five khandhas, that is, all mental phenomena and physical phenomena occurring in daily life. Raahula should not only listen to the Dhamma, but he should consider what he heard and develop understanding. Saariputta, his preceptor and his noble friend in Dhamma, who did not know that the Buddha had taught Raahula the five khandhas, taught him mindfulness of breathing and said to him: "After you have comprehended inbreathing and outbreathing, and with this subject attained the fourth or the fifth stage of jhaana, and you have developed insight, you should reach arahatship." Saariputta¹s exhortations show the importance of good and noble friendship the Buddha often emphasized as one of the conditions for attaining enlightenment. Raahula did not go on his round of collecting almsfood, but he would rather consider the Dhamma he had learnt, thinking, ³It is truly difficult to receive a Blessed One's exhortation even in the course of countless aeons.² The Buddha did not bring him food because he knew that Raahula would soon enjoy the food of the Deathless, he would realize enlightenment and experience nibbaana, the Deathless. Raahula was mindful of the five khandhas and realized their true characteristics: ³Materiality truly is impermanent, it truly is unsatisfactory, it truly is foul, it truly is non-self². In the evening the Buddha taught him about the four Great Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind, and also about Space. He taught him to see the body as elements in order to become detached. He told him to be like these elements: to be unaffected by like and dislike. He taught him the Brahmavihaaras, beginning with mettaa in order to explain the condition for arahatship. He taught him the meditation on Foulness, the Perception of Impermanence and finally he taught him Mindfulness of Breathing. The Commentary refers to the explanations of the Visuddhimagga on this subject. The Visuddhimagga explains that the Anapanasati sutta deals with the four Applications of Mindfulness: Mindfulness of the Body, of Feelings, of Cittas and of Dhammas. The four foundations of mindfulness, when developed and much practised, perfect the seven enlightenment factors and these, when developed and much practised, perfect clear vision and deliverance. The final goal is arahatship which Raahula was sure to attain. This Commentary gives us a striking account of a person who was full of attachment, but who, by following the Master¹s instruction, could develop the Path leading to the eradication of all defilements. It is encouraging to know that there is such a Path and that it can be followed, even though it may take many lives. ***** Nina. 35733 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kusala cittas thus wise attention? Dear Phil, welcome back. Good to have you back. op 24-08-2004 12:30 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > For now I'd like to ask about a sentence in Abhidhamma in Daily Life (94) > > "If one realizes that killing is akusala and one abstains from > killing, there are kusala cittas and thus there is yoniso manasikara. (Wise > attention)" > I'm particularly interested in that "thus." Is there always wise > attention when there are kusala cittas? N: Yes. Even when the kusala cittas are not accompanied by paññaa. Yoniso: down to its origin and foundation, thoroughly, orderly, properly. To translate litterally: proper attention, attention in the right (kusala) way. The citta knows the benefit of kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Ph: p.p.s Hello to Nina. ADL was my constant companion this summer and > bolstered my confidence during a couple of sad/scared stretches. Thank you. > Well, as always the thanks goes upstream as well! N: I am glad the Abhidhamma helped you in times of trouble. It helps me too when I have trouble. Nina. 35734 From: Antony Woods Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:13pm Subject: Anuradha sutta - anatta and rebirth Dear Sarah, Rob K and Group, This is an interesting sutta. It applies to speculation about the Buddha's destination after death but I think that Antony could be substituted for Tathagata and the argument would be the same about Antony's destination after death. This helps with speculation about whether I will be reborn as an animal. "How do you construe this, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?" "No, lord." "How do you construe this: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" "No, lord." "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-086.html 35735 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hello Phil, RobK, all, In his translation of the Satipatthaana Sutta MN.10, Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the words "Having put away covetousness and grief for the world". And Maurice Walshe in his translation of the Mahasatipatthaana Sutta DN.22 uses the words "having put aside hankering and fretting for the world." At meditation retreats I have attended, it has been used in the context of temporarily leaving aside the things that occupy the mind, whether delightful or concerning, until the Retreat is over - there is different work to be done during the meditation period. In the Teaching of Patrick Kearney, he has two pdf. articles on the Sattipatthaana Sutta - and in his translation he uses the words: "Surrendering desire and grief regarding the world" http://www.meditation.asn.au/teachings.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello Rob K, and all. > > Happy to see you here again, Rob.. I hope we'll have a chance to meet up > again in Tokyo some day this autumn.. Please come and stay with us for a few > days! > > Rob: > at any moment of awareness - including awareness of lobha or dosa- > > the monk has put aside greed and distress. > > I see. So the "putting aside" is a result of the awareness rather than > something to be done to have awareness. That makes sense. Thanks. > > I wonder why the words "greed and distress" are used instead of > "attachment and aversion?" Translator's choice? Greed and distress might > be seen as gross forms of attachment and aversion? It is always hard to know > without being able to read the suttas in Pali. > > I wonder if we can identify dosa and lobha as gross or subtle and what the > value of doing so is? I guess we can, because now I remember that when we > had our talk, you told me that latent (I think that's the word you used) > lobha is inevitable for us worldlings, and it is awareness of gross forms of > lobha that prevent us from doing really awful things. > > I am still feeling curious if there is any reason the translator uses > "distress and greed" instead of "aversion and attachment" since the former > pair sounds so much more intense and recognizable. I am feeling a desire to > study Pali so I could answer these sort of questions for myself! A greedy > desire or an attachment to the idea of it? Hmm.... > > Please don't feel obliged to respond, Rob, but if anyone is interested > thanks in advance. > > Metta, > Phil 35736 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi Eric, Matt, Howard, Htoo, and Herman, Thinking is real – I am sure we all agree on that. In other words, the cetasikas, sanna, vicara, vitakka, cetana, samadhi and all the other cetasikas that work together to create thoughts are real. However, I understand that the thoughts they create are not real. There is confusion over what each of us means by `a thought.' There is confusion as to who is of the opinion, `a thought is a paramattha dhamma' and who is of the opinion, `a thought is not a paramattha dhamma.' I think the misunderstanding can be cleared up by asking, "In a moment when citta experiences a thought, what is the object (arammana) of that citta?" My impression is that citta takes an object but the object doesn't really exist (is not a paramattha dhamma). Note I am not talking only about the `referent' of the object: I am saying the object itself is illusory. Comments please. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo (and Eric) - > > In a message dated 8/23/2004 1:15:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "htootintnaing" writes: > > >Dear E, > > > >Thoughts are paramattha dhamma. But more than vitakka and vicara. > > > >Htoo Naing > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" > > wrote: > >> Hey Ken (and Howard), > >> > >> Ken> "If thoughts are paramattha dhammas, which paramattha dhamma/s > >> are they?" > >> > >> Vitakka and vicara. > >> > >> PEACE > >> > >> E > ============================== > Htoo, this is as I see the matter as well. > > With metta, > Howard 35737 From: Andrew Levin Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:52am Subject: cita and cetasikas So I'm studying cetasikas from Nina's book. Please note logical parenthesized order. Forgive any mischeivousness (hope samsara will as well). I'm still not 100% clear on citta, or where it arises. IE where does body-consciousness arise when my butt sits on the chair? (Added: It seems it arises from the very sense-facility that it is conscious of, is this so?) And phassa is contact, right? When I see something and I feel "touching" in my eyes, the eye (sense base) contacting the sight (sense object) is that phassa? Do we have to recognize phassa in every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or as many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I guess it seems natural that we should. Now, for which senses are both the dvara and vatthu the same, and for which are they different? What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, or should I wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment or aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling at a given sense door? More later, I've got a part of a day ahead of me. :-) Thanks guys, AL 35738 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:04am Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Joop and All, > I am consolidating replies to a couple of your posts into a rather > long piece that I suspect you will find interesting. > Hallo Rob, Thanks for your very sincere and rich (and long) message. I think the theme of our discussion is so broad that I had to make a selection, I want concentrate on the rupa-topic. But not without saying "rupa" is only one of the ultimate realities (paramattha). I totally agree with you that the only really important thing in Buddha's teachings is its soteriological content, and the path existing of sila (ethical as you call it) and also (!) panna and samadhi. What are "speculative questions", as named in the quote of the Culamalunkya Sutta? Questions about 'The cosmos is eternal', 'The cosmos is not eternal', 'The cosmos is finite', 'The cosmos is infinite' were totally speculative 2500 years ago, now they are only partly speculative. Of course they are still "unbeneficial" etc. but they no longer belong to the category "metaphysics". And what about the questions "How many elements (datu) do there exist; what are the qualities of those elements and how are they created?"; weren't that speculative questions 2500 years ago? I have made a little study of the history of the concept "four elements" (or another number) in old Greek, Indian and Chinese culture. Most times it was meant as "physica", also in the Upanishads; it was the genius of the Buddha to change it from a ontological to a phenomenolical concept and to use this in His soteriological aims. (The four elements earth, water, fire and air as physics is nowadays oldfashioned, only used in NewAge-circles; the Buddha saved us from that pitfall.) That brings me to the question: is the Abhidhamma perfect, complete? I mean: are the lists of citta's, cetasikas and rupas complete (the rupa after hadayavatthu was added hundreds of years later) ? The question can also been put in a more subjective way: to convince people of the importance of the paramattha the Buddha needed the language of pannatti (concepts). Isn't it so that to convince people 2500 years ago had to be done in other way than 1000 years ago or than now or in the next millenium? And don't you think the language of natural science is a medium to do that convincing work today like talking about "31 planes of existence" or "Four elements" did 2500 years ago? Of course natural science is something else as the soteriological message of the Buddha but the Buddha also used the language and the proto-scientific concepts of his time and culture. I proposed one simple example of new language for the same soteriological message: "gravity" in stead of "extension", or "earth" (pathavi-dhatu). So I stand to my opinion: "rupa" should not been translated as "matter" but as "materiality as experienced by a sentient being". It's not only my opinion: the Birmese Abhidhamma-scolar Ven. Anandamala systematically translates "rupa" as " material quality". To understand nama-rupa we had to understand rupa. I still think it's strange to pay attention only to rupa under the (chapter-) jeading "What happens when we die" I think that in the way you talk about rupa (matter is your translation) you implicitely use the western dichotomy mind-matter. Nama-rupa is not that dichotomy (I will study further to get more clear that relation.) And I thought that "only mind is important" is part of the Yogacara- tradition, not of Theravada. About phenomenology: I realize I exaggerate a little by my statement about rupa. I want to read more about this branch of philosophy but your remark "I see phenomenology as a form of ontology" is to easy; do you disagree with Ven. Nyanaponika ? Perhaps we can both read the article of Y. Karunadasa (former director of the Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, Sri Lanka): "The Buddhist Theory Of Matter As Presented In The Theravada Abhidharma" (www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/abhidharma.htm) about the relevance of rupa. Metta, Joop 35739 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:40am Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > And what about the questions "How many elements (datu) do there > exist; what are the qualities of those elements and how are they > created?"; weren't that speculative questions 2500 years ago? > I have made a little study of the history of the concept "four > elements" (or another number) in old Greek, Indian and Chinese > culture. Most times it was meant as "physica", also in the > Upanishads; it was the genius of the Buddha to change it from a > ontological to a phenomenolical concept and to use this in His > soteriological aims. (The four elements earth, water, fire and air as > physics is nowadays oldfashioned, only used in NewAge-circles; the > Buddha saved us from that pitfall.) > > That brings me to the question: is the Abhidhamma perfect, complete? > I mean: are the lists of citta's, cetasikas and rupas complete (the > rupa after hadayavatthu was added hundreds of years later) ? ===== Most people start their study of Abhidhamma with the Abhidhammatthasangaha. This is meant to be a "summary of things found in the Abhidhamma". It is interesting to compare the contents of the Abhidhammatthasangaha with the original Abhidhamma Pitaka, which was written 1500 years earlier. The first page of the Dhammasangani (first book of Abhidhamma Pitaka) lists the mental factors included in wholesome mental states. I am on the road so I don't have my Dhammasangani with me, but as I recall, the list includes about 45 mental factors and concludes with a phrase similar to "... plus whatever other mental factors find condition to arise". In other words, the Abhidhamma Pitaka does not present the list as being exhaustive (it leaves room for other mental factors to be added). The Abhidhammatthasangaha presents a closed ended list of between 31 and 38 mental factors which arise in wholesome mental states. The Abhidhammatthasangaha adds some mental factors not included in the Dhammasangani (obviously capitalizing on the concluding phrase) and merges some of the factors listed in the Dhammasangani. You ask, "are the lists of cittas, cetasikas and rupas complete?". My answer is that the Abhidhamma Pitaka did not present the lists as being complete lists. The "complete lists" to which you refer come from the Abhidhammatthasangaha, written 1500 years later. ===== > > The question can also been put in a more subjective way: to convince > people of the importance of the paramattha the Buddha needed the > language of pannatti (concepts). Isn't it so that to convince people > 2500 years ago had to be done in other way than 1000 years ago or > than now or in the next millenium? And don't you think the language > of natural science is a medium to do that convincing work today like > talking about "31 planes of existence" or "Four elements" did 2500 > years ago? ===== Did the Buddha really try to convince people of the importance of the paramattha? The term paramattha, in the sense that you are using it (i.e. as an ultimate reality) first appeared in the opening paragraph of the Kathavatthu (the fifth book of the Abhidhamma writen about 350 years after the Buddha died). The Buddha repeatedly said (i.e. in D9), "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathagata) uses without misapprehending them." I do not interpret this statement as the Buddha trying to convince people of the importance of ultimate realites. Frankly, I don't see the Suttas as having much of a ontological focus (if you give me a Sutta reference, I will admit that I am wrong). The Buddha used analogies and metaphors; when He did, He clearly identified them as analogies and metaphors. The Buddha needed a designation for the hardness element so he picked "earth"; not as an analogy, not as a metaphor, but rather as a designation. The Suttas frequently refer to the various planes (though they never limit the quantity to 31). I do not view this as an analogy or a metaphor; it is too widespread. I am aware of no direct experience that I have had with other planes (so I do not say that I believe in them), but the Buddha spoke of them frequently (so I do not say that I do not believe in them). You ask if I think the language of natural science is a medium to do that convincing work today like talking about "31 planes of existence" or "Four elements" did 2500 years ago. I think that if the Buddha were alive today, He would use the language of modern science as analogies or metaphors; BUT I think that the Buddha would clearly identify them as analogies and metaphors and would leave it ambigious. A while back, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article for a Buddhist magazine called "The Internet Sutta" which I will post again on DSG as my next message... enjoy! ===== > Of course natural science is something else as the > soteriological message of the Buddha but the Buddha also used the > language and the proto-scientific concepts of his time and culture. > I proposed one simple example of new language for the same > soteriological message: "gravity" in stead of "extension", or "earth" > (pathavi-dhatu). ===== I am not comfortable with gravity being used for pathavi-dhatu. Pathavi-datu has the salient quality (characterisitic) of hardness. It impacts the body sense. To me, "gravity" doesn't fit the description. ===== > > So I stand to my opinion: "rupa" should not been translated > as "matter" but as "materiality as experienced by a sentient being". > It's not only my opinion: the Birmese Abhidhamma-scolar Ven. > Anandamala systematically translates "rupa" as " material quality". ===== I agree that matter is not an ideal translation of rupa. In some sense, "material quality" may be better. I will make the change in my text. ===== > To understand nama-rupa we had to understand rupa. I still think it's > strange to pay attention only to rupa under the (chapter-) > jeading "What happens when we die" > I think that in the way you talk about rupa (matter is your > translation) you implicitely use the western dichotomy mind- matter. > Nama-rupa is not that dichotomy (I will study further to get more > clear that relation.) > And I thought that "only mind is important" is part of the Yogacara- > tradition, not of Theravada. ===== I needed a place to fit in a discussion of rupa into the structure of chapters that I had laid out and that seemed to be the best option. I am not comfortable with it either; I am thinking of breaking it out as a separate chapter, but it then gets a bit messy during the rebirth section. I agree that my presentation reinforces a mind-matter dichotomy but I can't think of a way of reformatting the presentation. Any ideas? Sorry if I left you with the impression that I feel that "only mind is important". My opinion is that mind is much more important than rupa. ===== > > About phenomenology: I realize I exaggerate a little by my statement > about rupa. I want to read more about this branch of philosophy but > your remark "I see phenomenology as a form of ontology" is to easy; > do you disagree with Ven. Nyanaponika ? ===== I do not disagree with either Bhikkhu Bodhi or Ven. Nyanaponika. ===== > Perhaps we can both read the article of Y. Karunadasa (former > director of the Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies, > Sri Lanka): "The Buddhist Theory Of Matter As Presented In The > Theravada Abhidharma" > (www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/abhidharma.htm) about the > relevance of rupa. ===== For years, I have been trying to buy a copy of Y Karunadasa's book, "Buddhist Analysis of Matter". Now, whenever I want to refer to this book, I have to go to the reference section of the library at the temple. I would really like to have my own copy. Thanks for the link, I searched the Internet a couple of years ago, so this must have been posted relatively recently (ain't the Internet wonderful?). Metta, Rob M :-) 35740 From: ericlonline Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:43am Subject: Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hey Phil, P> I'm interested in the expression "putting aside greed and distress with respect to the world" .. P> I assume "greed and distress" are referring to lobha and dosa. If that is the case, why wouldn't the mindful monk also "put aside" the third unwholesome root, ignorance? (moha) Is there something more"put asideable", if you will, removable perhaps, about dosa and lobha? Is ignorance too deeply engrained, too subtle, too imperceptible, to be able to think about "putting aside?" That is my understanding also. You can't directly put down ignorance but you can subdue greed and distress. It is within ones grasp to do this. P> Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put aside" greed and distress if he or she had right understanding that lobha and dosa rise and fall away again in a conditioned way? :-) Because this knowledge is limited in it's scope. It is not just about 'knowing' that they pass away but about getting them to pass away i.e. eradicate them. For this you have to 'do (or not do) something' and not just understand something. P> Does "put aside" refer to the four efforts, two of which are preventing the arising of unwholesome factors and removing unwholesome factors which have arisen? Seems worthwhile to investigate and to try to 'do'. P> Instead of removing unwholesome factors, wouldn't we be better off being aware of them with right understanding that they will rise and fall according to conditions? Well you understand this, right? So, your understanding has allowed you to put down greed and distress, right? :-) For me it is all about equanimity from which many 'good' things happen. Putting aside greed and distress, in my mind, is synonomous with equanimity. From the Anapanasati sutta with reference to the 4 Foundations.. "...subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. He who sees clearly with discernment the abandoning of greed & distress is one who oversees with equanimity, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world." PEACE E 35741 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:20am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Dear Andrew, Interesting questions but very common to hear asking these when naive touch abhidhamma for the first time. The Buddha preached many dhammas and preached many suttas. There are a large compilation of dhammas and they are thoroughly revised and maintained by The Sangha. All dhammas when they are considered there are only four things. These dhammas are called paramattha dhamma. Paramattha is made up of 'parama' and 'attha'. Attha means essence or meaning while parama means superior, higher, nobler. So the meaning of paramattha is essence or meaning which always excels any other things. