37200 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3)Herman, Joop Hi Howard, I'm probably duplicating in part what has already been said, but I'll share my thoughts anyway. And thanks for asking :-) ======= > While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought > that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone > on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the > sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as > the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things > as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" (and not be perplexed in including > even highly enjoyable dhammas), and also "From craving arises trouble", and > "All that I (the Buddha) teach is trouble, its arising, and its cessation", and > also "Nibbana is the end of trouble". Any opinions on this, folks? > ===== The word dukkha, like the word trouble, has many different meanings, in different contexts. The various states that the words refer to are the realities, the words are just pointers to those states. When communicating, it helps if there is a common understanding of which states a word is refering to. The reality is in the states, not in the words. And when we loose sight of what a word refers to, we can revisit the reality. I can see benefit in adopting a word like trouble when you have so carefully outlined its use, because it lacks the hooks through which the word it replaces becomes adorned with sacredness, as is done so often with the Pali words. Sacred words are an impediment to insight, and that is much trouble :-) Kind Regards Herman 37201 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:37pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. Hope that is clearer Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Herman, Thanks for your clarification. Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that exist. 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not arise, it does not need to fall away. I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old messages. Howard's tree is its extension. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37202 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:45pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 11 ) by Htoo Dear Dhamma Friends, Continue-: Page 51 is fine. Page 52. 1. I like the figure that is presented by Rob M. Only one thing. Utaja rupa or rupa derived from temperature does not arise at the very submoment of patisandhi. That is uppada khana of patisandhi citta. But they start to arise from 'thi khana' of patisandhi citta. Page 53. There are 3 rupa kalapa at patisandhi. They are kayadassaka, bhavadassaka, and vatthudassaka. But I am considering whether nonad should be counted as rupa kalapa that arises at patisandhi. Page 54 is fine. Page 55. The figure beactifully demonstrates death event with abhidhanmma terms. May these criticisms be beneficial. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37203 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:59pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Hi Htoo, Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than before. See below. ==== > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that exist. > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not arise, > it does not need to fall away. > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old messages. > Howard's tree is its extension. > ======= The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the time. There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that the tree as thought arises and falls away. So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not fall away? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) Kind Regards Herman 37204 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:20pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hello Herman, (Htoo), all, To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities (paramattha dhammas)" Shortened Useful Post Link http://tinyurl.com/2c0k metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than > before. See below. > ==== > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is > true. > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that > exist. > > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not > arise, > > > it does not need to fall away. > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old > messages. > > Howard's tree is its extension. > > > > ======= > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away > > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? > > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. > > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the > time. > > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that > the tree as thought arises and falls away. > > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not > fall away? > > Sorry if I am too persistent :-) > > Kind Regards > > > Herman 37205 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Christine, If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways. > > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities > (paramattha dhammas)" ======= I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that section would be a waste of my time and energy. It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the discussions have moved elsewhere. I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit, while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as from the threads initiated by others. Kind Regards Herman > > Shortened Useful Post Link > http://tinyurl.com/2c0k > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > wrote: > > > > Hi Htoo, > > > > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than > > before. See below. > > ==== > > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making > that > > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is > > true. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -- > > > > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that > > exist. > > > > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not > > arise, > > > > > it does not need to fall away. > > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he > > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old > > messages. > > > Howard's tree is its extension. > > > > > > > ======= > > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall > away > > > > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? > > > > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. > > > > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which > > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or > > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised > > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the > > time. > > > > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that > > the tree as thought arises and falls away. > > > > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not > > fall away? > > > > Sorry if I am too persistent :-) > > > > Kind Regards > > > > > > Herman 37206 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 7:13pm Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hello Herman, Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points which were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting my methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't meant that way. Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of > Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways. > > > > > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having > a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts > > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities > > (paramattha dhammas)" > > ======= > > I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching > and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not > find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very > stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that > section would be a waste of my time and energy. > > It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive > section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the > discussions have moved elsewhere. > > I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or > respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit, > while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as > from the threads initiated by others. > > Kind Regards > > > Herman 37207 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi, TG - In a message dated 10/2/04 7:48:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > I think 'trouble' for Dukkha works pretty well. I like the root word > 'afflict' as in either 'afflicting' or 'affliction.' > > I think both terms have the potential flexibility to cover the breadth of > Dukkha. > > TG > ======================= I agree. They both have much to say for themselves. Still, no single English word that I can think quite does the job perfectly. (In my own mind, however, I'll probably keep the "trouble" usage at the fore.) 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) 37208 From: Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi, Christine - In a message dated 10/2/04 10:13:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and > prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very > tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. > > ========================== I haven't written you yet about this ordeal of yours. I'm very sorry for it and for the difficulties of your beloved canine friend. 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) 37209 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hello Howard, all, My daughter and I visited a friend who had her six month old son frolicking naked on a rug - his vibrant energy, his radiant health, his trust, his adoration of his Mum and Dad, and his vital interest in everything that came into the range of his sight, sound, taste, touch - kept conversation to a minimum as he provided the afternoons' entertainment. We all watched him with love and delighted fascination for an hour, it seemed only five minutes. I understand what you mean by 'trouble' and I think to 'one who knows' it is probably an apt word. The difficulty with it will be the same difficulty with dukkha. Because of the veil of delusion, much of the dukkha in the world doesn't have an initial (or any) impact as unwelcome, or to be seen as present or future unhappiness ... loving relationships, happy experiences and valued possessions for starters. None of us would have believed in those moments of watching the babe that Birth, or Attachment, were 'trouble,' 'affliction' or 'dukkha'. Thanks for your thoughts re Rusty. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 10/2/04 7:48:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > TGrand458@a... writes: > > > Hi Howard > > > > I think 'trouble' for Dukkha works pretty well. I like the root word > > 'afflict' as in either 'afflicting' or 'affliction.' > > > > I think both terms have the potential flexibility to cover the breadth of > > Dukkha. > > > > TG > > > ======================= > I agree. They both have much to say for themselves. Still, no single > English word that I can think quite does the job perfectly. (In my own mind, > however, I'll probably keep the "trouble" usage at the fore.) > > 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) 37210 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 10:57pm Subject: Re: The world beyond? Hello Phil, all, As far as I can tell, the Buddha taught actual rebirth and made it a basic tenet of his teachings. I don't think he was phrasing things in a way that was trying to fit in with the current understandings of the local population, or meaning moment to moment rebirth, but that he was thinking about the complete individual mindstream and its baggage of unexpended kammic energy and accumulations that continue on after the death of the body and the dissolution of the present personal identity. There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures. These are some of the more important: Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > Hello all > > The more I read in the Suttanta, the more I am realize how many > potentially misleading suttas > there are (and/or misleading translations at access to insight) and the more > grateful I am for having coming across abhidhamma so that I > can appreciate the suttas without taking them the wrong way. > > An example, AN III.52, Dvejana Sutta: > > "This world is on fire with aging, illness and death. With the world thus > on fire