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: So I'm studying cetasikas from Nina's book. Please note logical parenthesized order. Forgive any mischeivousness (hope samsara will as well). I'm still not 100% clear on citta, or where it arises. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Citta is nama dhamma. That is it is not a physical matter. So you will not see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it. But you yourself can sense that there is citta. Where does it arise? Where? Do not think in physical way. If you think like this you will never find citta. Citta is nowhere to arise as physical thing. Where does it arise? Which citta? There are many many cittas. Even computers will not be able to count cittas. But in terms of each character, there are in summary 89 cittas. If citta is cakkhuvinnana citta, it arises when ruparammana or object of eye, cakkhu pasada or cakkhu vatthu and attention that is manasikara, and phassa or contact meet. At the time of you reading this that cakkhuvinnana citta has passed away and other cittas arise in series as vithi cittas and bhavanga cittas. So it is very difficult to say where it arises. It will depend on what citta you are talking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: IE where does body-consciousness arise when my butt sits on the chair? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It arises when your attention, touch-object such as the hardness of the chair, kayapasada or kaya vatthu, and phassa or contact all meet together. This matter can be learned in patthana dhamma. It is sahajata paccaya. When a candle light is lit, there arise both heat and light and disappearance of dark. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: (Added: It seems it arises from the very sense-facility that it is conscious of, is this so?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Citta is who senses. It senses eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind senses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: And phassa is contact, right? When I see something and I feel "touching" in my eyes, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: What you are feeling touch in your eye is not that you are talking. Phassa arises with each and every citta. It arises even whem we are sleeping. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: the eye (sense base) contacting the sight (sense object) is that phassa? Do we have to recognize phassa in every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or as many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I guess it seems natural that we should. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If you can recognise it is good for you because you are sensing the realities that is ultimate realities called paramattha dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: Now, for which senses are both the dvara and vatthu the same, and for which are they different? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: 5 physical senses like eye, ear, nose, tongue, body are all related to vatthu which is rupa. Vatthu means 'where something dwell, depend, take seat, ramify, etc etc'. But this does not mean that a citta is dwelling on a vatthu or sitting on a vatthu or taking seat on the vatthu or anything like that. Because citta is not a physical material. It just depend. This means that if there is no vatthu, there is no citta related to vatthu. But citta not related to vatthu may still arise. Dvara on the other hand literally means 'door' where something come in. No sense or arammana are coming in as a physical matter. But it is apparent that we know eye object through our eye. So these 5 sense organs are compared with door and they are called dvara. 5 senses organs are not what you know as you will see with your eyes or sensed with any other physical sensers. But these 5 sense receptors are roughly the same if they are called vatthu or dvara. There is difference in meaning. But the 6th sense vatthu is different from dvara. Because 6th sense is totally related to mind and mind does not have any physical properties and there is no physical dvara for mind. But dvara at mind is mind itself and it has its special name. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: The significance of bhavanga citta is to form bhava or life because as there are still kamma that have to give rise to life, bhavanga cittas have to arise as part of a life. A life starts with patisandhi citta and ends with cuti citta. In between are bhavanga cittas if there do not arise any vithi cittas. This is the significance of bhavanga citta. The significance of cuti citta is to end a life and it arises as a last citta in a life. This is its significance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: or should I wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please rephrase this to be much more clearer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nibbana is only sensed by lokuttara cittas. So before supramundane plane there is no citta that can see nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment or aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling at a given sense door? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If arahatta magga citta arises, they will be rooted out completely and permanently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More later, I've got a part of a day ahead of me. :-) Thanks guys, AL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Be careful. There are more than guys. Some of the members are venerable monks. With Metta, Htoo Naing 35742 From: Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Ken et al - In a message dated 8/25/2004 5:29:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "kenhowardau" writes: >Hi Eric, Matt, Howard, Htoo, and Herman, > >Thinking is real – I am sure we all agree on that. In other words, >the cetasikas, sanna, vicara, vitakka, cetana, samadhi and all the >other cetasikas that work together to create thoughts are real. >However, I understand that the thoughts they create are not real. > >There is confusion over what each of us means by `a thought.' There >is confusion as to who is of the opinion, `a thought is a paramattha >dhamma' and who is of the opinion, `a thought is not a paramattha >dhamma.' > >I think the misunderstanding can be cleared up by asking, "In a >moment when citta experiences a thought, what is the object >(arammana) of that citta?" > >My impression is that citta takes an object but the object doesn't >really exist (is not a paramattha dhamma). Note I am not talking >only about the `referent' of the object: I am saying the object >itself is illusory. > >Comments please. > >Ken H ================================== I understand you here better than I have elsewhere, Ken. And I'm not prepared to dismiss at all what you are saying. It seems to me that you expect a "thought" to be an object of consciouseness in the sense of some entity or event to be apprehended by a separate knowing of it; that is, you are expecting a thought to be a "thing" that awareness can "hit against" and you don't believe in any such separate "thing" and thus say that there are no thoughts. It seems to me that it is your very ability to be nondualistically aware of thoughts that is causing you to not believe in thoughts! ;-) This is the reason, BTW, that I prefer to speak of "content" of experience rather than "object" of experience. Almost everywhere that 'arammana' is rendered by "object" it could instead be rendered, more usefully I believe, by "experiential content". To me, 'object' suggests separate existence as a "thing", whereas 'content' does not. I agree with you that there are no "things" that are the so called thoughts and are apprehended by cittas. That is not how I think of thoughts. Moreover, I view feelings, for example, in rather much the same way. Feelings are not, as I see the matter, apprehended things, but are merely an aspect of experience - a kind of coloring of one's experience. In any case, this is a very subtle business, and it cannot be just summed up and easily put to rest. The biggest mistake either of us could make, I think, is to believe that we really know what's what and that no further investigation need be made on our part. With metta, Howard 35743 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:29am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Hi Andrew, I will try to answer some of your questions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > I'm still not 100% clear on citta, or where it arises. IE where does > body-consciousness arise when my butt sits on the chair? (Added: It > seems it arises from the very sense-facility that it is conscious of, > is this so?) ===== Let's start with some definitions. There is an ultimate reality called citta which can be translated as "consciousness". A grouping of the ultimate reality called citta with a bunch of mental factors (cetasikas) is also called citta. To avoid confusion, in this post, I will use the term "citta" to refer to the ultimate reality and "mental state" to refer to the gouping of citta and cetasikas. With that out of the way... Citta and their associated cetasikas always arise together in a mental state; the citta and the cetasikas share the same base. What are the possible bases that can support a mental state? - The eye-base supports the eye consciousness mental state - The ear-base supports the eye consciousness mental state - the nose-base supports the nose consciousness mental state - the tongue-base supports the tongue consciousness mental state - the body-base supports the body consciousness mental state - all other mental states are supported by the heart base (hadyavatthu) The eye-base is located in the back of the eye. The ear-base is located inside the ear. The nose-base is located inside the nose. The tongue base is located on the tongue. The body base is located over the entire body (except the hair and nails). In the original Abhidhamma texts, the heart base was "the matter that the mind element is based upon" and no location was given. In classical India, it was believed that the mind was centered in the heart (not the brain). The writers of the commentaries, following the tradition at the time (but not the Buddha's words), called this the "heart-base" and located the heart base inside the physical heart. Please note that the body consciousness that "feels" your butt sitting on a chair is one mental state in a series of 17 mental states. Within that series of 17 mental states, there is only one mental state that has the body base as a base; all the other mental states in the series are based on the heart base. ===== > > And phassa is contact, right? When I see something and I feel > "touching" in my eyes, the eye (sense base) contacting the sight > (sense object) is that phassa? Do we have to recognize phassa in > every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or as > many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I > guess it seems natural that we should. ===== Phassa arises in every mental state to allow the citta and the cetasikas to mentally "touch" the object. Here is an extract from the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18): "Dependent on eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact." This quote means that the arising of eye consciousness mental state depens on the eye-base and a visible object. The cetasika phassa is part of the eye consciousness mental state and it is manifested by the meeting of eye-consciousness mental state (supported by eye- base) plus visible object. It is tough to recognize phassa because it arises in every single mental state; the mind is always touching some object or other. ===== > > What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, or should I > wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? ===== Wow! This subject is covered in Nina's "Abhidhamma in Daily Life". You could also read my explanation of this topic in my book (available in the files section of DSG). ===== > > What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane > planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? ===== You are correct that the supramundane mental states take Nibbana as object. Experiencing Nibbana does not change one's plane of existence; it does however qualify one as reaching a level of sainthood (called a change of lineage). ===== > > Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of > feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment or > aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling at a > given sense door? ===== Minor typo; aversion is dosa. There is awareness of the feeling associated with mental states. Feelings cannot be controlled; they arise when conditions to support them to arise. They fall away when conditions no longer support them. Pleasant body feeling and painful body feeling only arise in body door consciousness mental state. Pleasant mental feeling can arise in attachment-rooted mental states, in wholesome mental states and a couple of other mental states. Unpleasant mental feeling only arises in aversion-rooted mental states. Neutral mental feeling can arise in attachment-rooted mental states and in wholesome mental states. Andrew, you ask some really good questions. Hope my answers are not too confusing. Feel free to ask more questions. Metta, Rob M :-) 35744 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:42am Subject: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi Joop, Andrew and others who have not seen this before, The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His analogies. Here is an imaginary "sutra" using a modern technology as an analogy. Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a cyber-cafe surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to Him, Rob the Engineer sat down at one side and said: "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an analogy. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." "Tell me, Engineer Rob, what are the things that make up a computer, and what are their functions?" "A computer has both hardware and software. The hardware provides a base of support for the software and the software receives and processes the information that is input." "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its nature, or is there a person or force controlling and directing the software?" "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its nature." "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. Rupa provides a base of support for nama. Nama receives and processes the information from the visible object. Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in isolation?" "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." "Engineer Rob, You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation from the mind." "Venerable Sir, my computer accesses the Internet through an Internet Service Provider. Does this also have a corresponding function in this analogy?" "Yes, Engineer Rob. Sense objects are accessed through `doorways'. One can consider the Internet Service Provider to be similar to the concept of a `doorway'. How would you describe the `Internet', Engineer Rob?" "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the mind is also nama and rupa?" "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the Internet." "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and say, `This is the Internet'?" "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and software that we label as `Internet'. The `Internet' is a concept; the `Internet' is not a single piece of hardware or software." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever-changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving from one of the clients." "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we all must age), the foundation of a person is a set of rules that define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A person is almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects being apprehended by the five senses." "Please continue, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus their attention on the hardware or the software?" "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying hardware, software and rules work." "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on how nama experiences rupa (solidity, cohesion, temperature, motion) rather than the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." Engineer Rob departed and was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from the Blessed One. I apologize to those who have seen this before. It seemed to fit in with my postings to Joop and Andrew. Metta, Rob M :-) 35745 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Joop, Andrew and others who have not seen this before, "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. > Metta, > Rob M :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Engineer Rob, Did the imagined Blessed One tell you that 'Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa' ? Could you please explain me how mind composes of rupa? With respect, Htoo Naing 35746 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:02am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Dear Rob M, It is very clear that you wrote to Andrew and I hope Andrew will understand everything that you explained. Say about 100%. Only one typo. Ear-base does not support eye-consciousness but ear- consciousness. With much respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I will try to answer some of your questions. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" > wrote: > > I'm still not 100% clear on citta, or where it arises. IE where > does > > body-consciousness arise when my butt sits on the chair? (Added: > It > > seems it arises from the very sense-facility that it is conscious > of, > > is this so?) > > ===== > > Let's start with some definitions. There is an ultimate reality > called citta which can be translated as "consciousness". A grouping > of the ultimate reality called citta with a bunch of mental factors > (cetasikas) is also called citta. To avoid confusion, in this post, > I will use the term "citta" to refer to the ultimate reality > and "mental state" to refer to the gouping of citta and cetasikas. > > With that out of the way... > > Citta and their associated cetasikas always arise together in a > mental state; the citta and the cetasikas share the same base. What > are the possible bases that can support a mental state? > - The eye-base supports the eye consciousness mental state > - The ear-base supports the eye consciousness mental state > - the nose-base supports the nose consciousness mental state > - the tongue-base supports the tongue consciousness mental state > - the body-base supports the body consciousness mental state > - all other mental states are supported by the heart base > (hadyavatthu) > > The eye-base is located in the back of the eye. The ear-base is > located inside the ear. The nose-base is located inside the nose. > The tongue base is located on the tongue. The body base is located > over the entire body (except the hair and nails). > > In the original Abhidhamma texts, the heart base was "the matter > that the mind element is based upon" and no location was given. In > classical India, it was believed that the mind was centered in the > heart (not the brain). The writers of the commentaries, following > the tradition at the time (but not the Buddha's words), called this > the "heart-base" and located the heart base inside the physical > heart. > > Please note that the body consciousness that "feels" your butt > sitting on a chair is one mental state in a series of 17 mental > states. Within that series of 17 mental states, there is only one > mental state that has the body base as a base; all the other mental > states in the series are based on the heart base. > > ===== > > > > > And phassa is contact, right? When I see something and I feel > > "touching" in my eyes, the eye (sense base) contacting the sight > > (sense object) is that phassa? Do we have to recognize phassa in > > every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or > as > > many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I > > guess it seems natural that we should. > > ===== > > Phassa arises in every mental state to allow the citta and the > cetasikas to mentally "touch" the object. Here is an extract from > the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18): "Dependent on eye and forms, eye > consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact." > > This quote means that the arising of eye consciousness mental state > depens on the eye-base and a visible object. The cetasika phassa is > part of the eye consciousness mental state and it is manifested by > the meeting of eye-consciousness mental state (supported by eye- > base) plus visible object. > > It is tough to recognize phassa because it arises in every single > mental state; the mind is always touching some object or other. > > ===== > > > > What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, or > should I > > wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? > > ===== > > Wow! This subject is covered in Nina's "Abhidhamma in Daily Life". > You could also read my explanation of this topic in my book > (available in the files section of DSG). > > ===== > > > > What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the > supramundane > > planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? > > ===== > > You are correct that the supramundane mental states take Nibbana as > object. Experiencing Nibbana does not change one's plane of > existence; it does however qualify one as reaching a level of > sainthood (called a change of lineage). > > ===== > > > > Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of > > feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment > or > > aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling > at a > > given sense door? > > ===== > > Minor typo; aversion is dosa. > > There is awareness of the feeling associated with mental states. > Feelings cannot be controlled; they arise when conditions to support > them to arise. They fall away when conditions no longer support > them. Pleasant body feeling and painful body feeling only arise in > body door consciousness mental state. Pleasant mental feeling can > arise in attachment-rooted mental states, in wholesome mental states > and a couple of other mental states. Unpleasant mental feeling only > arises in aversion-rooted mental states. Neutral mental feeling can > arise in attachment-rooted mental states and in wholesome mental > states. > > Andrew, you ask some really good questions. Hope my answers are not > too confusing. Feel free to ask more questions. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 35747 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:05am Subject: Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hi Phil, Welcome back... looking forward to more exchanges :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > Hello everyone > > I'm interested in the expression "putting aside greed and distress with > respect to the world" which we find in several suttas (such as Gelanna Sutta > SN XXXVI.7 and the Satipatthana Sutta) to describe the mindful monk: > > "And how is a monk mindful? There is the case where a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on > feelings in & of themselves... mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & > of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world. This is how a monk is mindful." > > I assume "greed and distress" are referring to lobha and dosa. If that > is the case, why wouldn't the mindful monk also "put aside" the third > unwholesome root, ignorance? (moha) Is there something more"put asideable", > if you will, removable perhaps, about dosa and lobha? Is ignorance too > deeply engrained, too subtle, too imperceptible, to be able to think about > "putting aside?" > > Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put aside" greed > and distress if he or she had right understanding that lobha and dosa rise > and fall away again in a conditioned way? Does "put aside" refer to the four > efforts, two of which are preventing the arising of unwholesome factors and > removing unwholesome factors which have arisen? Instead of removing > unwholesome factors, wouldn't we be better off being aware of them with > right understanding that they will rise and fall according to conditions? ===== Here is what Soma Thera reports from the commentary on this phrase: Or since the exposition is on mindfulness, and as neither the abandoning of defilements nor the attainment of Nibbana is wrought by mindfulness alone, and as mindfulness does not also occur separately, the pointing out the things that make up the condition connected with the Arousing of Mindfulness is like the pointing out of the condition connected with absorption [jhana]. Condition [anga] is a synonym for constituent [avayava]. Initial application, sustained application, interest, joy and one-pointedness of mind are together with absorption, as energy and the other qualities are with mindfulness. "Having overcome" refers to the discipline of knocking out an evil quality by its opposite good (that is by dealing with each category of evil separately) or through the overcoming of evil part by part [tadangavinaya] and through the disciplining or the overcoming of the passions by suppression in absorption [vikkhambhana vinaya]. Preliminary practice connected with the mundane path of mindfulness is pointed out by the commentator here. "In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world [loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling. As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world." Covetousness stands for sense desire; and grief, for anger. As sense desire and anger are the principal hindrances, the abandoning of the hindrances is stated by the overcoming of covetousness and grief. With covetousness are abandoned the satisfaction rooted in bodily happiness, delight in the body, and the falling into erroneous opinion which takes as real the unreal beauty, pleasure, permanence and substantiality of the body. With the overcoming of grief are abandoned the discontent rooted in bodily misery, the non-delight in the culture of body-contemplation, and the desire to turn away from facing the real ugliness, suffering, impermanence and insubstantiality of the body. By the instruction dealing with the overcoming of covetousness and grief, yogic power and yogic skill are shown. Yogic power is the power of meditation. Yogic skill is dexterity in yoking oneself in meditation. Freedom from satisfaction and discontent in regard to bodily happiness and misery, the forbearing from delighting in the body, the bearing-up of non-delight in the course of body-contemplation, the state of being not captivated by the unreal, and the state of not running away from the real -- these, when practiced produce yogic power; and the ability to practice these is yogic skill. In other words, this explains why dozens of people do not get enlightened when they attend retreats or practice Satipatthana. They have not abandoned the first two hindrances of attachment to the senses and illwill. Metta, Rob M :-) 35748 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: So Called Momentariness, no 1. Hi Howard, you inspire me to talk more on citta. op 24-08-2004 21:03 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: I > do not understand an operation such as the comparing and pattern matching > required of sa~n~na requiring zero time for its execution. That makes no sense to me. As I see it, in zero time, nothing whatsoever happens. Events require duration, and the more complex the event, the greater the duration required. N: I do not speak of zero time, there is no problem here. There are many processes of cittas and they go on in a flash. During these processes conclusions are drawn about the meaning of certain phrases I read, like your phrases now, and even before that there were many moments of seeing, arising in different processes. H: Even the commentaries bow a bit in this direction when they consider a citta > to have three aspects, an arising stage, a maintaining stage, and a declining > stage. N: To me it is very meaningful that citta arises, falls away and that the very short time in between is the moment it subsists and performs its own function. H: Also, I find a degree of artificiality in taking a citta as reality and > a process as not. It is during a process that events occur. N: No, processes of citta are very real, they occur, don't they? Each citta that falls away conditions the next citta and thus all experiences are accumulated from moment to moment. Not only kusala and akusala, also whatever is experienced before. Sañña plays its part, but, as I said before, there is not only sañña, but also the other accompanying cetasikas performing their functions. H: What might well be > the result of conceptualizing is the breaking up of processes into cittas. N: I find it very meaningful that each citta performs its own function. The first moment of life is only one moment, the rebirth-consciousness. The last moment is only one moment, the dying-consciousness. In between there is your life consisting of different cittas arising due to different condiitons and each performing their own function. The rebirth-consciousness is produced by kamma, and this is followed by bhavanga-cittas also produced by kamma. The stream of bhavanga-cittas is interrupted when there are condiitons for cittas arising in processes. Before seeing arises there is adverting-consciousness that does not see but merely adverts to visible object through the eye-door. It prepares the way for seeing that just sees visible object. It merely performs the function of seeing, it does not think of the meaning of what is seen. Seeing is the result of kamma. The javanacittas that react to what is seen in the wholesome way or in the unwholesome way arise later on in the process because of our accumulated tendencies. They perform the function of impulsion or running through the object. Yes, they run on, run on and nobody can stop them. This helps us to see the anattaness. We cannot interfere. The arising of akusala can be so sudden, unforeseen, before we realize it. That is because of the accumulated latent tendencies. Evenso vipakacitta, when we have an accident. The pain can arise so sudden, before we realize what happened. Nobody can prevent any citta from arising, and such a lot can happen within an extremely short time. Rob K quotes this: In the Anguttara Nikaya AN i.10 : " bhikkhus, there is no phenomenon that comes and goes so quickly as mind. It is not easy to find a simile to show how quickly mind comes and goes." We have to take these words very seriously. H: It strikes me that viewing instantaneous, zero-duration events as separate > realities is a kind of artificial breaking up of the stream of experience into > self-existent "things" - a form of atomic reification. .... In zero time, zero happens. N: You will be surprised what citta can achieve within what you call zero time. This is exactly because of the different conditions for each citta. This is still theory and all doubts will disappear only when there can be mindfulness of different cittas. Only in that way we come to know what citta is. To begin with, we can consider cittas as different. Gradually we can understand that they have different characteristics. Seeing is not hearing, and it is not thinking. Seeing is not attachment. Seeing needs its own conditions (as we shall see in the next Tiika) : eyesense and visible object. Nina. 35749 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Putting aside greed and distress Dear Phil, we discussed this text with Co. before, and if I remember well, the Co, explains that they represent lobha and dosa. Ven. Soma translated the Co to the Satipatthanasutta, and p. 56: We also discussed overcoming. In Samatha the hindrances are temporarily subdued. But we should read carefully. It is stressed all the time that the three characteristics have to be known as they are and this is through vipassana. Nina. op 25-08-2004 04:43 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > I wonder why the words "greed and distress" are used instead of > "attachment and aversion?" Translator's choice? Greed and distress might > be seen as gross forms of attachment and aversion? It is always hard to know > without being able to read the suttas in Pali. 35750 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] a moment of gratitude Dear Phil, Thank you for this letter. It is all so human that akusala arises and I appreciate your reactions to the Dhamma. Being distressed about our akusala (and indeed, it can arise so sudden), increases only our accumulations of akusala. As I wrote to Howard, understanding that akusala citta arises so sudden because of the appropriate conditions helps us to see its anattaness. Your gratefulness to the Buddha reminded me of the Co on the sutta the Removal of Distracting Thoughts. This is a series on a long Co. and if you cannot trace it in dsg I can send you the missing posts. Howard gave me the sutta. I took the Co (in Thai) and I was moved by the good counsels given with so much kindness and compassion to the Bhikkhu, without any reproach. I found what I read very uplifting, inspiring, encouraging and so decided to render this Co. If the Bhikkhu just rings a bell members of the Sangha will come and help. He can feel safe because of good and noble friendship. It is said a way of removing akusala thoughts is reciting texts in a loud voice and this reminds him of the truth of Dhamma. I just quote the passage about the Bhikkhu who should praise the Buddha: Nina. P.S. In your other post you asked about ignorance. It is included in the akusala citta with lobha and dosa. It is never absent whenever lobha and dosa arise. op 24-08-2004 23:53 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: awareness that unwholesome factors arise because of > conditions saved me from spending a lot of time stewing in pointless, > unwholesome worry and regret. 35751 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 7. The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 7. The Commentary speaks about performing kusala kamma instead of thinking unwholesome thoughts. All the daily tasks of the bhikkhu can be done with kusala citta with mindfulness and right understanding, and then he performs kusala kamma. If one does not abandon unwholesome thoughts there is no opportunity to pay attention to the meditation subject. Wise people of old engaged themselves with building since they had to abandon unwholesome thoughts before they would occupy themselves with a meditation subject. N: the word nava kamma, making things new or repairing, is used. It pertains to the building of a dwelling or vihaara. The Commentary tells the story of the novice Tissa who wanted to leave the Order. His preceptor said to him that it was difficult to find water for bathing near the monastery. Therefore he took him to Cittalapabbata. N: The preceptor did not say: do not think like this, do not leave the Order, but he wanted to help the novice to perform kusala kamma. Co: He told him to build a new vihaara just as a dwelling for one person. The novice agreed and engaged himself with three things: he studied the Kindred Sayings right from the beginning, he cleaned the ground that was near the precipice of the mountain and he developed the meditation subject of the fire kasina until the stage of jhaana. When he had finished the study of the Kindred Sayings he built a dwelling in a cave and when he had finished this he told his preceptor. The preceptor said that he had taken great trouble in doing so and that he should stay there all by himself. The novice stayed there the whole night and he had the supporting condition of a favorable climate. He developed vipassanaa and attained arahatship. The next day he passed finally away. The people erected a stupa over his relics and this stupa can even be seen today. N: That is, in Buddhaghosa¹s time. This is an example how unwholesome thoughts can be abandoned by manual work with kusala citta, by the study of the teachings, by samatha and by vipassana. The novice eradicated all defilements at the attainment of arahatship. ***** Nina. 35752 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: The Dalai Lama and the Visuddhimagga. Dear Connie, here is the message I promised. It is interesting that the Dalai Lama values so much the Visuddhimagga. This may perhaps inspire your group of Lamas. Nina. ___________ Message from His Holiness the Dalai Lama. **** 35753 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 6. Hi Agrios, op 25-08-2004 01:33 schreef agriosinski op agriosinski@y...: >> However, we should remember that when the citta is not engaged >> with daana, siila or bhaavanaa, all thinking is done with akusala citta. >> When the bhikkhu¹s objective is siila he thinks with kusala citta. But when >> he merely thinks, this is a match, this is a needle, and defines different >> objects without mindfulness of naama and ruupa his thoughts are akusala, = > he is merely replacing unwholesome thoughts by other unwholesome thoughts. A: > what if monk is unable to be really mindfull of naama and ruupa? > is just investigative thinking with intention to awake akusala? N: He has no intention to awake akusala. There are other possibilities if he cannot be aware of nama and rupa. See this text about reviewing the requisites: He can see his nailcutter, needle etc. as mere elements or as repulsive. Are nails not repulsive? So is his ragrobe that is worn out and that he has to mend. That is mental development. Seeing them as elements, just hardness, heat etc. helps him to also develop satipatthana. In the Buddha's time the monks would follow his teaching of developing satipatthana since the goal of monkhood is arahatship. It is also said in the sutta that he who does not develop vipassana is not worthy to be called a recluse. Even though it is difficult, one can at least begin. It is kusala citta that considers in the right way different namas and rupas that appear, also when he takes out the contents of his shoulderbag and starts mending his robe. Nina. 35754 From: ericlonline Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:39am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) :-) Thoroughly enjoyed this Rob! You must be a software engineer as you give greater importance to that in your essay? :-) I think as time moves forward, there will be a better understanding of rupa (thru the sciences) in conjunction with nama. Something the Buddha did not have access too. Check out this 10 minute blurb. Ken Wilber stops his brainwaves. Is this Nirodha btw? http://integralnaked.org/news/index.aspx You may have to subscribe if you can not view it. They are giving a free month subscription here. (see the top right for the coupon) http://integralnaked.org/whatsnew.aspx PEACE E 35755 From: connieparker Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:58am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks > connie, but can't you appreciate the rendering of reality i'm trying to > propose that machine head bases their philosophy around? Hi, AL, I think I can 'appreciate' where they're coming from, but where does MH's proposed handling of their view of reality mesh with Buddha's? We commit all kinds of evil because of our stories and how we wrap them around our worlds. We justify it by calling it the lesser of two evils, say we're doing it to protect the helpless or whatever, but it is still harmful and just keeps feeding more of the same. My saying that whatever appears to our senses is a result of what's gone before and is already perfect/just in terms of the laws of reality doesn't mean we can't try to change things and help others, but even the most noble seeming acts can have harmful motivations/thoughts behind them and that is part of our 'nature' that needs to change. Even the arahant Moggallana couldn't escape kamma that was ready to ripen and our best protection must be developing right view/understanding as Buddha presented it. We can't say the ends justify the means because we don't know when 'the ends' will come or how they will manifest. It's not so much the outer world as our mental responses to it that matter and these will slowly change as we reflect more on how Buddha said the world works. When we're telling ourselves stories do we wish the same freedom from harm for the 'bad guys' as we do 'the victims'? I think the MH's really fall down here and that even catching ourselves in that much of our stories is a pretty good 'attainment'. peace, connie ps. I still think this is helpful: http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-chant.htm METTA - mp3 and text files towards the bottom of the page. 35756 From: john duncan Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:23am Subject: other teachings Hello all... I have a question to which any posted answer would be most welcome. There are, of course, other forms of Buddhism besides Theravada, and some of the practices of these schools have much merit. Should there necessarily be any conflict in applying teachings outside the Theravada tradition if one finds them useful? I do not see one, for I understand Buddhadhamma to be like medicine to heal our ignorance, and the form of the medicine does not seem very important, so long as one achieves the desired result, but there are some practitioners who seem unduly caught up in segmenting the Teachings and sticking to only one point of view as correct and all others as necessarily false. One practice to which I refer specifically is the vajrayana practice of Tong Len, a visualization technique in meditation aimed at breaking down the ego-self and strengthening compassion in the individual. I do not practice in the vajrayana tradition, but think highly of this practice. I am interested to hear other points of view. With metta... Duncan... 35757 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:45pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi Eric, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > You must be a software engineer > as you give greater importance > to that in your essay? :-) ===== I am an engineer, but my 11-year old son knows more about web pages and such than I do. ===== > > I think as time moves forward, > there will be a better understanding > of rupa (thru the sciences) in > conjunction with nama. Something > the Buddha did not have access too. ===== Over the last couple of days, I have been having a discussion on Buddhism and Science (rupa in particular) with Joop. You may find my two recent posts to Joop to be interesting. Metta, Rob M :-) 35758 From: robmoult Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:06pm Subject: Re: other teachings Hi Duncan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, john duncan wrote: > Hello all... > I have a question to which any posted answer would be > most welcome. There are, of course, other forms of > Buddhism besides Theravada, and some of the practices > of these schools have much merit. Should there > necessarily be any conflict in applying teachings > outside the Theravada tradition if one finds them > useful? I do not see one, for I understand > Buddhadhamma to be like medicine to heal our > ignorance, and the form of the medicine does not seem > very important, so long as one achieves the desired > result, but there are some practitioners who seem > unduly caught up in segmenting the Teachings and > sticking to only one point of view as correct and all > others as necessarily false. ===== Here is a Zen story about two monks who could not agree and asked the abbot to resolve their argument. Monk 1: The Buddha taught us to be aware of the present moment. Therefore rebirth is not an important doctrine as it is not part of the present moments. Abbot: That is correct. Monk 2: The Buddha often talked about rebirth, so it is an important doctrine in Buddhism. Abbot: That is correct. Monk 1 & Monk 2: We can't both be correct!!! Abbot: That is also correct!!! The key to understanding this story is to realize that each monk is correct because based on their accumulations, different aspects of the teachings gain relevance. The abbot's concluding statement is telling the monks that there is no single "best practice" for everybody. Here is an interesting blurb by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada on the Abhidhamma: The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and explaining the Dhamma. In fact, the real meaning of the most important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsara, Sankhara, Paticcasamuppada and Nibbana cannot be understood without a knowledge of Abhidhamma. It is a gross oversimplification, but I have heard it said that Vayjarana focuses on rite and ritual, Mahayana focuses on faith and Theravada focuses on wisdom. Metta, Rob M :-) 35759 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cita and cetasikas Hi AL. Rob M and Htoo answered many of your Q. Let me see. op 25-08-2004 14:52 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...:> > And phassa is contact, right? When I see something and I feel > "touching" in my eyes, the eye (sense base) contacting the sight > (sense object) is that phassa? N:You cannot feel phassa, only tangible object can be experienced through bodysense which is all over the body, even in the eye when you feel throbbing. AL: Do we have to recognize phassa in > every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or as > many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I > guess it seems natural that we should. N: No we do not. When awareness and paññaa develop the dhamma that appears to the sati can be known, but it is inpredictable which ones will be known. Cetasikas are very subtle, hard to know. No rules and we should not have any expectations. First the theoretical knowledge, pariyatti has to be correct. AL: Now, for which senses are both the dvara and vatthu the same, and for > which are they different? N: For seeing and the other sense-cognitions (hearing etc) doorway and base are the same. For the other cittas arising in the eyedoor process the vatthu is the heartbase as Rob M said. AL What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, or should I > wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? N: Rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta and cuti-citta are the same type of citta, vipakacitta produced by kamma. They do not arise in processes, they do not experience an object through a doorway. They experience the same object as that experienced by the last javana cittas of the previous life, the object experienced in this life by these cittas is like an echo. > AL What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane > planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? N: In the process during which enlightenment is experienced there arises before the magga-citta which is the first lokuttaracitta, a citta that is still lokiya, called change of lineage, gotrabhu. This is not lokuttara but evenso it experiences nibbana. It does not eradicate defilements. AL: Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of > feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment or > aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling at a > given sense door? N: Only the lokuttara maggacitta of the arahat arising in a minddoor process can eradicate lobha. But this is a typo: moha. You mean aversion, and this is eradicated by the non-returner. Nina. 35760 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:31pm Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi RobM, Sometimes, you write the strangest things! :-) I hope I have misunderstood the following: ------------------------ RM: > Did the Buddha really try to convince people of the importance of the paramattha? The term paramattha, in the sense that you are using it (i.e. as an ultimate reality) first appeared in the opening paragraph of the Kathavatthu (the fifth book of the Abhidhamma writen about 350 years after the Buddha died). The Buddha repeatedly said (i.e. in D9), "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathagata) uses without misapprehending them." I do not interpret this statement as the Buddha trying to convince people of the importance of ultimate realites. Frankly, I don't see the Suttas as having much of a ontological focus (if you give me a Sutta reference, I will admit that I am wrong). > ---------------- Haven't you just given that reference? If something is a `mere name, expression, turn of speech, or designation' then it is not real – it doesn't really exist. Only the five khandhas (nama and rupa) really exist, and the teaching of nama and rupa is the Greater Teaching (the Abhidhamma). The Abhidhamma allows us to understand suttas in terms of absolute reality. Anyone who reads suttas, without first being trained in Abhidhamma, learns nothing. Worse than nothing, he learns a false version of the Buddha's teaching. Wouldn't you agree? Kind regards, Ken H 35761 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa and stories) Hi Rob, Thanks again for your reaction, especially the information in it. It will be better now I let you the time to rewrite your book. Perhaps you can add a kind of concluding chapter with the title "The evolution of Abhidhamma through the ages". Where to put yhe information about "Rupa" in your book? Maybe you can make the paragraph on page 11-12 a little longer and on page 50-54 a little shorter? RM: > Did the Buddha really try to convince people of the > importance of the paramattha? The term paramattha, in > the sense that you are using it (i.e. as an ultimate reality) > first appeared in the opening paragraph of the Kathavatthu > (the fifth book of the Abhidhamma writen about 350 > years after the Buddha died). Ken reacted on this already. I'm not enough an expert to say who is right, my intuition says Ken is. RM: The Suttas frequently refer to the various planes > (though they never limit the quantity to 31). I do not > view this as an analogy or a metaphor; it is too widespread. > I am aware of no direct experience that I have had with > other planes (so I do not say that I believe in them), but > the Buddha spoke of them frequently (so I do not say that > I do not believe in them). Believe or not belief, I'm agnostic on it à la Batchelor. And I don't need all that planes. This two themes bring me to another thought: Talking about "the Buddha tries to convince" is talking about "skilful means" (upaya) as the Mahayana-buddhist like to do. I think it's a dangerous concept: - it divides to easy human beings in dummies and spiritual highbrows - the esoteric, the secret part, makes it uncontrolable if the Buddha (the "historical Buddha") really spoke a sutra. (I realize that a story of the Theravada Abhidhamma, told by the Buddha to his mother in a heaven, does the same. Anti-date sciptures is a well-known phenemena. I once read a story by prof Gombrich that buddhists in Sri Lanka believe that "the buddhist (multicolor) flag" is two thousand years old, although there is enough proof that it is introduced in 1900 by the theosophists). I do like your Internet Sutta, I wish I had more imagination because we need more narration. Metta Joop 35762 From: robmoult Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi RobM, > > Sometimes, you write the strangest things! :-) > I hope I have misunderstood the following: > > ------------------------ > RM: > Did the Buddha really try to convince people of the importance > of the paramattha? The term paramattha, in the sense that you are > using it (i.e. as an ultimate reality) first appeared in the opening > paragraph of the Kathavatthu (the fifth book of the Abhidhamma > writen about 350 years after the Buddha died). > > The Buddha repeatedly said (i.e. in D9), "These are merely names, > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the > world, which the Perfect One (Tathagata) uses without > misapprehending them." I do not interpret this statement as the > Buddha trying to convince people of the importance of ultimate > realites. Frankly, I don't see the Suttas as having much of a > ontological focus (if you give me a Sutta reference, I will admit > that I am wrong). > > ---------------- > > Haven't you just given that reference? If something is a `mere name, > expression, turn of speech, or designation' then it is not real – it > doesn't really exist. Only the five khandhas (nama and rupa) really > exist, and the teaching of nama and rupa is the Greater Teaching > (the Abhidhamma). The Abhidhamma allows us to understand suttas in > terms of absolute reality. ===== I am of the opinion that the Suttas do not have an ontological focus. In other words, the Suttas do not focus on defining and classifying realities as distinct from non-realities (i.e. concepts). I have the impression that the ontological focus arises only in the Abhidhamma, not in the Suttas. However, I will quickly change my opinion if somebody can point me to a relevant Sutta. Let us consider the quote I gave above from the Potthapada Sutta (DN9) and Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments (from the Sutta introduction on Access to Insight): "Many of the technical terms he uses here -- such as the perception of a refined truth, the peak of perception, the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception, the acquisition of a self -- are found no where else in the Canon. At the end of the sutta, he describes them as "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 at them." In other words, he picks them up for the purpose at hand and then lets them go. Thus they are not to be regarded as central to his teaching. Instead, they should be read as examples of his ability to adapt the language of his interlocutors to his own purposes. For this reason, this sutta is best read only after you have read other suttas and are familiar with the more central concepts of the Buddha's teachings." It seems clear to me (and I suspect that Thanissaro Bhikkhu agrees) that the Buddha was not focusing on defining and classifying realities as distinct from non-realities (i.e. concepts) when He said in the Potthapada Sutta, "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 at them." So if this quotation is not focusing on defining and classifying realities as distinct from non-realities (i.e. concepts), what is the point of this quotation? Consider the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN1) which contrasts the thinking patterns of: - An uninstructed worldling (that's us) - A trainee (includes sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami) - An arahant - A Buddha To summarize this very difficult Sutta, the thinking pattern of an uninstructed worldling starts off on the wrong foot by perceiving (i.e. sanna-vipallasa; perversion of perception) whereas a trainee, an Arahant and a Buddha do not perceive, instead they "directly know". After the uninstructed worldling perceives, they make matters worse by "conceiving" and misapprehending. In brief, the Mulapariyaya Sutta stresses that the Buddha and an Arahant possesses clarity of thinking not found in uninstructed worldings. I interpret the quotation from the Potthapada Sutta as saying the same thing (albeit in less technical terms). ===== > > Anyone who reads suttas, without first being trained in Abhidhamma, > learns nothing. Worse than nothing, he learns a false version of > the Buddha's teaching. Wouldn't you agree? ===== Wow! That is an extreme position! I agree that being trained in the Abhidhamma helps one get a deeper understanding of the Suttas, but I do not agree that one cannot learn anything from the Suttas before being trained in Abhidhamma. I also do not agree that one will always get a false version of the Buddha's teaching by reading Suttas before being trained in Abhidhamma. Metta, Rob M :-) 35763 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] cita and cetasikas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi AL. > Rob M and Htoo answered many of your Q. Let me see. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Dhamma Friends, I have not got the answer from Rob M. I have asked him to explain what he said, ' mind composed both nama and rupa'. I am still waiting. With Metta, Htoo Naing 35764 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 4:29am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 048 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 89 states of consciousness or 89 states of mind or 89 cittas. These cittas have been classified in different ways according to their pertaining characters and their implications. So far we have discussed up to 54 cittas which are all kamavacara cittas or consciousness that mainly arise in kama bhumis or sensuous sphere including 4 apaya bhumis, 1 manussa bhumi or human realm, and 6 deva bhumis or deva realms or 6 heavens. In the last post, rupavacara citta in general has been discussed. These 15 cittas are manily the cittas of rupa brahmas excluding asannisatta brahmas who do not have any cittas. Among 15 rupavacara cittas, 5 cittas which are rupavacara rupavipaka cittas are only cittas that serve as patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti citta functions in rupa brahma bhmui. No other citta can take place of these 5 rupavipaka cittas. Kiriya cittas or inoperational consciousness which are javana cittas are cittas of arahats only. These kiriya cittas can never arise in non-arahats. Non-javana kiriya cittas such as pancadvaravajjana citta or 5-sense-door-contemplating consciousness, and manodvaravajjana citta or mind-sense-door-contemplating consciousness can both arise in any sattas arahats or non-arahats if there are conditions for their arising. These 5 rupakiriya cittas are like rupakusala cittas. The different is that rupakiriya cittas do not give rise to any kamma or they will not give rise to any vipaka because of their arising. So when arahats are going to die, these 5 rupavacara rupakiriya cittas arise in very quick succession without any interruption. Even The Buddha did mahaparinibbana with one of these rupakiriya cittas that is 'upekkhekaggataa sahitam pancamajjhana kiriya citta' as maranasanna javana cittas just before the cuti citta. So even though there are 15 rupavacara cittas, there are only 5 jhanas. They are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th jhana kusala cittas. There are 5 jhanas because there are 5 jhanangas or 5 parts of jhana. But jhanas are counted as four and this is correspondent with rupa jhana bhumis where rupa brahma arise with jhana vipaka or rupavipaka cittas. The 3rd jhana kusala cittas can give rise to 3rd rupavipaka cittas which are patisandhi cittas of 2nd jhana bhumis. To be much more clearer, 4 jhanas will be counted below and then 5 jhana cittas will be discussed later on. There are 5 jhanangas or 5 jhana anga or 5 parts of jhana. They are vitakka or initial application, vicara or sustained application, piti or rapture or joy, sukha or tranquility or somanassa vedana, and ekaggata or one-pointedness. These 5 jhananagas are actually 5 cetasikas. But when in jhanas these cetasikas are much much more powerful than their counter part while not in jhanas. The first rupa jhana has all of these 5 jhana factors. The second rupa jhana does not have vitakka and vicara. So 2nd jhana will have only piti, sukha, and ekaggata as jhana factors. The third jhana does not have piti. It has only sukha and ekaggata as jhana factors. The fourth jhana does not have sukha. Instead it has upekkha. So there will be ekaggata as jhana factor along with upekkha vedana. When jhana cittas are considered they are counted as the first to the fifth jhana. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS:Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 35765 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:25am Subject: Jhana Journey ( 05 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Patibaga nimitta or counter image of WHITE circle is now the arammana or object of the initial kusala cittas. The jhana practitioner is viewing his arammana diligently as ''WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE......''. The whole thing is white and everything is white. All he knew is white. But even though he is practising on the arammana of WHITE, his mind frequently distracts from WHITE. He feels peace by his practice and he later wants to teach to other people his experience. Start from that just initial willingness and wish, all other thoughts related to lobha or attachement arise. These lobha related cittas may invite kama sorts of things or sensuous matters like visual sight what we think is good to see, sweet and soft voice and sounds that we think is good to hear, sweet smell what we will think good to smell, tastes of different food that we would like and assume as good, and all touches of any kind which we think pleasurable and thoughts related to these senses. He may switch on from patigha nimitta or counter image of WHITE circle to sensuous things and may even switch on to sex things then all he achieved has totally gone and he has to start again from the foundation that is parikamma nimitta and intiation on physical WHITE kasina circle again. But now he learnt that how important to maintain patibhaga nimitta or counter image which cannot arise just thinking due to previous experiences. This is one of five hinderance. It is called nivarana. nivarana are dhammas that hinder, prevent, stop, abolish kusala cittas ( in case of vipassana magga cittas ). So, the practitioner needs to know all about the nivarana in order to prevent them not to intrude into mind of the jhana practitioner. May you all be able to drive out nivarana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35766 From: connieparker Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: The Dalai Lama and the Visuddhimagga Thank you, Nina, I'll take the message in next week when we are supposed to be learning a 9-point death meditation. Last night everyone liked hearing the Metta chant in Pali and had the Pali/English to follow along. Also, it turned out that monk Tenzin knew the nun on the mp3 taking refuge in Tibetan. peace, connie > Message from His Holiness the Dalai Lama. 35767 From: plnao Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hi Eric, Rob M, Christine and all Thanks for your feedback, Rob and Christine, on the way the phrase in question is interpreted in the context of dealing with hindrances that get in the way of meditation retreats, for example. Actually, I felt dumb after asking when I realized that "greed" is used for dosa in the Manual of Abhidhamma, so there is nothing to be surprised at. Thanks, Eric, for your comments. > P> Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put > aside" greed and distress if he or she had right understanding that > lobha and dosa rise and fall away again in a conditioned way? E > :-) Because this knowledge is limited in > it's scope. It is not just about 'knowing' > that they pass away but about getting them > to pass away i.e. eradicate them. For this > you have to 'do (or not do) something' and > not just understand something. Ph: I am still feeling encouraged by how much a basic understanding of Abhidhamma at my limited level has done for removing anger from my life. When I came across Abhidhamma I was allowed new insight into annata and the other characteristics, and into the aggregates, and it really has changed things for me. There is no one there to get angry with, in the ultimate sense. I understand that intellectually, and it seems to be holding in place through my daily life. As VisIX 38 puts it "is it the materiality aggregate you are angry with? or the feeling aggregate?, the perception aggregate, the formations aggregate, the consciousness aggregate you are angry with?" People are very much there, and I am fond of them and feel respect for them, but they are not there in the absolute sense and they don't cause me so much aversion. Of course there is still aversion, but that intellectual understanding really seems to have taken root. So I would assume that for an experienced meditator, our friend "the monk" of the satipatthana sutta, there would be greater peace from right understanding. I know this sounds overconfident, but I do really sense a lot less anger and other forms of hostility in my life and I give credit to a basic understanding of Abhidhamma, which has helped me to understand other aspects of Dhamma better. It seems the same doesn't hold for lobha for me. I am prey to sensual desires left, right and center, gross and subtle. Lobha is much more insidious, it seems to me. Anyway, I would say there is no need to "get them to pass away", because I know they will pass away. From what Rob and Christine were saying, however, the phrase is used as a way of putting aside hindrances before meditating. Since I am a dry insight type, I am content to go through life aware of greed and distress as they arise, my faith in the Buddha's teaching reminding me that they are impermanent and not-self and will fall away, but perhaps those who are serious about formal meditation would want to be more proactive in setting aside as much hindrance as possible before settling down on the cushion. > P> Instead of removing unwholesome factors, wouldn't we be better > off being aware of them with right understanding that they will rise > and fall according to conditions? > E > Well you understand this, right? So, your > understanding has allowed you to put down > greed and distress, right? :-) For me it is all about > equanimity from which many 'good' things > happen. Putting aside greed and distress, in my > mind, is synonomous with equanimity. Ph: Well, to a significant degree yes, it has. Man, talk about setting myself up for an explosion of bicycle road rage tomorrow! (Fortunately, I have a flat tire and am walking these days.) But there is confidence that comes from knowing that I've only had one of my "regrettable incidents" as I call them this year. (Related to anger, that is. Lobha is another matter.) I am with you on equanimity. For me, it is the starting point when I contemplate the Brahma-Viharas. It seems to me that upekkha goes along with right understanding of annata, to the degree that we are capable of understanding it. I start the day by sitting and reflecting, intellectually, on the four noble truths. Reflect on myself and others rushing through life all wrapped up in our suffering caused by wrong view of self. Reflect on the way we cling to aggregates. See the liberation involved in knowing that we are all nama and rupa, rising and falling. Not able to know it directly, of course, but still such peace from understanding it intellectually at a basic level. From there comes reflection on annata, annica and dukkha. And then I see myself going out into the world with equanimity, relatively free from the worldly concerns - relatively, I stress- thanks to this intellectual understanding of the three characteristics, of the aggregates. And then metta and karuna and mudita arise as they will. This is kind of what I go through with my morning coffee. All very intellectual and conceptual I suppose. But it really does seem to take me through the day. And equanimity of the Brahma-Viharas is very much at the center of it, I think. Sorry for this over-confident sounding ramble. But it seems to me that understanding Dhamma intellectually can do a lot for uprooting the grossest defilements. Of course, part of that understanding is that there are powerful conditions at work and the anger could explode at any moment. There is nothing that I can do to prevent that from happening, but when it does happen, I think it is quite possible that right understanding of the conditions at work will help me to respond in a way that stills the waters faster rather than spinning out into more akusala based in regret, justification, escape into temporarily comforting forms of lobha etc. Right understanding helped me recently when I behaved very badly in a way related to lobha. And it helped me when I had my last angry outburst a couple of months ago. Intellectual understanding of conditions at work - even without knowing the details of how they work - is so liberating, in my opinion. It's why I love Abhidhamma in Daily Life so much. If I hadn't come across this group and Nina's books I would still be sitting in a determined way, focusing stubbornly on my breath between bouts of falling asleep, and trying to emanate metta like a love ray machine. Very, very grateful to this group, to Nina, to K Sujin for teaching Nina, and for whoever taught K Sujin, and above all to the Buddha. What a teacher!!! Metta, Phil 35768 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:11am Subject: Re: other teachings Hey Duncan, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. But I am a both/and kind of guy not an either/or. I don't limit my investigations to just Buddhism. Krishnamurti, Ramana, Lao Tzu, etc. etc. Premodern, modern, postmodern. I am enamored with those who have found meaning in their lives. This is a story about Tonglen that I heard. This is from memory so maybe someone knows the source. These meditators were on a retreat when they were visited by a Tibetan lama. He had to continually wipe a stream of tears from his face. Seems he was tortured by the Chinese and the beatings he received damaged his tear ducts. He was in a cell with his teacher and they were not allowed to outwardly practice anything. So, they practiced tonglen directed to their captors. The lama's teacher eventually died and the jailers approached the lama and asked what his secret was. They told him that they did everything to try and break his spirit and had failed. The lama then revealed his secret by teaching them tonglen. Without any explanation, the lama was one day freed by his captors. PEACE E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, john duncan wrote: > Hello all... > I have a question to which any posted answer would be > most welcome. There are, of course, other forms of > Buddhism besides Theravada, and some of the practices > of these schools have much merit. Should there > necessarily be any conflict in applying teachings > outside the Theravada tradition if one finds them > useful? I do not see one, for I understand > Buddhadhamma to be like medicine to heal our > ignorance, and the form of the medicine does not seem > very important, so long as one achieves the desired > result, but there are some practitioners who seem > unduly caught up in segmenting the Teachings and > sticking to only one point of view as correct and all > others as necessarily false. One practice to which I > refer specifically is the vajrayana practice of Tong > Len, a visualization technique in meditation aimed at > breaking down the ego-self and strengthening > compassion in the individual. I do not practice in the > vajrayana tradition, but think highly of this > practice. I am interested to hear other points of > view. > With metta... > Duncan... > > 35769 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:13am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: HtooTintnaing, It is good to discuss dharma with you. Please continue to reply at your convenience. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: What you are feeling touch in your eye is not that you are > talking. Phassa arises with each and every citta. It arises even whem > we are sleeping. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Andrew: > > the eye (sense base) contacting the sight > (sense object) is that phassa? Do we have to recognize phassa in > every sense base as a cetasika, as well as the other cetasikas, or as > many cetasikas or (as possible or as they present themselves)? I > guess it seems natural that we should. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: If you can recognise it is good for you because you are sensing > the realities that is ultimate realities called paramattha dhamma. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is very difficult, though, isn't it? When I touch my hand to my shirt I have to recognize feeling, I have to recognize contact, I have to recognize the rupa there as well. This brings me back to a point from another thread with Sarah, where we differed. The objective is to be mindful of as much as possible of the psycho-physical organism as possible, right? To recognize and know each nama and rupa as it arises, exists, and passes away, yes? This is what satipatthana is about, right? That's how I see it, the Buddha described in the Maha-satipatthana sutta and in the Satipatthana sutta both that we are to contemplate body in the body, feelings in the feelings, consciousness in the consciousness (here is where Abhidharma comes in, right?), and dhammas in the dhammas. To me that's to contemplate on our very being, to see the true nature of how we are. Once we have an understanding of what's involved in that, an understanding of the Dharma, we can then go on to practise in accordance with the directions given to us by the Buddha, to realize enlightenment, right? This is the viewpoint I have come to from reading sites like accesstoinsight.org, commentaries and books on Satipatthana, and the suttas themselves. Please let me know if or how your view differs from mine. --- > Andrew: > > Now, for which senses are both the dvara and vatthu the same, and for > which are they different? > > But these 5 sense receptors are roughly the same if they are called > vatthu or dvara. There is difference in meaning. But the 6th sense > vatthu is different from dvara. Because 6th sense is totally related > to mind and mind does not have any physical properties and there is > no physical dvara for mind. But dvara at mind is mind itself and it > has its special name. So the answer is mind, the sixth sense door, where dvara is not rupa, right? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Andrew: > > What is the significance of bhavanga-citta and cuti-sitta, > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: > > The significance of bhavanga citta is to form bhava or life because > as there are still kamma that have to give rise to life, bhavanga > cittas have to arise as part of a life. > > A life starts with patisandhi citta and ends with cuti citta. In > between are bhavanga cittas if there do not arise any vithi cittas. > This is the significance of bhavanga citta. > > The significance of cuti citta is to end a life and it arises as a > last citta in a life. This is its significance. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Vithi citta is conscious mind from what I can tell. So it's general consciousness, right? > Andrew: > > or should I wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: Please rephrase this to be much more clearer. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I am reading cetasikas by Nina, some material of which links to another of her works, Abhidharma in daily life. This was what I was informed would be good to study by Sarah. So it's just a more advanced level of knowledge, cause I am just starting my Abhidharma studies. > Andrew: > > What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane > planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: > > Nibbana is only sensed by lokuttara cittas. So before supramundane > plane there is no citta that can see nibbana. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- This is not true. I have sensed or perceived nibbana without attaining the supramundane planes, and from the literature I've read this is not all too uncommon. So the question remains. > Andrew: > > Going back to what I know and tying this in with Mindfulness of > feelings, is it possible to root out the lobha or moha (attachment or > aversion) in a citta accompanied by a pleasant or painful feeling at a > given sense door? > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: > > If arahatta magga citta arises, they will be rooted out completely > and permanently. But isn't part of the point of mindfulness of feelings to reduce the greed for the pleasant, the aversion for the painful, and the delusion for the neutral, in each citta accompanied by vedana. That brings me to another question. If vedana, feeling, is a mental con-committant, and we need to know consciousness and its con-committants anyway, why is mindfulness of feelings specified as one of the four major categories of contemplation by the Buddha? Or did he not intend us to know every single cetasika but only the citas themselves? -Andrew Levin > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > More later, I've got a part of a day ahead of me. :-) > > Thanks guys, > AL > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Htoo: > > Be careful. There are more than guys. Some of the members are > venerable monks. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 35770 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:22am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Please note that the body consciousness that "feels" your butt > sitting on a chair is one mental state in a series of 17 mental > states. Within that series of 17 mental states, there is only one > mental state that has the body base as a base; all the other mental > states in the series are based on the heart base. > Care to explain what that series of 17 mental states is? > > ===== > > > > What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the > supramundane > > planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? > > ===== > > You are correct that the supramundane mental states take Nibbana as > object. Experiencing Nibbana does not change one's plane of > existence; it does however qualify one as reaching a level of > sainthood (called a change of lineage). > I mean perceiving nibbana before a stage of sainthood. This is described in Bhante Gunaratana's "Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness". What is the citta that senses nibbana? -AL 35771 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:22am Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Ken> Anyone who reads suttas, without first being trained in Abhidhamma, > learns nothing. Worse than nothing, he learns a false version of > the Buddha's teaching. Wouldn't you agree? Yes the Ven. Anna Kondanna was a speed reader. He read the complete abhidhamma from the time the Buddha uttered the first sermon to the time of his enlightenment. You sure do hold some strange untenable views Ken! PEACE E 35772 From: Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi, Rob and Ken - You quote from the Potthapada Sutta: > "... 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 at them." > ============================= Thank you for pointing out this sutta as the source of this quote. I've asked before, on more than one list, about the Buddha having said something to the effect of using concepts but not being fooled by them, and I was consistently given a mediocre example as reply (repeatedly the same reference - not this one, but a poor one which I don't recall). Now, there is also the following, better, example from the Kalakarama Sutta: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos -- with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people -- is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos -- with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people -- is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but the Tathagata has not taken a stance on it." But I think the quoted material from the Potthapada Sutta that you provided is the best of all, and it is probably what I originally had in mind. 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) 35773 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Putting aside greed and distress Hey Phil, >Thanks, Eric, for your comments. And for yours as well Phil! > P> Perhaps a more important question is why the monk would "put > aside" greed and distress if he or she had right understanding that > lobha and dosa rise and fall away again in a conditioned way? E > :-) Because this knowledge is limited in > it's scope. It is not just about 'knowing' > that they pass away but about getting them > to pass away i.e. eradicate them. For this > you have to 'do (or not do) something' and > not just understand something. P: I know this sounds over confident, but I do really sense a lot less anger and other forms of hostility in my life and I give credit to a basic understanding of Abhidhamma, which has helped me to understand other aspects of Dhamma better. Right on! P> Anyway, I would say there is no need to "get them to pass away", because I know they will pass away. I meant the latent tendencies. Of course they pass away. But they arise again. Merely watching that cycle without disrupting it does little towards ending suffering. It seems from your post you are disrupting it with mindfulness, loving kindness, equanimity and right understanding, etc. It is great to see this!! Ph: I am with you on equanimity. For me, it is the starting point when I contemplate the Brahma-Viharas. It seems to me that upekkha goes along with right understanding of annata, to the degree that we are capable of understanding it. I feel this is a wise and heartfelt approach. It seems some fall into nihilism when finding Buddhism. 'It is all just passing away, so why do or feel anything'. But then, why the Brahma Viharas? It softens what otherwise could be a very cold sterile analytic apporach to the Dhamma. It seems you have deftly sidestepped this potential sink hole. Ph> This is kind of what I go through with my morning coffee. All very intellectual and conceptual I suppose. But it really does seem to take me through the day. And equanimity of the Brahma-Viharas is very much at the center of it, I think. P> Sorry for this over-confident sounding ramble. Very, very grateful to this group, to Nina, to K Sujin for teaching Nina, and for whoever taught K Sujin, and above all to the Buddha. What a teacher!!! No need to apologize for sharing your thoughts Phil. I think it is great that you have found something with others that you can sink your teeth into and yield such wholesome results. You are very fortunate! Thank you for sharing your practice! PEACE E 35774 From: robmoult Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Care to explain what that series of 17 mental states is? > ===== This is one of my favourite topics and one that I feel is one of the keys to the Abhidhamma. Andrew, I have been reading some of your posts and I appreciate your inquisitive mind. You ask some excellent questions. I would like to ask a favour of you. I am preparing an introductory book on Abhidhamma called "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind the Buddha's Smile". It can be downloaded from the Files section of DSG. Since you have asked about the series of 17 mental states, I would appreciate it if you would read the second chapter (pages 15 - 25) titled, "How Does Thinking Occur?" which covers this topic. Once you have read this chapter, I would be interested in your feedback as to what questions remain unanswered (and any other suggestions you might have as to how to improve the draft). ===== > > I mean perceiving nibbana before a stage of sainthood. This is > described in Bhante Gunaratana's "Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness". > What is the citta that senses nibbana? ===== The mental states which take Nibbana as object are called lokuttara (supramundane). There are two ways of counting lokuttara mental states. The most common way of counting lokuttara mental states indicates that there are a total of eight: - Sotapanna path - Sotapanna fruit - Sakadagami path - Sakadagami fruit - Anagami path - Anagami fruit - Arahant path - Arahant fruit The other way of counting lokuttara splits each of the eight mental states listed above according to which of the five jhana levels had been attained. For example, the Sotapanna path mental state is split into: - Sotapanna path with 1st jhana - Sotapanna path with 2nd jhana - Sotapanna path with 3rd jhana - Sotapanna path with 4th jhana - Sotapanna path with 5th jhana Using this method of counting, there are 40 lokuttara mental states. If one attains sainthood using the vipassana method, there are only 8 lokuttara mental states. If one attains sainthood using the samatha (jhana) method, there are 40 lokuttara mental states. A sotapanna path mental state only arises once; once it has arisen, it cannot arise again, even in a subsequent lifetime. Once the sotapanna path mental state has arisen, one is a sotapanna (there is a unique sequence of mental states when this arises... but we are getting way to complex for the moment). So what does this sotapanna path mental state do? It uproots certain accumulations so that they can never arise again, even in a subsequent lifetime. After a sotapanna path mental state has arisen, there are no more conditions to support the arising of: - Delusion associated with sceptical doubt - Attachment associated with wrong view - Wrong view - Envy - Selfishness - Remorse associated with past unwholesome actions - Sceptical doubt In fact, once a sotapanna path mental state has arisen, there will never again be conditions to cause rebirth in any of the woeful planes of existence. Once a sotapanna path mental state has arisen, there is a possibility of a sakadagami path mental state to arise; the sakadagami path mental state has the same characteristics as the sotapanna mental state except that a different set of accumulations is uprooted. The same applies for Anagami path and Arahant path. Though path mental states can only arise once, fruit mental states can arise many times. A fruit mental state for a given level of sainthood cannot arise before the path mental sates for that level of sainthood. Fruit mental states are the resultant (vipaka) of path mental states. I hope that this helps rather than confuses. Metta, Rob M :-) 35775 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:47am Subject: Vis. XIV, 96, Tiika Vis 96 text: Herein, 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Tiika 96: Supported by the eye it cognizes visible object, that is its characteristic. Herein, with the words supported by the eye, another consciousness is excluded. With reference to cognizing (an object), another consciousness is excluded because of contact supported by the eye to begin with. N: Contact that accompanies seeing can only be eye-contact, it cannot contact another object but visible object. It us said, contact to begin with, and this means that evenso the other ³universals², cetasikas arising with each citta (feeling, remembrance, volition, concentration, life-faculty and attention) can only experience visible object. Tiika: By mentioning both etc. , namely, in taking the eye and visible object as support and with reference to the object, he explains this consciousness. If there would be no eye (as a condition), also the blind could see visible object, but they do not see it .... Therefore the Blessed One said: ³Dependent on the eye and visible object arises eye-consciousness.² ... What is the meaning of the words: ³visible object is a condition for the element of eye-consciousness as well as for the dhammas that accompany it by way of object condition²? In as far as visible object is a condition for eye-consciousness by way of object-condition, evenso is this said in reference to this.... N: The accompanying cetasikas such as contact, experience the same object as the citta. The Tiika refers to the Conditional Relations, Object-condition: ³Visible object-base is related to eye-consciousness element and its associated states (dhammas) by object condition.² Vis. text: Its function is to have only visible data as its object. Tiika: As to the expression, its function is to have only visible data as its object, this means that its function is causing only visible data to be its object. By the word ³only² another object is excluded, and thus this is also excluded because the visual data is its single, specific object. Herein, eye-consciousness cannot take any other specific object but colour. Therefore, the Blessed One said: ³No other dhamma can be known by the five sense-cognitions apart from just what they fall upon.² N: The ³Book of Analysis² (§ 763, p. 418) explains: < ³Do not experience each other¹s object² means: Ear-consciousness does not experience the object of eye-consciousness; eye-consciousness does not experience the object or ear-consciousness either...> Only one citta arises at a time and it experiences its own object according to the appropriate conditions. There is no person who sees, hears or experiences other objects or who can see and hear at the same time. Vis.: It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Tiika: Eye-consciousness that arises is to be apprehended as facing merely visible object that has arisen and thus he said, ³it is manifested as facing visible object.² Vis.: Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. N: The Tiika explains that a previously arisen naama-dhamma conditions a following one by the conditions of proximity, contiguity, non-presence and absence, and gives it thus the opportunity to arise in the process. We read: Tiika: he explained the near cause saying, Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. Also in the case of ear-consciousness etc. the meaning should be understood in the same way. **** Nina. 35776 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:47am Subject: Intro Visuddhimagga XIV, 96 and Tiika. Intro Visuddhimagga XIV, 96 and Tiika. Vis. 96 text: 96. Herein, 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Its function is to have only visible data as its object. It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. 'Ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness' [respectively] have the characteristic of being supported by the ear, etc., and cognizing sounds, and so on. Their functions are to have only sounds, etc., as their [respective] objects. They are manifested as occupation with [respectively] sounds, and so on. Their proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has [respectively] sounds, etc., as its object. **** Intro Vis. 96 and Tiika. Seeing experiences only visible object, it cannot experience any other object, it cannot define the object or think about it. Evenso hearing experiences only sound. Each of the sense-cognitions arises because of its appropriate conditions, they have their own base, the sense-base, and their own object. Seeing-consciousness is vipaakacitta, it is produced by kamma. Depending on the kamma that produces it, it is kusala vipaakacitta or akusala vipaakacitta. The Tiika mentions different types of conditions for seeing-consciousness. The ruupa that is eyesense must arise before seeing. Ruupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, but it is weak at its arising moment and therefore it cannot be a condition for citta at that moment. The same is true for the ruupa that is visible object, it must arise before seeing. The Tiika mentions that eyesense is a condition for seeing by way of dependence or support (nissaya), of prenascence (purejaata), of faculty (indriya), dissociation (vippayutta), presence (atthi) and non-disappearance (avigata). The eye is the physical base for seeing, thus it is dependence-condition. The eye is a faculty, indriya. A faculty is a leader in its own field, thus the eye is the leader in the field of seeing. There could not be seeing without the eye. The eye is ruupa and thus it conditions naama by way of dissociation. Citta which is naama is associated with cetasika, another naama, but it could never be associated with ruupa. Presence and non-disappearance are similar. Eyesense has arisen before seeing, but it is still present when seeing arises so that it can be a condition for seeing. The proximate cause of seeing is the five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness, which adverts to visible object. It is a kiriyacitta, inoperative or functional consciousness; it is not kusala, akusala or vipaaka. It is called mind-element, mano-dhaatu. It is the first citta of the sense-door process after the stream of bhavangacittas has been interrupted. When this citta falls away it conditions the arising of the succeeding citta. Cittas succeed one another without interval. The Tiika mentions that it conditons the following citta, in this case seeing, by way of proximity-condition (anantara-paccaya) and contiguity-condition, samanatara-paccaya. Contiguity-condition is similar to proximity-condition, but with contiguity-condition it is stressed that the next citta, seeing, must follow upon the eye-door adverting-consciousness, it cannot be otherwise. There is a fixed order in the process of cittas and nobody can alter this. The sense-door adverting-consciousness is also a condition for seeing by way of non-presence and by way of absence. It has fallen away, it is no longer present when seeing arises. The Visuddhimagga and the Tiika emphasize that seeing can only experience visible object and hearing can only experience sound. Seeing is dependent on the ruupas of eyesense and visible object. Hearing is dependent on the ruupas of earsense and sound. When visible object or sound appear, there are also the naamas that experience those objects, but nama and ruupa have different characteristics. When we read about the specific conditions for naama and ruupa we are reminded to be aware of them so that they can be realized as only conditioned dhammas devoid of self. **** Nina. 35777 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:47am Subject: Pali Vis. XIV, 96 and Tiika Pali : Vis. XIV, 96 and Tiika Vis. 96: tattha cakkhusannissitaruupavijaananalakkha.na.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, ruupamattaaramma.narasa.m, ruupaabhimukhabhaavapaccupa.t.thaana.m, ruupaaramma.naaya kiriyamanodhaatuyaa apagamapada.t.thaana.m. sotaadisannissitasaddaadivijaananalakkha.naani sotaghaanajivhaakaayavi~n~naa.naani, saddaadimattaaramma.narasaani, saddaadiabhimukhabhaavapaccupa.t.thaanaani, saddaaramma.naadiina.m kiriyamanodhaatuuna.m apagamapada.t.thaanaani. Vis text: Herein, (34) 'eye-consciousness' has the characteristic of being supported by the eye and cognizing visible data. Tiika 96: Cakkhusannissita.m hutvaa ruupassa vijaanana.m lakkha.na.m etassaati cakkhusannissitaruupavijaananalakkha.na.m. Supported by the eye it cognizes visible object, that is its characteristic. Tattha cakkhusannissitavacanena ruupaaramma.na.m a~n~na.m vi~n~naa.na.m nivatteti. Herein, with the words supported by the eye, another consciousness is excluded. Vijaananaggaha.nena cakkhusannissite phassaadike nivatteti. With reference to cognizing (an object), another consciousness is excluded because of contact supported by the eye to begin with. N: Contact that accompanies seeing can only be eye-contact, it cannot contact another object but visible object. It us said, contact to begin with, and this means that evenso the other ³universals², cetasikas arising with each citta (feeling, remembrance, volition, concentration, life-faculty and attention) can only experience visible object. Cakkhuruupaggaha.nena nissayato, aaramma.nato ca vi~n~naa.na.m vibhaaveti ubhayaadhiinavuttikattaa. By mentioning both etc. , namely, in taking the eye and visible object as support and with reference to the object, he explains this consciousness. Yadi hi cakkhu naama na siyaa, andhaapi ruupa.m passeyyu.m, na ca passanti. If there would be no eye (as a condition), also the blind could see visible object, but they do not see it .... ....Tenaaha bhagavaa ³cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.nan²ti-aadi (sa.m. ni. 4, 32).... Therefore the Blessed One said: ³Dependent on the eye and visible object arises eye-consciousness.² ... Ya.m pana ³ruupaayatana.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.nadhaatuyaa ta.msampayuttakaana~nca dhammaana.m aaramma.napaccayena paccayo²ti (pa.t.thaa. 1.1.2) vutta.m, ta.m kathanti? What is the meaning of the saying: ³visible object is a condition for the element of eye-consciousness as well as for the dhammas that accompany it by way of object condition²? Tampi yaadisa.m ruupaayatana.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa aaramma.napaccayena paccayo hoti, taadisameva sandhaaya vutta.m. .. In as far as visible object is a condition for eye-consciousness by way of object-condition, evenso is this said in reference to this.... N: The accompanying cetasikas such as contact, experience the same object as the citta. The Tiika refers to the Conditional Relations, Object-condition: ³Visible object-base is related to eye-consciousness element and its associated states (dhammas) by object condition.