with aging, illness and death, any restrain of body, speech > and intellect practiced here will be one's shelter, cave, island and refuge > after death in the world beyond." > > Later we read, "Whoever here is restrained in body speech and awareness, > who makes merit while he's alive: that will be for his bliss after death." > > It is hard not to read eternalism into that, and I'm sure newcomers to > Buddhism would read a heavenly reward into this. And this wrong view has > become the norm in Japan, where Japanese Buddhists talk of "that world", a > kind of Buddhist heaven beyond a river, and believe that ancestors spirits > return to earth from "that world" every summer during the Obon holidays. > It's a harmless belief, and comforting, but it is not right view, and I'm > sure misinterpretations of the Suttanta contributed to it. > > With my beginner's knowledge of abhidhamma, I know that wholesome cittas > that fall away in a kind of momentary death condition the arising - birth, > if you will- > of more wholesome cittas. That is the reward of restraint of body, speech > and intellect. Yes, there is rebirth, but that is not in a "world beyond"in > my opinion. Yes, there is "bliss" if one is born in the deva realms. Perhaps > this sutta is referring to the deva realms. But without knowing that, one > would misunderstand. > > Also doesn't "any restraint...will be one's shelter.." seem misleading. If > I recall correctly, the object of the rebirth citta can come from any one > kamma in this life or a past life, but not in a cumulative way, like this > suggests. We can have a life full of wholesome kamma, but a single > unwholesome kamma from a previous lifetime could be the object of the > rebirth citta, technically speaking. Is that right? > > That having been said, I appreciate the idea of not adding to the fire > raging in the world. "When panna sees the benefits of akusala and the > disadvantages of > akusala, it conditions the arising of kusala cittas." That sentence resounds > again and again in daily life for me these days. > > Metta, > Phil 37211 From: dragonwriter3 Date: Sat Oct 2, 2004 8:54pm Subject: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi to All I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to ignorant sentient beings? with Metta Simon L 37212 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hello Simon, all, My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of Conditionality. "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dragonwriter3" wrote: > > > Hi to All > > I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise > in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to > ignorant sentient beings? > > with Metta > Simon L 37213 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 2:06am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Christine, Thanks for clarifying. You are quite right, there's no harm in a bit of research before launching into another probing exercise. Just between you, me and the gate post, I doubt I'll ever get this panatti business. My thoughts are with you and with Rusty, I am imagining your tiredness, but I'm sure it will be worse :-). Huge thunderstorm in progress here. Thanks for your kindness, Christine, now and in the past Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Herman, > > Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be > reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research > and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points which > were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different > methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting my > methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't > meant that way. > Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and > prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very > tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 37214 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object of jhana/ Htoo Hi Larry, very useful. I shall print them out and diiscuss with Sarah in the bus. Nina. op 02-10-2004 23:34 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Visuddhimagga III, 117 > 'As to object': of these forty meditation subjects, ...snip.. This > is 'as to object'. > ----------------------- > Note 32. Na-vattaba-- 'not so classifiable' is an Abhidhamma shorthand > term for something that, ...snip...of the three, or two, headings. > 37215 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the arupajhaanas. When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not only right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right concentration of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the context. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > So the 4th jhana itself is just a lokiya samma-?amadhi. It is not one > of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > The reason that I raise the question is to highlight that loki jhanas > are not samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path. > > And the other reason is that to help people judge on the statement > that 'jhanas are necessary for development of vipassana panna and > attainment of arahatta magga nana.' 37216 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hello Phil, Thank you for this reminder. I like to change the situation, and I should remember that here self is at work. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:35 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it > would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the > wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about > trying to change the situation. It is the situation. 