² Vis. text: Its function is to have only visible data as its object. Tiika: Ruupamattaaramma.narasanti ruupaayatanamattasseva aaramma.nakara.narasa.m. As to the expression, its function is to have only visible data as its object, this means that its function is causing only visible data to be its object. Mattasaddena yathaa aaramma.nantara.m nivatteti, eva.m ruupaayatanepi labbhamaane ekacce visese nivatteti. By the word ³only² another object is excluded, and thus this is also excluded because the visual data is its single, specific object. Na hi cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m va.n.namattato a~n~na.m ki~nci visesa.m tattha gahetu.m sakkoti. Herein, eye-consciousness cannot take any other specific object but colour. Tenaaha bhagavaa ³pa~ncahi vi~n~naa.nehi na ki~nci dhamma.m pa.tivijaanaati a~n~natra abhinipaatamattaa²ti. Therefore, the Blessed One said: ³No other dhamma can be known by the five sense-cognitions apart from just what they fall upon.² N: The ³Book of Analysis² (§ 763, p. 418) explains: < ³Do not experience each other¹s object² means: Ear-consciousness does not experience the object of eye-consciousness; eye-consciousness does not experience the object or ear-consciousness either...> Only one citta arises at a time and it experiences its own object according to the appropriate conditions. There is no person who sees, hears or experiences other objects or who can see and hear at the same time. Vis.: It is manifested as occupation with visible data. Tiika: Cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m uppajjamaana.m ruupaaramma.ne eva uppajjanato tadabhimukhabhaavena gayhatiiti vutta.m ³ruupaabhimukhabhaavapaccupa.t.thaanan²ti. Eye-consciousness that arises is to be apprehended as facing merely visible object that has arisen and thus he said, ³it is manifested as facing visible object.² Vis.: Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. N: The Tiika explains that a previously arisen naama-dhamma conditions a following one by the conditions of proximity, contiguity, non-presence and absence, and gives it thus the opportunity to arise in the process. We read: Tiika: aasannakaara.nanti dassento aaha he explained the near cause saying, ³ruupaaramma.naaya kiriyamanodhaatuyaa apagamapada.t.thaanan²ti. Its proximate cause is the departure of the functional mind-element that has visible data as its object. Sotavi~n~naa.naadiisupi vuttanayeneva attho veditabbo. Also in the case of ear-consciousness etc. the meaning should be understood in the same way. **** Nina. 35778 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:14am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Dear Andrew, I am always lost in DSG. Because threads are entangled and sometimes I missed. Moderator sometimes remind me that there are posts for me to discuss as offline. I normally check my own message and check whether there are replies or not at the bottom of the message. If not, I move to another message. You are perfect. I do not think anything differs from me. But please see below to check these. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: DIscussion below. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: It is good to discuss dharma with you. Please continue to reply at your convenience. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: Please let me know if or how your view differs from mine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: No. I could not find any difference. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: So the answer is mind, the sixth sense door, where dvara is not rupa, right? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: Vithi citta is conscious mind from what I can tell. So it's general consciousness, right? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Vithicittas are vithi cittas. If you translate it into simple English the essence will be missed. Between vithi cittas are bhavanga cittas. But conscious people are actively thinking when they are clearly conscious and alert. But there are bhanvanga cittas do exist in beween vithi cittas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Andrew: >or should I wait till I get up to Abhidharma in daily life for that? -------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Please rephrase this to be much more clearer. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: I am reading cetasikas by Nina, some material of which links to another of her works, Abhidharma in daily life. This was what I was informed would be good to study by Sarah. So it's just a more advanced level of knowledge, cause I am just starting my Abhidharma studies. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Excellent! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Andrew: What is the citta that can experience nibbana before the supramundane planes are acheived? Is it lokutarra citta? -------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Nibbana is only sensed by lokuttara cittas. So before supramundane plane there is no citta that can see nibbana. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: This is not true. I have sensed or perceived nibbana without attaining the supramundane planes, and from the literature I've read this is not all too uncommon. So the question remains. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. Remain. What I know is all lokuttara cittas take nibbana as their object. Any citta can only take a single object. No citta can take 2 objects at the same time. Lokiya cittas do have their object. Lokuttara cittas do have their specific object. Lokiya cittas view lokiya dhamma. Lokuttara cittas view nibbana which is lokuttara dhamma. There are 9 lokuttara dhamma. They are 4 magga cittas and 4 phala cittas and 1 nibbana. Do lokiya cittas see nibbana? In which way? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: But isn't part of the point of mindfulness of feelings to reduce the greed for the pleasant, the aversion for the painful, and the delusion for the neutral, in each citta accompanied by vedana. That brings me to another question. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think this is logical thinking. As soon as arahatta magga nana arise, there is no more lobha, dosa, moha in any forms. They are all derooted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew: If vedana, feeling, is a mental con-committant, and we need to know consciousness and its con-committants anyway, why is mindfulness of feelings specified as one of the four major categories of contemplation by the Buddha? Or did he not intend us to know every single cetasika but only the citas themselves? Andrew Levin -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are different people with different personalities. And different maturity and perfection. So The Buddha preached according to their habit and their need. Sometimes dhammas are preached as khandhas. In them, you will see vedana, sanna etc etc. Vedana appears in may area and quite apparent to most of us. So this is included in the method of meditation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >More later, I've got a part of a day ahead of me. :-) >Thanks guys, >AL -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Be careful. There are more than guys. Some of the members are venerable monks. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I will repeat. There are members who are more than guys. Some are venerable monks who are fully ordained. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35779 From: Sujjhana Bhinnatta Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:19am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Jon wrote: -------- Hi, Ben Thanks for this useful analysis of the various schools of thought. You make the point, I think, that there is not much to be gained from studying the views of these schools, and I very much agree with that. -------- Ben: Woah, missed the point completely, but thats okay. Being skeptical of a viewpoint does not necessitate rejececting that viewpoint. It means not clinging to it as factual until it has been verified by your own experience (IMHO a much wiser way of dealing with things). In fact Jon, I would venture that many in DSG have a great deal to be gained from studying the views of the Prajnaparamita, Kammathana, or Chan schools which, after several hundred years of dealing with the pedantry of the paramattha dhamma realists, had developed some very skillfull ways of avoiding the quagmire of clinging to "realities." Nagarjuna, for example, devoted almost his whole career to demonstrating the emptiness of not just self, but also of dhammas. Which is the fundamental position of the Mahayana. I understand this to be the position of the Theravadins as well, but I think it got lost over the years in the course of popularizing and institutionalizing Buddhism, and with the compiling of the Abhidhamma. There have been several attempts in Buddhist history (i.e. Nagarjuna or Hui Neng) to revive the teaching of the emptiness of dhammas, but due to the complexity of logic involved (or lack thereof) and the unwholesome qualities rampant in the unperfected hearts of commentators, there still exists many who would like to say that the dhammas are ultimate realities, although they can't seem to agree on the numbers. -------- Jon: Would you care to share with us your own view of what is the development of insight, and the importance of jhana to that, as you understand the teachings of the Buddha? The question of what is the 'wisdom of the middle way' is one we are all interested in. -------- Ben: I thought I did a pretty good job in my last post, but alas, I was mistaken. I am well aware of the vultures lying in wait for the answer to this one. No matter how I formulate the words to answer you, they are still empty. *You* have to add the meaning, which is peppered with your own opinions and memories, and therefore these words you read and comprehend are never quite what I had in mind when I typed them. The question of what is the 'wisdom of the middle way' is not as important as the question of who is asking or who wants to know. But if you are speaking for the group, then there are a lot of who's out there being very 'interested in' the answer to such a question. Therefore I say to all the who's: "Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita, perceived that all five skandhas in their own being are empty and was saved from all suffering." "O Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness; emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness; that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness." "O Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. they do not appear nor disappear, are not tainted nor pure, do not increase nor decrease. Therefore in emptiness: no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no formations, no consciousness; no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind; no realm of eyes...until no realm of mind-consciousness; no ignorance and also no extinction of it...until no old-age and death and also no extinction of it; no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain." "A bodhisattva depends on Prajna Paramita and the mind is no hindrance. Without any hindrance no fears exist. Far apart from every perverted view one dwells in nirvana. In the three worlds all buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita and attain unsurpassed complete perfect enlightenment. Therefore, know the Prajna Paramita is the great transcendent mantra, is the great bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering and is true not false; so proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra that says: Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha" With love, Ben P.S. To those new to the Dhamma, The quote above is called the Heart Sutra. It is a piece of the Prajnaparamita literature that preceded the development of what is today referred to as Mahayana Buddhism. It is called the Heart Sutra because it is said to expound the heart or essence of the middle way philosophy as proclaimed by Buddha. The perfection of wisdom (skt: prajnaparamita) literature and philosphy developed in tandem with the formulation of the abhidhammika sects whose adherents had a rigorous *practice* of meditation whereby they attempted to observe and classify every moment of experience into the various dhammas enumerated in the abhidhamma texts and subsequent commentaries. The heart sutra and the greater body of literature from which it comes, was a medicine for some and an anathema to others, but is nonetheless a valuable contribution to Buddhist thought and practice. -B. 35780 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:21am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: >Care to explain what that series of 17 mental states is? ===== > > This is one of my favourite topics and one that I feel is one of the > keys to the Abhidhamma. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rob M, Your answer to Andrew is very clear. But you still fail to answer my question to your statement in internet sutta. 'Did the imagined Blessed Once tell you 'mind composed of nama and rupa?' I will be looking forward to hearing from you. If type error, please let me know it as typo error. With Metta, Htoo Naing 35781 From: Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Howard, Thanks for responding. I have been trying to reconcile Abhidhamma with everything that has been taught me and what I have learned on the cushion. I have never heard any meditation instructions to distinquish rupa and nama. No match now but maybe if I revisit it after several years it might make more sense --or not. See you on other lists. jack Howard: I think that not distinguishing between nama and rupa is an aspect of confusion/ignorance/unknowing. They are in fact distingishable. 35782 From: plnao Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:55pm Subject: seeing and seeking benefits Hello all Reading Nina's "Perfections" this morning came across this bit, which I have always liked: "We may think that I can develop the perfections, but it depends on the accumulated conditions which kind of kusala can arise. When we see the benefit of all the perfections there will be conditions to develop them all, without there being the need to think, I should develop the perfection." This made me wonder how I could see the benefits of the Perfections without thinking I should try to develop them, and thinking this in a way that strengthens my view of of myself as a person who does skillful things, a wise man. Wrong view of self and spiritual materialism. This uncertainty on my part applies not only to seeing the benefits of the Perfections. I think of the benefits of Metta that we often see taught: one will sleep better, have a nice complexion (is that in there?), be loved by other beings etc. I have never responded to those teachings, perhaps fearing that it would motivate me to seek benefits in an unwholesome way. But maybe I am missing out on something good. Seeking benefits can be encouraging and invigorating in a wholesome way and not a form of spiritual materialism? I guess I'm thinking too much. After all, the thing that gets us all motivated on the path is seeking the greatest benefit of all - liberation from suffering. Metta, Phil p.s perhaps it would help me to see the "benefits of all the perfections" in terms of eradication of defilements rather than something to be gained. It's easy to like the idea of gaining patience, or energy. But the greater benefit that lies beyond gaining these things is gradually getting rid of defilements. 35783 From: robmoult Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:06pm Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Your answer to Andrew is very clear. But you still fail to answer my > question to your statement in internet sutta. > > 'Did the imagined Blessed Once tell you 'mind composed of nama and > rupa?' Years ago, scientists did a study. Scientists put people in a quiet room and measured brain-waves. After a while, brain activity slowed. Scientists then played a "click" sound through a loud speaker. The brainwaves showed a short flurry of activity as the person took interest in the sound, analyzed it, sought out it's source, etc. A few minutes later, the scientists played the sound again. The short flurry of mental activity (as measured by the brain waves) was the same pattern as the first time, except that it was less intense. As the scientists repeated the sound at a regular interval, the flurry of mental activity grew weaker and weaker. As I recall, by about the twelfth "click", the brain appeared to be no longer registering the sound. They then performed the experiment with a meditating Zen monk. As expected, the monk's brain waves showed a flurry of activity when the first "click" sounded. However, unlike the others, the reaction of the monk's mind to the second "click" was exactly the same as the reaction to the first "click". In fact, after two hours, the monk continued to hear each "click" as if it were the first time hearing it. Through mental development, the monk was able to hear each sound as if it were the first time he was hearing it. Now what has this got to do with your question? On a number of occasions, you have highlighted typos and other mistakes in my material that I had missed during my proof reading. I sincerely appreciate it and this indicates to me that you have the capability of seeing things as if it were the first time. Perhaps it has been developed by your meditation. You picked out a mistake in my "Internet Sutra". The analogy used in my pieces was hardware = rupa = hadyavatthu and software = nama = citta+cetasikas. I have a big favour to ask of you. I would really appreciate it if you would review my text (in the Files Section) titled "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind the Buddha's Smile". What I am looking for is: - Mistakes (hopefully, most will be typos and not too many misunderstandings of the Dhamma) - Suggestions (what should be added / deleted / modified / rearranged) Given your knowledge of the Abhidhamma and your capability of seeing things as if it were the first time, I suspect that your review would be far too lengthy to fit into a DSG message. Perhaps you could send me your comments as a file attachment to an email message. With much respect. Metta, Rob M :-) 35784 From: Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi, Jack - In a message dated 8/26/04 4:45:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > > Howard, > > Thanks for responding. I have been trying to reconcile Abhidhamma with > everything that has been taught me and what I have learned on the cushion. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I guess it must be clear to you and others that I accept as useful and correct some Abhidhammic material, that there is other material that I strongly question, and still other material that I don't "buy" at all. I don't see any requirement for accepting all or even some. What is useful to a person at a given time is ... useful, and what is not ... is not. ----------------------------------------------------- I have > > never heard any meditation instructions to distinquish rupa and nama. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nor have I, though distinguishing actual from apparent is certainly a "biggie", and recognizing what is "concept only" is surely a part of that. The notion of conventional truth and ultimate truth pervades all of Buddhism, Mahayana as well as Theravada, and is thus likely to have its foundation in the original teachings of the Buddha. With regard to distinguishing nama from rupa - well - as I've said, at least in its gross form that seems pretty much obvious to me. It amounts to distinguishing mental from physical. It seems pretty much straightforward to me to see that hardness, visual content, and warmth, for example, "belong together" as three types of rupa, and, on the other hand, thoughts, pleasantness, and mental distractedness "belong together" as three types of nama. I suppose where confusion in this distinguishing may enter is in distinguishing hardness, say, as directly experienced (rupa) from hardness as cognized (nama). That subtle aspect of distinguishing nama from rupa is not so obvious, it pertains to distinguishing direct experience from conceptualized experience, and it is a matter of some importance I think. As far as the suttas discussing the distinction between nama and rupa, they certainly do formulate the difference in discussing the khandhas and the six sense realms. But you are correct, I believe, in saying that the suttas don't seem to put forward the distinguishing of nama from rupa as a meditative exercise or even as a cultivated insight issuing from meditative practice. Some of the modern meditation masters, Ven U Pandita, for example, do describe the distinguishing of nama from rupa as one of the stages of insight. I suppose they base that on Abhidhamma and the commentaries. -------------------------------------- No > > match now but maybe if I revisit it after several years it might make more > sense > --or not. See you on other lists. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not clear on what you're implying here, Jack. Are you saying that you are leaving DSG? I sure hope not. I personally gain from your being here, and I'm sure that is common among the list members. I don't consider DSG an "Abhidhamma List," though I recognize that as a strong leaning. There are several really wonderful, and wonderfully brilliant, Buddhists here who are not at all Abhidhammikas. If this were exclusively an "Abhidhamma List," while I would retain private contact with folks from the list who mean a lot to me (independent of their religious dispositions and philosophical preferences), I would likely unsubscribe from the list itself. But, as I said, I do not consider this list to be so exclusive. In fact, it is really quite ecumenical. In any case, I sure do hope you will stick around. --------------------------------------------- > > jack > > Howard: > I think that not distinguishing between nama and rupa is an aspect of > confusion/ignorance/unknowing. They are in fact distingishable. > =========================== 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) 35785 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi RobM, Firstly, I should take back my interpretation of the Potthapada Sutta. Without reading it, I just assumed it was one of those suttas where the Buddha says `living being' `chariot' etc., are conventional designations and only the five khandhas are real. I've just now had a look at the Potthapada Sutta and I find it hard to follow: it seems to be addressing some other topic. You wrote: ---------------- > I am of the opinion that the Suttas do not have an ontological focus. In other words, the Suttas do not focus on defining and classifying realities as distinct from non-realities (i.e. concepts). I have the impression that the ontological focus arises only in the Abhidhamma, not in the Suttas. However, I will quickly change my opinion if somebody can point me to a relevant Sutta. > ---------------- What would you accept as a `relevant sutta?' The Sabba-sutta is one of many that describe the all (the loka). That sutta reduces the world to `eye and eye-object' `ear and ear object' etc. What stricter ontology could you want? The Abhidhamma is not found only in the Abhidhamma-pitaka: when any part of the Buddha's teaching is rightly understood, it is all Abhidhamma (nama and rupa). -------------- RM: > Let us consider the quote I gave above from the Potthapada Sutta (DN9) and Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments (from the Sutta introduction on Access to Insight): > -------------- Were you reading DSG recently when I started a thread called "Eternalism on ATI?" I sincerely want people to be aware of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's eternalist beliefs. Access-to-Insight is a handy source of Sutta translations, however, when you recommend it to beginners, please, as a matter of urgency, inform them of TB's extreme heterodoxy. (It is not just me, but mainstream Theravada- Buddhist academia, that regards TB's views as heterodox.) ------------- RM: > In brief, the Mulapariyaya Sutta stresses that the Buddha and an Arahant possesses clarity of thinking not found in uninstructed worldings. I interpret the quotation from the Potthapada Sutta as saying the same thing (albeit in less technical terms). ------------- Leaving aside the Potthapada Sutta, do you agree that, when the Buddha uses conventional designations, `man' `woman' `living being' etc., it is purely the five khandhas (nama and rupa) that are meant? Such an understanding is intolerable to TB because it is pure Abhidhamma. That is, it says there are only dhammas and all dhammas have the inherent characteristic of anatta – of being devoid of self. That leaves no room for TB's eternal soul and so he has to explain the Abhidhamma away. He tells us that paramattha dhammas are part of a contrived model (or teaching-device) and that anatta is a mere strategy. That is, by the strategy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of self, we can calm the mind to a point where it becomes free of stress (sic) and becomes liberated. What a load of b###!!!! Sorry, are we allowed to say baloney on DSG? :-) ------------- KH: > > Anyone who reads suttas, without first being trained in Abhidhamma, > learns nothing. Worse than nothing, he learns a false version of > the Buddha's teaching. Wouldn't you agree? > > ------------ RM: > Wow! That is an extreme position! ------------ Not quite the response I was hoping for. :-) ------------- RM: > I agree that being trained in the Abhidhamma helps one get a deeper understanding of the Suttas, but I do not agree that one cannot learn anything from the Suttas before being trained in Abhidhamma. > ------------- Well, since I'm in a conciliatory mood, I will admit that a conventional, non-Abhidhamma, reading of the suttas might disavow us of a few superstitions (creator god, eternal heaven/damnation, ritualistic sacrifice etc.). But we would only replace those wrong views with other wrong views: we would still hold some form of eternalist or annihilationist belief. By stark contrast to any conventional understanding, the actual Middle Way is devoid of concepts (people, places, things to do): it is pure nama and rupa. ------------ RM: > I also do not agree that one will always get a false version of the Buddha's teaching by reading Suttas before being trained in Abhidhamma. > ------------- The suttas tell us that `man' `woman' `living being' `chariot' etc., are mere conventional designations, whereas the five khandhas are real and have characteristics that must be known (anicca, dukkha and anatta). What is meant by `the five khandhas?' Kind regards, Ken H 35786 From: Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Scope and Focus (About Rupa) Hi, Ken (and Rob) - In a message dated 8/26/04 10:27:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi RobM, > > Firstly, I should take back my interpretation of the Potthapada > Sutta. Without reading it, I just assumed it was one of those suttas > where the Buddha says `living being' `chariot' etc., are > conventional designations and only the five khandhas are real. I've > just now had a look at the Potthapada Sutta and I find it hard to > follow: it seems to be addressing some other topic. > > You wrote: > ---------------- > >I am of the opinion that the Suttas do not have an ontological > focus. In other words, the Suttas do not focus on defining and > classifying realities as distinct from non-realities (i.e. > concepts). I have the impression that the ontological focus arises > only in the Abhidhamma, not in the Suttas. However, I will quickly > change my opinion if somebody can point me to a relevant Sutta. > > ---------------- > > What would you accept as a `relevant sutta?' The Sabba-sutta is one > of many that describe the all (the loka). That sutta reduces the > world to `eye and eye-object' `ear and ear object' etc. What > stricter ontology could you want? ------------------------------------------- Howard: You are correct! :-) -------------------------------------------- > > The Abhidhamma is not found only in the Abhidhamma-pitaka: when any > part of the Buddha's teaching is rightly understood, it is all > Abhidhamma (nama and rupa). > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'd put it differently. I'd say that the Dhamma is not found only in the suttas, but also in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. It is *Dhamma* that the Buddha taught! ------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > RM: >Let us consider the quote I gave above from the Potthapada > Sutta (DN9) and Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comments (from the Sutta > introduction on Access to Insight): > > -------------- > > Were you reading DSG recently when I started a thread > called "Eternalism on ATI?" I sincerely want people to be aware of > Thanissaro Bhikkhu's eternalist beliefs. Access-to-Insight is a > handy source of Sutta translations, however, when you recommend it > to beginners, please, as a matter of urgency, inform them of TB's > extreme heterodoxy. (It is not just me, but mainstream Theravada- > Buddhist academia, that regards TB's views as heterodox.) > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm beginning to convinced by you, Ken, with regard to Bhante T. ------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > > RM: >In brief, the Mulapariyaya Sutta stresses that the Buddha and > an Arahant possesses clarity of thinking not found in uninstructed > worldings. I interpret the quotation from the Potthapada Sutta as > saying the same thing (albeit in less technical terms). > ------------- > > Leaving aside the Potthapada Sutta, do you agree that, when the > Buddha uses conventional designations, `man' `woman' `living being' > etc., it is purely the five khandhas (nama and rupa) that are meant? > > Such an understanding is intolerable to TB because it is pure > Abhidhamma. That is, it says there are only dhammas and all dhammas > have the inherent characteristic of anatta – of being devoid of > self. That leaves no room for TB's eternal soul and so he has to > explain the Abhidhamma away. He tells us that paramattha dhammas are > part of a contrived model (or teaching-device) and that anatta is a > mere strategy. That is, by the strategy of neither confirming nor > denying the existence of self, we can calm the mind to a point where > it becomes free of stress (sic) and becomes liberated. > > What a load of b###!!!! > > Sorry, are we allowed to say baloney on DSG? :-) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) -------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > KH: >>Anyone who reads suttas, without first being trained in > Abhidhamma, > >learns nothing. Worse than nothing, he learns a false version of > >the Buddha's teaching. Wouldn't you agree? > >> > ------------ > RM: >Wow! That is an extreme position! > ------------ > > Not quite the response I was hoping for. :-) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) However, it *is* the response you should have expected! I also consider that position to be extreme, and more importantly, false. ------------------------------------------------- > > ------------- > RM: >I agree that being trained in the Abhidhamma helps one get a > deeper understanding of the Suttas, but I do not agree that one > cannot learn anything from the Suttas before being trained in > Abhidhamma. > > ------------- > > Well, since I'm in a conciliatory mood, I will admit that a > conventional, non-Abhidhamma, reading of the suttas might disavow us > of a few superstitions (creator god, eternal heaven/damnation, > ritualistic sacrifice etc.). But we would only replace those wrong > views with other wrong views: we would still hold some form of > eternalist or annihilationist belief. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: One doesn't have to read the suttas "Abhidhammically." Dhammically would be quite adequate. What one *does* need is to be *widely* read in the suttas, because the suttas were teachings given to specific persons with specific needs and levels of understanding, and givenin specific contexts and on particular occasions. ------------------------------------------------ > > By stark contrast to any conventional understanding, the actual > Middle Way is devoid of concepts (people, places, things to do): it > is pure nama and rupa. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no intellectual understanding of the middle way that is *not* conventional. That is unavoidable. Only direct ~nana gives the Dhamma in it's pure form, and that is not adequately expressible through language except to those who also have seen with the wisdom eye. ----------------------------------------------- > > ------------ > RM: >I also do not agree that one will always get a false version > of the Buddha's teaching by reading Suttas before being trained in > Abhidhamma. > > ------------- > > The suttas tell us that `man' `woman' `living being' `chariot' etc., > are mere conventional designations, whereas the five khandhas are > real and have characteristics that must be known (anicca, dukkha > and anatta). > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Where in the suttas did the Buddha describe the khandhas as "real"? It is good that you have let go of concepts, Ken - or almost so. Now what about the concepts of nama and rupa? We need to let it ALL go, Ken. Relinquishment!! -------------------------------------------------- What is meant by `the five khandhas?' > > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 35787 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: business and dhamma Dear Sukin, Thank you. Num sent me greetings back. I shall frwd this letter. I really like your report. op 18-08-2004 08:04 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: > He has been listening to K. Sujin for many years but still feels > troubled by what he sees as a conflict between his job (business > consultant) and dhamma practice. He felt that the world of business > demanded that one becomes opportunistic etc. and that one had to get > away from it if one wanted to sincerely study dhamma. We all > expressed our views and I think in the end he had a better > understanding of what it means by that sati and panna can arise > irrespective of time, place and situation. N: Lodewijk and I discussed also business and Dhamma. Lodewijk said that it is important to think more of others and put your own interest in the second place. Yes, you can and should do that in government service, like the diplomatic service. You serve others. Lodewijk did this his whole life. We then discussed business, if you have your own business or a shop you have to make profit. We took you as an example! You think of others with generosity and kindness all the time. There should not be any conflict. My greengrocer is the kindest person, he does not make his prices too high, and he thinks of good quality. If you try to make too much money at the cost of your clients you will be punished by this. Thus also in business you can think of the interest of your clients. The Brahmaviharas can be applied all the time in social life, and the Abhidhamma helps us to know our own cittas so that we do not mistake akusala for kusala. I take such topics very much to heart. S: We talked a little about silabattaparamasa and Robert and I wondered > what in the most subtle form this was. K. Sujin said that as long as > anything is done with the idea of `self' with regard to developing > understanding, then it was a form of `wrong practice'. N: Then we are all full of wrong practice, aren't we? It should be detected. S: ... Robert and I talked > about our own experience with Acharn Naep's teachings and how > indiscernible the wrong view was. This then lead me to wonder about > the role of `merit'. I was under the impression that doing merit such as > dana had quite a major influence over whether one will find the `good > friend' in any particular life. K. Sujin said that it had all to do with > accumulations. N: It has to do with what one did in former lives, perhaps we also listened to true Dhamma. S:I struggled awhile with this conclusion since I was > thinking about people with apparently good accumulations, but were not > fortunate enough to find the right teacher. But then I thought about how > panna might be so conditioned to detect and discriminate the right from > the wrong, having considered many aspects of the teachings, that it > would have a better chance at picking out the good from the mass of > different interpretations. N: I think people's inclinations to this or that practice stem from the past, the far past even. S: Someone brought up the topic of monks living in places where it was > difficult to strictly follow the rules, such as having to wear a jacket for > protection against the cold. I insisted that they should consider living in > other places, like Thailand, where they won't have to bend any of the > rules and where they would easily obtain alms. K. Sujin and Robert > agreed with this. N: I can see how difficult it is. S: It was inspiring to see Robert's two children having a keen interest in > Buddhism and Alex asked quite a few good basic questions! N: Robert used to tell me about Alex, he was like the starkids, very wise remarks. It would be nice if Robert shares more of this with us. Nina. 35788 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:59am Subject: "On Understanding Namarupa" Hello all, A different perspective in this article by Kingsley Heendeniya entitled "On Understanding Namarupa" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha262.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 35789 From: matt roke Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:55am Subject: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Dear Nori, ======================= N> Its not the case that I am trying to accuse you or anyone of having no basis in reality for your convictions. ... but it is the case that nobody gives any explanation or any reasons for their convictions. ======================= Do you not believe in the concepts we put to you because nobody gives any explanation for their convictions or because you find the ideas are not credible, or is it both? In case its plausibility let me throw a few worldly concepts your way. Atoms are mostly space and yet they make up things that seem to be pure matter. The things we stand on are only atoms, so we stand on nothing and our bodies are atoms so we are only space and no substance. The world is suspended in a universe that is impossible to comprehend; when it originated, what it originated from and where are its limits. We accept these unfathomable concepts without question. So is it far fetched to presume that there are cittas arising and falling away (experiencing nama and rupa) that create this world and a self in it? It is so very simple and yet so very profound. ======================= N> What could it possibly be about the 'hardness' or whatever other rupas you experience that leads you to believe that is all that exists? ======================= When there is a citta, and it experiences hardness, then at that moment there is nothing else but that citta (with cetasikas) experiencing hardness. When that citta falls away, there is impermanence. When that citta does not stay, there is dukha. When that citta experiences hardness, there is no self. That I understand is the teaching of the Buddha. ======================= N> Just as you may believe I don't exist here, here I am, writing to you. ======================= Believing that we exist because we sit here writing is the concept the Buddha told us was wrong view. ======================= N> That there is no 'thing' out there which is giving you this impression of hardness? ======================= Hardness is a reality which citta experiences. When the citta experiences hardness it is not *out there* it is just hardness. I don’t think you can appreciate that cittas arise and fall away, one at a time and one after the other (to create this idea of a world and a self) until you give some credence to it. Not blind faith but simply observing it this way to see if it has some truth to it. ======================= N> You believe the only reality is the rupas you experience; but here I am ... writing. ... And you don't experience a single rupa of me doing so. ======================= Why did the Buddha say *be an island unto yourself *? Because there is nothing else but what is arising and falling away right now at the sense doors. I only exist when you think about me and then it’s not me, it’s just the reality of thinking MattR 35790 From: matt roke Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: A thought is not a dhamma/ was Cooran 13-15 Hi Ken (Eric, Howard, Htoo, and Herman), ========================= K> Thinking is real – I am sure we all agree on that. In other words, the cetasikas, sanna, vicara, vitakka, cetana, samadhi and all the other cetasikas that work together to create thoughts are real. However, I understand that the thoughts they create are not real. ========================= I would have to add citta to that list ========================= K> There is confusion over what each of us means by `a thought.' There is confusion as to who is of the opinion, `a thought is a paramattha dhamma' and who is of the opinion, `a thought is not a paramattha dhamma.' ========================= Thought (concept) is not a paramattha dhamma ========================= K> I think the misunderstanding can be cleared up by asking, "In a moment when citta experiences a thought, what is the object (arammana) of that citta?" My impression is that citta takes an object but the object doesn't really exist (is not a paramattha dhamma). Note I am not talking only about the `referent' of the object: I am saying the object itself is illusory. ========================= My understanding is that citta and its accompanying cetasikas experience a reality. That concept (thought) is made up of many cittas. And that citta is said to experience a concept because the reality of each citta that makes up the concept is experienced. MattR 35791 From: matt roke Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:02am Subject: [dsg] What is hard? Hi Herman, ========================= H> I agree with you :-), but only in part. We differ as long as you equate reality with experience only. I see no difference between experience only and how a stupid baby might conceive of what is experienced. You are bound to deny the reality of conditionality / causality because it is not experienced. The Buddha's teachings are nothing without dependent origination. You will never experience dependent origination, but if you cannot see its reality you will not see the dhamma, much like the baby. ========================= Realities and concepts exist whether one is wise or stupid, so I don’t think one would deny the reality of conditionality / causality unless one disagreed with the philosophy. The Buddha explained to us how things are, that there is a cause for the arising and the cessation of suffering. Since ignorance is the cause for suffering and the abandoning of ignorance leads to the cessation of suffering, I believe the Buddha was telling us to cultivate wisdom. When wisdom is developed and it experiences a moment, it knows the characteristic of that moment and it knows why that moment is conditioned the way it is. . . .conditionality / causality is in every moment. MattR 35792 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:11am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas Dear Rob M, Thanks for your invitation. Actually I am not as good as you in Dhamma knowledge and writing as well. But I do not know why I am increasingly notice those parts which are not in place. This is surely not because I am a fault-finding person but because my mindfulness and wisdom work hand in hand. Once in DSList, I read a file called Paccaya. There I discussed with a member and another person. Finally the revised version arose. Typo error of spellings can be understandable. But typo error of number such as mentioning 25 instead of 28 is a total difference. The reader may be misled. When I have enough time, I will definitely help you. I do not think there will be many errors. Especially contents will be completely perfect. This is my neutral remark and do not think in the other way round. If you are a member of DSList, you can read that Paccaya file. Connie acknowledges me my little effort. But contentwise that file of Paccaya in DSList has a bit loose in its later part. As the moderator is being ( I use 'being' here hoping that she might change later in her life, possibly near death ) stubborn and not being able to be critisized, I just left the contents. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Please send me a message offline. I will keep your address and when I have read and if there is anything to discuss, I will send to you with mail attachment if that long. I am available at this address ' htootintnaing@y... ' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Your answer to Andrew is very clear. But you still fail to answer > my > > question to your statement in internet sutta. > > > > 'Did the imagined Blessed Once tell you 'mind composed of nama and > > rupa?' > > Years ago, scientists did a study. Scientists put people in a quiet > room and measured brain-waves. After a while, brain activity slowed. > Scientists then played a "click" sound through a loud speaker. The > brainwaves showed a short flurry of activity as the person took > interest in the sound, analyzed it, sought out it's source, etc. > > A few minutes later, the scientists played the sound again. The > short flurry of mental activity (as measured by the brain waves) was > the same pattern as the first time, except that it was less intense. > > As the scientists repeated the sound at a regular interval, the > flurry of mental activity grew weaker and weaker. As I recall, by > about the twelfth "click", the brain appeared to be no longer > registering the sound. > > They then performed the experiment with a meditating Zen monk. As > expected, the monk's brain waves showed a flurry of activity when > the first "click" sounded. However, unlike the others, the reaction > of the monk's mind to the second "click" was exactly the same as the > reaction to the first "click". In fact, after two hours, the monk > continued to hear each "click" as if it were the first time hearing > it. > > Through mental development, the monk was able to hear each sound as > if it were the first time he was hearing it. > > Now what has this got to do with your question? > > On a number of occasions, you have highlighted typos and other > mistakes in my material that I had missed during my proof reading. I > sincerely appreciate it and this indicates to me that you have the > capability of seeing things as if it were the first time. Perhaps it > has been developed by your meditation. > > You picked out a mistake in my "Internet Sutra". The analogy used in > my pieces was hardware = rupa = hadyavatthu and software = nama = > citta+cetasikas. > > I have a big favour to ask of you. I would really appreciate it if > you would review my text (in the Files Section) titled "Abhidhamma - > The Theory Behind the Buddha's Smile". What I am looking for is: > - Mistakes (hopefully, most will be typos and not too many > misunderstandings of the Dhamma) > - Suggestions (what should be added / deleted / modified / > rearranged) > > Given your knowledge of the Abhidhamma and your capability of seeing > things as if it were the first time, I suspect that your review > would be far too lengthy to fit into a DSG message. Perhaps you > could send me your comments as a file attachment to an email message. > > With much respect. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 35793 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:28am Subject: Re: "On Understanding Namarupa" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello all, > > A different perspective in this article by Kingsley Heendeniya > entitled "On Understanding Namarupa" > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha262.htm > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Christine, Thank you very much for your link. It is interesting. Here, I copy and paste it to discuss later. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I WILL ADD THE NAME OF AUTHOR LATER ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ HEADING Bertrand Russell defines matter (Rupa) as the series of appearances of substance that obeys the laws of physics. That is, (appearance of) Rupa is independent of the observer, place and time. The Buddha defines it differently for his purpose to describe the arising and ceasing of Dukkha. Matter or Rupa is inertia or patigaha and consist of the mahabhuta: earthy or solid or persistent, watery or cohesive, fiery or ripening, airy or distended or moving. This is an elemental description of behaviour of matter. To be experienced, in any one or a combination of sights, smell, sounds, tastes, tangibles and ideas or imagination, Rupa appears as shape, size, colour; putrid, fragrant; melody, rhythm; sweet, sour; coarse, soft; exciting, dull etc. These are the percepts or qualities by which the mahabhuta are recognized or perceived. Widely misunderstood Thus, Nama is the appearance of Rupa, 'what it looks like' and not 'how it is', whether solid, watery, fiery or airy. In other words, Rupa by itself cannot be said to exist. It must appear and there must be consciousness to recognise it. Space can be added but it has no standing of its own. Russell and the Buddha agree up to this point. Namarupa as widely misunderstood, is not mind and matter. The Buddha did not teach how to bend teaspoons or influence the throw of a dice with the mind! Namarupa is name and matter. Nama is designation, or name - adhivacana. It is defined as vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa and manasikara (feelings, perceptions, intentions, contact, attention). When objects come within range and appear as shape, size, colour; putrid, fragrant; melody, rhythm, sweet, sour; coarse, soft; exciting, dull etc, and when there is the intact eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind with respective eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind-consciousness, there is engagement or contact (phassa). Contact is with me and things. The experience instantly evokes or provokes feelings, perceptions and intentions. This is how there comes to be the amassing, storage, memory and growth of matter, feelings, perceptions and, intentions. (Mahahatthipadopama Sutta). When we see and touch a flower and cognize shape, colour, fragrance, and silkiness there is accompanying pleasant feelings and intentions. When we see and touch say, a naked body, and as our attention (manasikara) shifts around parts of the naked body, the experience produces varying lust or revulsion. But no two persons may have identical feelings, perceptions and intentions. The observer has affected the object. No amount of physics can explain this though quantum theory tries to close the stable door after the horse has been stolen. Without an observer there is no object. The eye cannot experience sound, smell and taste. The ear cannot experience colour, sweetness or roughness. And so on. That is, Rupa is independent of all six modes of consciousness. Experience is a complex generation from the impact of two or more senses with things. A feeling is not perceived and a perception is not felt. Feelings and perceptions are cognized. That is, Nama or the appearance of Rupa requires or entails consciousness. What is felt is only Nama. What is totally cognized is Namarupa and there must also be consciousness. Notes on Dhamma Namarupa and vinnana is an overlapping, an imbrication like tiles on a roof. There is more to be said here that is outside the scope of this essay. Interested persons are referred to the writings of Ven. Nanavira Thera in 'Notes on Dhamma'. Since the Dhamma is about Dukkha, about feelings, about the inherent tendencies of the body and inclinations of the mind, Namarupa and vinnana are basic for understanding Dhamma. The Buddha says that whatever is felt is Dukkha. How should the meaning of this be understood? We can now immediately say that is because whatever is experienced is namarupa. 'A stupid or intelligent man, monks, constrained by nescience and attached by craving, has thus acquired this body. So there is just this body and name and matter externally: in that way there is a dyad.' (Samyutta. II, 24). Perceptions and intentions The body or Rupa is independent of consciousness but together with its appearance, as we normally take it, it is Namarupa. Namarupa externally is all cognized things apart from one's own body. We exist in relations with the surroundings and our feelings, perceptions and intentions are determined by sense data from contact with surrounding objects, thoughts and imaginations. The advertising people, unlike physicists, have understood rupa. Notice how they contrive to get objects to evoke and provoke feelings, perceptions and intentions by manipulating shape, colour, smell, sound, touch etc. Things on a supermarket shelf seem to be screaming 'Take me!' 'Eat me!' Everywhere, in the home, on the road, in the forest or anywhere anyhow, we are confronted with Namarupa - human, animal, plant or inanimate. Their impact is pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Feelings lead to craving or attachment. This is the origin of Dukkha. So long as we have intact senses and mind, Namarupa will hold us in their thrall. So long as we let ourselves be caught in this trap, because we possess six senses, often unguarded, so long will the end result be Dukkha. All feelings are dependent on contact. 'The world is tormented by contact' says the Buddha. All things dependent on other things (Sankhara) are impermanent. All things impermanent and subjective (Aniccata) are Dukkha. So how do we get out of this Namarupa trap? Theoretically, we can understand from the foregoing that the way to do it is to excise or de-couple the nama-body from the rupa-body (Namakaye-patigaha, rupakaye-adhivacana). That is precisely the aim of Dhamma. There is then left only Rupa and vinnana - six elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness - as in the Arahat. The end of Dukkha When this scission is achieved, in the seen shall only be the seen, in the heard only the heard, in the sensed only the sensed, in the cognized only the cognized. We shall then not be 'with that' and when we are not 'with that' we shall not be 'in that'. When we are not 'in that' then we shall not be here nor there nor in between the two. We shall have neither pleasant, nor unpleasant nor neutral feelings and perceptions. It shall be the end of Dukkha. For most of us, that is a million miles away. Nevertheless we should beware of Namarupa, internally and externally. We should attenuate the havoc of Namarupa on consciousness. We should strive to achieve dispassion (Viraga) from understanding the operating principle of Paticcasamuppada, of dependent arising. We should practise, meditate and cultivate mindfulness and control of the five senses and the mind. This is understanding Namarupa. -ooOoo- Source: Sri Lanka Daily News, 19 April 2004 - http://www.dailynews.lk 35794 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:35am Subject: Re: "On Understanding Namarupa" > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hello all, > > A different perspective in this article by Kingsley Heendeniya > entitled "On Understanding Namarupa" > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha262.htm > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Christine, Thank you very much for your link. It is interesting. Here, I copy and paste it to discuss later. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anyone who would like comment, please. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ON UNDERSTANDING NAMARUPA by KINKSLEY HEENDENIYA Bertrand Russell defines matter (Rupa) as the series of appearances of substance that obeys the laws of physics. That is, (appearance of) Rupa is independent of the observer, place and time. The Buddha defines it differently for his purpose to describe the arising and ceasing of Dukkha. Matter or Rupa is inertia or patigaha and consist of the mahabhuta: earthy or solid or persistent, watery or cohesive, fiery or ripening, airy or distended or moving. This is an elemental description of behaviour of matter. To be experienced, in any one or a combination of sights, smell, sounds, tastes, tangibles and ideas or imagination, Rupa appears as shape, size, colour; putrid, fragrant; melody, rhythm; sweet, sour; coarse, soft; exciting, dull etc. These are the percepts or qualities by which the mahabhuta are recognized or perceived. Widely misunderstood Thus, Nama is the appearance of Rupa, 'what it looks like' and not 'how it is', whether solid, watery, fiery or airy. In other words, Rupa by itself cannot be said to exist. It must appear and there must be consciousness to recognise it. Space can be added but it has no standing of its own. Russell and the Buddha agree up to this point. Namarupa as widely misunderstood, is not mind and matter. The Buddha did not teach how to bend teaspoons or influence the throw of a dice with the mind! Namarupa is name and matter. Nama is designation, or name - adhivacana. It is defined as vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa and manasikara (feelings, perceptions, intentions, contact, attention). When objects come within range and appear as shape, size, colour; putrid, fragrant; melody, rhythm, sweet, sour; coarse, soft; exciting, dull etc, and when there is the intact eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind with respective eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind-consciousness, there is engagement or contact (phassa). Contact is with me and things. The experience instantly evokes or provokes feelings, perceptions and intentions. This is how there comes to be the amassing, storage, memory and growth of matter, feelings, perceptions and, intentions. (Mahahatthipadopama Sutta). When we see and touch a flower and cognize shape, colour, fragrance, and silkiness there is accompanying pleasant feelings and intentions. When we see and touch say, a naked body, and as our attention (manasikara) shifts around parts of the naked body, the experience produces varying lust or revulsion. But no two persons may have identical feelings, perceptions and intentions. The observer has affected the object. No amount of physics can explain this though quantum theory tries to close the stable door after the horse has been stolen. Without an observer there is no object. The eye cannot experience sound, smell and taste. The ear cannot experience colour, sweetness or roughness. And so on. That is, Rupa is independent of all six modes of consciousness. Experience is a complex generation from the impact of two or more senses with things. A feeling is not perceived and a perception is not felt. Feelings and perceptions are cognized. That is, Nama or the appearance of Rupa requires or entails consciousness. What is felt is only Nama. What is totally cognized is Namarupa and there must also be consciousness. Notes on Dhamma Namarupa and vinnana is an overlapping, an imbrication like tiles on a roof. There is more to be said here that is outside the scope of this essay. Interested persons are referred to the writings of Ven. Nanavira Thera in 'Notes on Dhamma'. Since the Dhamma is about Dukkha, about feelings, about the inherent tendencies of the body and inclinations of the mind, Namarupa and vinnana are basic for understanding Dhamma. The Buddha says that whatever is felt is Dukkha. How should the meaning of this be understood? We can now immediately say that is because whatever is experienced is namarupa. 'A stupid or intelligent man, monks, constrained by nescience and attached by craving, has thus acquired this body. So there is just this body and name and matter externally: in that way there is a dyad.' (Samyutta. II, 24). Perceptions and intentions The body or Rupa is independent of consciousness but together with its appearance, as we normally take it, it is Namarupa. Namarupa externally is all cognized things apart from one's own body. We exist in relations with the surroundings and our feelings, perceptions and intentions are determined by sense data from contact with surrounding objects, thoughts and imaginations. The advertising people, unlike physicists, have understood rupa. Notice how they contrive to get objects to evoke and provoke feelings, perceptions and intentions by manipulating shape, colour, smell, sound, touch etc. Things on a supermarket shelf seem to be screaming 'Take me!' 'Eat me!' Everywhere, in the home, on the road, in the forest or anywhere anyhow, we are confronted with Namarupa - human, animal, plant or inanimate. Their impact is pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Feelings lead to craving or attachment. This is the origin of Dukkha. So long as we have intact senses and mind, Namarupa will hold us in their thrall. So long as we let ourselves be caught in this trap, because we possess six senses, often unguarded, so long will the end result be Dukkha. All feelings are dependent on contact. 'The world is tormented by contact' says the Buddha. All things dependent on other things (Sankhara) are impermanent. All things impermanent and subjective (Aniccata) are Dukkha. So how do we get out of this Namarupa trap? Theoretically, we can understand from the foregoing that the way to do it is to excise or de-couple the nama-body from the rupa-body (Namakaye-patigaha, rupakaye-adhivacana). That is precisely the aim of Dhamma. There is then left only Rupa and vinnana - six elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness - as in the Arahat. The end of Dukkha When this scission is achieved, in the seen shall only be the seen, in the heard only the heard, in the sensed only the sensed, in the cognized only the cognized. We shall then not be 'with that' and when we are not 'with that' we shall not be 'in that'. When we are not 'in that' then we shall not be here nor there nor in between the two. We shall have neither pleasant, nor unpleasant nor neutral feelings and perceptions. It shall be the end of Dukkha. For most of us, that is a million miles away. Nevertheless we should beware of Namarupa, internally and externally. We should attenuate the havoc of Namarupa on consciousness. We should strive to achieve dispassion (Viraga) from understanding the operating principle of Paticcasamuppada, of dependent arising. We should practise, meditate and cultivate mindfulness and control of the five senses and the mind. This is understanding Namarupa. -ooOoo- Source: Sri Lanka Daily News, 19 April 2004 - http://www.dailynews.lk 35795 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:02am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Connie, to me it's just about walking a path in the world and resisting the pull of the powers that be. I'm not yet ready to take full responsbility for what's happened to me, I know I share a large part in it but I still feel injustice is being done. I know what I have to do. I need a good knowledge and understanding of Abhidharma which will come in time, and then to get off the computer and start practising Satipathhana. This is the only way I can see save trying to go with another practise guide I have which is pretty solid but less thorough on the contemplation of the body and cemetary contemplations, but goes step-by-step through the insight knowledges. I've had some very good meditation the other day, I had some energy going and felt like a Sage, like the image of Buddha I have with his hands folded in his lap that I have hung on my wall, but I don't think it's enough. I still get caught up in mischeif online and it will be my undoing if I can't conquer it. But when I take walks outside I am established in virtue and purified. And also, the way things are now, if I were to die in the next few years it would, as MH says, be me dying groveling on my knees. I would prefer to die standing on my feet. I could also use some measure of health and a greater capability for understanding, but I'm not sure where this is going to come from. Hoping for the best. -ALevin 35796 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:21am Subject: Re: cita and cetasikas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > This is one of my favourite topics and one that I feel is one of the > keys to the Abhidhamma. > > Andrew, I have been reading some of your posts and I appreciate your > inquisitive mind. You ask some excellent questions. > > I would like to ask a favour of you. I am preparing an introductory > book on Abhidhamma called "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind the > Buddha's Smile". It can be downloaded from the Files section of DSG. > > > I mean perceiving nibbana before a stage of sainthood. This is > > described in Bhante Gunaratana's "Eight Mindful Steps to > Happiness". > > What is the citta that senses nibbana? > > ===== > While I ask good questions, nonetheless I feel I am not advanced enough to take an understanding of the material in your book (I looked through some of the second chapter), so what of giving you suggestions about it? Perhaps when I have a better knowledge of cittas and cetasikas from the two books by Nina I will be reading I can return to your book and glean from it what I can. Sorry dude. > The mental states which take Nibbana as object are called lokuttara > (supramundane). There are two ways of counting lokuttara mental > states. The most common way of counting lokuttara mental states > indicates that there are a total of eight: > - Sotapanna path > - Sotapanna fruit > - Sakadagami path > - Sakadagami fruit > - Anagami path > - Anagami fruit > - Arahant path > - Arahant fruit > > I hope that this helps rather than confuses. It is good knowledge, but rather I am asking what is the citta that can perceive nibbana *before* the supramundane paths are acheived, that is, before the attainment of sotapanna, before stream-entry or any attainments for that matter. This *is* possible, I have experienced what nibbana is like yet I am not sufficiently advanced in my practise that my mind could align with the supramundane planes and experience a stage of enlightenment. Please understand the experience I am trying to relate. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) peace, andrew levin 35797 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:11am Subject: Re: seeing and seeking benefits Hey Phil, Phil> p.s perhaps it would help me to see the "benefits of all the perfections" in terms of eradication of defilements rather than something to be gained. It's easy to like the idea of gaining patience, or energy. But the greater benefit that lies beyond gaining these things is gradually getting rid of defilements. It is hard to not see things dualistically. Real vs illusion, good vs bad, gain vs loss, etc. etc. One tends to try and draw a line in the sand and want all the positive attributes and none of the negative. Then we hear the teaching and find that 'want' is an attribute that should be on the 'bad' side of the line. So, the Buddha took a few different approaches for the dualistically limited. Cultivate the good and eradicate the bad. To want to 'feel' better is not a bad thing. To cling to that 'good' feeling is. There are 'good' desires. They are called aspirations. May all beings be free from suffering! That includes the speaker btw! PEACE E 35798 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:33am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Hey Ben & Jon, J> Thanks for this useful analysis of the various schools of thought. You make the point, I think, that there is not much to be gained from studying the views of these schools, and I very much agree with that. > -------- > > Ben: Woah, missed the point completely, but thats okay. Being skeptical of a viewpoint does not necessitate rejececting that viewpoint. It means not clinging to it as factual until it has been verified by your own experience (IMHO a much wiser way of dealing with things). Sadhu! B> In fact Jon, I would venture that many in DSG have a great deal to be gained from studying the views of> the Prajnaparamita, Kammathana, or Chan schools which, after several hundred > years of dealing with the pedantry of the paramattha dhamma realists, had developed some very skillfull ways of avoiding the quagmire of clinging to "realities." :-) B> Nagarjuna, for example, devoted almost his whole career to demonstrating the emptiness of not just self, but also of dhammas. Which is the fundamental position of the Mahayana. I understand this to be the position of the Theravadins as well, but I think it got lost over the years in the course of popularizing and institutionalizing Buddhism, and with the compiling of the > Abhidhamma. There have been several attempts in Buddhist history (i.e. Nagarjuna or Hui Neng) to revive the teaching of the emptiness of dhammas, but due to the complexity of logic involved (or lack thereof) and the unwholesome qualities rampant in the unperfected hearts of commentators, there still exists many who would like to say that the dhammas are ultimate realities, although they can't seem to agree on the numbers. > -------- > Jon: Would you care to share with us your own view of what is the > development of insight, and the importance of jhana to that, as you > understand the teachings of > the Buddha? The question of what is the 'wisdom of the middle way' is one > we are all interested in. > -------- > > Ben: I thought I did a pretty good job in my last post, but alas, I was mistaken. I am well aware of the vultures lying in wait for the answer to this one. Maybe vultures is a bit harsh Ben. Try parrots. But what does this bear know. B> No matter how I formulate the words to answer you, they are still > empty. *You* have to add the meaning, which is peppered with your own opinions and memories, and therefore these words you read and comprehend are never quite what I had in mind when I typed them. I am with you Ben, you are on a roll. B> The question of what is the 'wisdom of the middle way' is not as important as the question of who is asking or who wants to know. But if you are speaking for the group, then there are a lot of who's out there being very 'interested in' the answer to such a question. Therefore I say to all the who's: > "Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, > With love, > Ben > > P.S. To those new to the Dhamma, The quote above is called the Heart Sutra. It is a piece of the Prajnaparamita literature that preceded the development of what is today referred to as Mahayana Buddhism. It is called the Heart Sutra because it is said to expound the heart or essence of the middle way philosophy as proclaimed by Buddha. The perfection of wisdom (skt:> prajnaparamita) literature and philosphy developed in tandem with the formulation of the abhidhammika sects whose adherents had a rigorous *practice* of meditation whereby they attempted to observe and classify every moment of experience into the various dhammas enumerated in the abhidhamma texts and subsequent commentaries. The heart sutra and the greater body of literature from which it comes, was a medicine for some and an anathema to others, but is nonetheless a valuable contribution to Buddhist thought and practice. -B. How can you not just love the heart sutra? I mean someone or someones that were so moved to have written that beautiful sutra on the path of negation of the Buddha. That their understanding could be encapsulated so succinctly into words. Strip away the false and the true remains! Anyone interested in a nondual awareness would do themselves a favor to contemplate and try to penetrate its meaning in earnest at least a few times a year. PEACE E 35799 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cita and cetasikas Hi AL, there is no rule what to study first, but if there is no basic understanding of citta it is difficult to understand the cetasikas that accompany citta. We have to know which cittas are cause, which are result, which are neither. The cetasikas that accompany citta are conditioned by the citta and the citta is conditioned by the accompanying cetasikas. It is all very intricate. Nina. op 26-08-2004 18:13 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > I am reading cetasikas by Nina, some material of which links to > another of her works, Abhidharma in daily life. This was what I was > informed would be good to study by Sarah. So it's just a more > advanced level of knowledge, cause I am just starting my Abhidharma > studies.