37217 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The world beyond? Hello Phil, op 03-10-2004 00:59 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Also doesn't "any restraint...will be one's shelter.." seem misleading. If > I recall correctly, the object of the rebirth citta can come from any one > kamma in this life or a past life, but not in a cumulative way, like this > suggests. We can have a life full of wholesome kamma, but a single > unwholesome kamma from a previous lifetime could be the object of the > rebirth citta, technically speaking. Is that right? N. Yes, right. But: any restraint...will be one's shelter, is an exhortation all the same. As you added, pañña sees the benefit of kusala and that in itself is of great help. Nina. 37218 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to developdetermination" Hello Phil, op 03-10-2004 01:19 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Yes, no need to think I shall develop this or that perfection. But I think > there is value in recognizing them when they arise in daily life. Not in a > controlling way, but just in a momentary appreciation of them that might > condition > their further development. N: I like to consider them, reflect on their value. When there can be a moment of right awareness, this takes care of them all. Take the perfection of truthfulness or sincerity. Awareness now help us not to delude ourselves. There is also determination. Also at the holy places I shall consider this: to continue developing understanding, even if it takes aeons before we reach the goal. To continue, even when the circumstances of life are hard. It needs energy, that is courage, being brave. It needs patience, we do not expect a result soon. I rather reflect in this way then analysing them intellectually. I heard on MP3, perfection, paraami: something that helps you to get to the beyond, to the other shore, nibbaana. Ph: I imagine you're getting ready for your departure to India. I wonder > what state > of mind prevails at such times. N: I have to look after Lodewijk in the first place and see to it that he is in reasonable health to make this journey. We have to be with my father and play music for him. The cittas are not different from usual, lots of lobha, dosa and moha. The packing list, a lot of work. This reminds me of Icaro's packing list, when he had to pack for bootcamp. He posted the whole list of 28 rupas and related these to his packing. What are all those things we pack, only rupa, they do not know anything. We find them so important. Nina. 37219 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Science/Truth (3) Howard. Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/2/04 9:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... > writes: > > > ... anatta in Dhamma is tied in with conditionality, absolutely > > and intimately. Because of conditions such as kamma there must be > > results and then other conditions coming together to assist the > > kamma to give results. So , in a continuous stream there is the > > round of vipaka, kamma and kilesa - all showing anatta and > > conditionality. Thus anatta is not merely a simple negation of self - > > it is deep and reveals the very workings of what life is. > ========================== > Very well said, Robert. I consider this point to be so important - the > intimate connection between anatta and conditionality A: I agree, well said Robert! I sent it on to one of my friends who has not long returned from a visit to where the Dalai Lama lives. She has been involved in some sort of study of lamas' brains during meditation!!!!!! While writing, I think I'll take this opportunity to mention a thought > that has occurred to me. I put this forward for the consideration of everyone > on the list. I wonder what anyone thinks of rendering 'dukkha' as "trouble". > It seems to me that that translation works well both in describing both the > sense of suffering, discomfort, and dissatisfaction in "the person" as well as > the nature of conditioned dhammas. So, we can unproblematically say such things > as "All conditioned dhammas are trouble" (and not be perplexed in including > even highly enjoyable dhammas), and also "From craving arises trouble", and > "All that I (the Buddha) teach is trouble, its arising, and its cessation", and > also "Nibbana is the end of trouble". Any opinions on this, folks? > A: Unsatisfactory is the word I think is a good translation for Dukkha. Unsatisfactory, in my dictionary, states 'not satisfying needs or requirements; inadequate. Whereas 'trouble' has 3-4 different meanings, Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37220 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The world beyond? Hi Christine > There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist > scriptures. These are some of the more important: Mahakammavibhanga > Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); > Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta > (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8) Thanks for this. I'm grateful to be able to tap into your knowledge of the Suttanta so often. When I said I valued the idea of momentary rebirth, it wasn't to deny rebirth in the more conventional sense. My problem is with that "the world beyond" and that's beause of what I see here in Japan. Do you know people have expensive memorial cermonies for deceased relatives on the 1st, 3rd, 7th and other years? They have to fork out huge sums to the priests (monk is not the right word here) who chant sutras to continue the further progress of the deceased's spirit in the "world beyond." This has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching, and it's the sort of thing that has given people the idea that Buddhism is for funerals only, and is all about money. I still haven't gotten rid of the need to gripe about that every now and then. I don't think about it as often as I used to. Metta, Phil 37221 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to developdetermination" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom . > N: I have to look after Lodewijk in the first place and see to it that he is > in reasonable health to make this journey. This reminds me of Icaro's packing list, > when he had to pack for bootcamp. He posted the whole list of 28 rupas and > related these to his packing. What are all those things we pack, only rupa, > they do not know anything. We find them so important. +++++++++++++++++++ Dear Nina, Give my regards to Lodewijk and enjoy the pilgrimage. Someone on another list asked me to send your their thanks. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Triplegem/message/6651 robert 37222 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:20am Subject: Perfections - more on determination Hello all Another passage from Nina's "The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment", available at Abhidhamma.org. "Khun Sujin reminded us of the meaning of determination: Aditthana parami is the resolution to develop right understanding of the reality which appears. Being resolute means that one is firm on the Path of developing right understanding of the realities which appear, because one realizes that it takes time, that it takes so many, many lives before there can be the highly developed understanding of the reality which appears now. It has to be now, so it is bound to be difficult. The moment of being aware of the present object, any object which appears, without wanting it to be something else, indicates the resolution." (end quote) Ph: All the resolutions I have made in my life! My New Year's resolution process used to begin several days before the end of the year, when I reviewed my journal for the year, deciding where I needed to change and make improvements. How futile those resolutions were, because they were ignorant of the conditioned realities of life. For example, I used to resolve that I would be aware of every door I went through, and of the people I would be meeting beyond the door. Classroom doors, for example. Of course it never happened. Now, as my mindfulness increases naturally, beyond my control thanks to the gradual arising of right understanding, I find myself aware of these doors though no longer intending to be so. I think the reason for this is found in the following paragraph: "We do not see a result of a short moment of mindfulness, it passes and then there are many moments of ignorance. However, one moment of mindfulness now conditions the arising again of right mindfulness later on. In that way the understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupa which appear can become clearer. We always want to do things which bring an immediate, tangible result and we don't have enough confidence in the effectiveness of one short moment of mindfulness of what appears now." Now I am feeling more confident about the effectiveness of these moments of mindfulness. We can't see something and be someone at the same time. A moment of seeing, for example, is a moment of liberation from self and its endless stories that cause so much dukkha. I certainly wouldn't have understood this last year at this time. And that moment of seeing indicates the resolution to be aware of the present object - whether I like it or not. Metta, Phil 37223 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi, Christine (and Simon) - In a message dated 10/3/04 3:07:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > > Hello Simon, all, > > My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only > Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. > > As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. > Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of > Conditionality. > > "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the > welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born > out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and > happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a > Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is > that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) > > metta and peace, > Christine =============================== Well, we do read in both Theravada and Mahayana traditions of people taking a vow to become a Buddha, seriously committing themselves to mastering all ten ( or six, in Mahayana) perfections over aeons in order to present anew the Dhamma to a world bereft of it. Presumably that completely serious and powerful intention followed up by unrelenting, superhuman consistency of effort is what makes the arising of Buddhas possible. 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) 37224 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Simon & Christine, A good question, Simon. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > My understanding is that not all Buddhas teach - only > Sammasambuddhas teach - pacceka buddhas don't or can't. > > As to why Buddhas arise - I'd be interested to read replies. > Perhaps they arise out of Compassion and as a result of > Conditionality. > > "Monks, there is one person whose birth into the world is for the > welfare of many folk, for the happiness of many folk; who is born > out of compassion for the world, for the profit, welfare and > happiness of devas and mankind. Who is that one person? It is a > Tathagata who is Arahant, a fully Enlightened One. This, monks, is > that one person." Book of Ones Ch. XIII (Anguttara Nikaya) .... S: Good points and a helpful quote. You may like to read more from the Introduction to the Jataka (i.47) about the 'Birth of the Buddha'. Here's an extract from H. Clarke Warren's translation included in his book 'Budhism'. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits004.htm "When ... they hear the sound of the Buddha-Uproar, the gods of all ten thousand worlds come together into one place, and having ascertained what particular being is to be The Buddha, they approach him, and beseech him to become one. But it is not till after omens have appeared that they beseech him. At that time, therefore, having all come together in one world, with the Catûm-Mahârâjas, and with the Sakka, the Suyâma, the Santusita, the Paranimmita-Vasavatti, and the Mahâ-Brahma of each several world, they approached the Future Buddha in the Tusita heaven, and besought him, saying,-- "Sir, it was not to acquire the glory of a Sakka, or of a Mâra, or of a Brahma, or of a Universal Monarch, that you fulfilled the Ten Perfections; but it was to gain omniscience in order to save the world, that you fulfilled them. Sir, the time and fit season for your Buddhaship has now arrived." But the Great Being, before assenting to their wish, made what is called the five great observations. He observed, namely, the time, the continent, the country, the family, and the mother and her span of life. In the first of these observations he asked himself whether it was the right time or no. Now it is not the right time when the length of men's lives is more than a hundred thousand years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals then forget about birth, old age, and death. And if The Buddhas, who always include in their teachings the Three Characteristics, were to attempt at such a time to discourse concerning transitoriness, misery, and the lack of substantive reality, men would not think it worth while listening to them, nor would they give them credence. Thus there would be no conversions made; and if there were no conversions, the dispensation would not conduce to salvation. This, therefore, is not the right time. Also it is not the right time when men's lives are less than a hundred years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals are then exceedingly corrupt; and an exhortation given to the exceedingly corrupt makes no impression, but, like a mark drawn with a stick on the surface of the water, it immediately disappears. This, therefore, also is not the right time. But when the length of men's lives is between a hundred years and a hundred thousand years, then is it the right time. Now at that time men's lives were a hundred years; accordingly the Great Being observed that it was the right time for his birth. Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking over the four continents with their attendant isles, he reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on the continent." ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 37225 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:40am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner26-Contact /Phassa(l) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** The study of phassa cetasika can remind us that at each moment a different citta arises, dependant on different conditions. When there is seeing phassa cannot contact any other object but visible object. Seeing can experience only visible object; it cannot experience a person in the visible object. When there is hearing, phassa cannot contact any other object but sound. Hearing cannot experience a person in the sound. When there is thinking of a concept there is a different citta with a different phassa which contacts the object citta is thinking of. There cannot be more than one contact at a time. A detailed knowledge of different cittas and their accompanying cetasikas will help us to understand the realities of our daily life as they appear one at a time. It is important to have more understanding of realities such as seeing or hearing. They are cittas arising time and again in daily life. They experience pleasant or unpleasant objects and on account of these objects kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise, but mostly akusala cittas. ***** [Contact (Phassa) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37226 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/3/04 5:07:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Just between you, me and the gate post, I doubt I'll ever get this > panatti business. > Huge thunderstorm in > progress here. > ============================= Sights, sounds, odors, feelings, emotions - all quite specific and interconnected, plus potentialities: Should the experiences that underly a story of "going outside" arise, then would arise experiences of wetness, a crescendo of sounds, lightning-sulfur odors, emotions of awe, desire to escape etc. All this and a near-infinity more jointly rendered, so quickly, as "Huge thunderstorm in progress here". 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) 37227 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 4:52am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Sarah, You have considered it worthwhile to post it. I consider it worthwhile to question it. > > Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking over the four continents with their attendant isles, he reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on the continent." > Which planet are we talking about here? Kind Regards Herman 37228 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 1:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" (was Re Science/Truth 3) Hi, Nina and Phil - In a message dated 10/3/04 6:21:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hello Phil, > Thank you for this reminder. I like to change the situation, and I should > remember that here self is at work. > Nina. > > op 03-10-2004 00:35 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > > >If you said "getting old and dying is trouble" it > >would be wrong, I think, because it would be more suitable to describe the > >wrong view of self trying to change that situation. Dukkha isn't about > >trying to change the situation. It is the situation. > ========================= Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No craving, no trouble!! Dukkha is not an absolute, but arises in dependence on causes and conditions. May we be free, once and for all, of those conditions. Nibbana is the end of trouble. 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) 37229 From: Egbert Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K/Herman Hi Howard, you are a poet, and an observant one at that :-) > Sights, sounds, odors, feelings, emotions - all quite specific and > interconnected, plus potentialities: Should the experiences that underly a story > of "going outside" arise, then would arise experiences of wetness, a crescendo > of sounds, lightning-sulfur odors, emotions of awe, desire to escape etc. > All this and a near-infinity more jointly rendered, so quickly, as > "Huge thunderstorm in progress here". > 37230 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:28am Subject: Re: cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Herman: The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There is no tree at all. So it does not arise and it does not fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Hmm. I am listening to you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If you see vision or sight, it is OK for you. Sight arises and falls away. But there is no tree at all and tree does not arise and does not fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that the tree as thought arises and falls away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As there is no tree at all, tree does not arise and does not fall away at all. Dhammayatana do not comprise panatti. There are three dhamma which serve as dhammaayatana. They are cetasikas, sukhama rupas and nibbana. Thought that arise and fall away are cittas and cetasikas. Cittas and cetasikas are nama dhamma and they are conditioned dhamma. They do arise and fall away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Herman: So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not fall away? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) Kind Regards Herman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You are welcome. I have repeated explained above. There is no tree at all. As there is no tree, tree does not arise and tree does not fall away. Tree 'the word' is panatta and the idea in it is also panatta. There is no tree at all. Are these logical? 'Nothing' arises and 'nothing' falls away. 'Nothing' exists. We can all see 'nothing'. We can all hear 'nothing'. We can all smell 'nothing'. We can all taste 'nothing'. We can all touch 'nothing'. As it is not real, there is nothing to do with 'nothing' here. You can now replace 'nothing' with 'panatta' or its example 'tree'. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37231 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the arupajhaanas. When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not only right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right concentration of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the context. Nina. op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Suttas says 'when the monks stay away from hindrances and arrive at the state with vitakka, v..p..s..e.. and stay in 1st jhana, without vitakka and vicara stay in 2nd jhana, without piti stay in 3rd jhana, and without dukkha, sukha stay in 4th jhana, this is samma-samadhi.' However, anyone who is exactly at magga is not in rupa jhana or arupa jhana. But they are looking at nibbana with lokuttara appana samadhi. This is lokuttara jhana. There were people who attained rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas before arising of The Buddha. Examples are Devimala hermit who foresaw Siddhattha the Prince would become a Sammasambuddha while he would be reborn at arupa brahma bhumi. He had not had lokuttara jhana. His samadhi might be samma-samadhi. But not of Noble Eightfold Path. By the same token, Alara and Udaka were jhana teachers of the Prince Siddhattha. They did not have lokuttara jhana. Their samadhi might well be samma-samadhi. But it would not be samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path. I agree that we have to be very careful about the context. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37232 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Herman, --- Egbert wrote: S:> > Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking > over the four continents with their attendant isles, he > reflected: "In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; > only in the continent of India are they born." Thus he decided on > the continent." > > > > Which planet are we talking about here? ... S:You may find the diagram I just fished out from Google (buddha, continents) of interest. (I've no idea how accurate it is, but it gives an indication perhaps). I can't tell you more about the continents and I think it may be a distraction, but you're welcome to research and tell me!. Remember India was the centre of the world. Just scroll down a page or two. http://kaladarshan.arts.ohio-state.edu/Nepal/introbuddh.html If your interest was in where the Bodhisatta was prior to his last life as a human, it was the Tusita heaven (subject to my understanding and all those other qualifications I gave you before;-)). http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits003.htm Here's another brief extract which comes before the one I just gave: Remember the last Jataka was the Vessantara Jataka: ***** "Having thus fulfilled all the perfections, he said, in his existence as Vessantara,-- 269. "This earth, unconscious though she be, And ignorant of joy or grief, E'en she then felt alms' mighty power, And shook and quaked full seven times." And having thus caused the earth to quake by his mighty deeds of merit, at the end of that existence he died, and was reborn in the Tusita heaven. <...> ***** Metta, Sarah p.s You will get this 'pannatti business' - persist with your questioning with Htoo and others. It's on the right track and he's giving good answers. In the end, it's by understanding realities (paramattha dhammas), that pannatti are known as mere pannatti. ========= ====== 37233 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:12am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 079 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed that there are 89 cittas in total when lokuttara cittas of magga cittas arise without any connection with rupa jhanas or arupa jhanas. And there are 121 cittas in total when lokuttara kusala cittas magga cittas arise in the vicinity of rupavacara rupa jhanas or arupavacara arupa jhanas. In the earliest posts, different classifications of cittas have been discussed. These will again be discussed later after completion of discussion on cetasika dhammas. When different cittas have been well understood, dhamma study will become much much more easier than without knowledge of these cittas. Any of us at any time at any moment will be in one of these 89 or 121 cittas. This is not for only us. These cittas are for all beings who are still in their samsara and for those who are still not able to transcend the samsara as they all are bounded very very strongly by tanha or craving. To understand each citta peoperly require the knowledge of cetasikas as each citta is accompanied by many cetasikas. We have discussed 7 of 52 total cetasikas. These 7 cetasikas are called universal mental factors as they always arise with each of these 89 cittas or 121 cittas. In any of all these 89 cittas or 121 cittas, citta is accompanied by many cetasikas and at least a citta is accompanied by 7 cetasikas. Citta and cetasikas, they together constitute nama or nama dhamma. They are frequently referred to as mind or the mind. Actually mind is made up of an army of soldiers cetasikas and the general citta. Or mind is made up of many ministers cetasikas and their king citta. Citta is the king. Citta is the general. Citta is the Field-Marshal. Citta is the leader. When the citta leads all the nama dhammas that is all cetasikas have to follow what the citta does and what the citta orders and they all have to suggest, advise the king citta while he is doing his job of consciousness and his job of awareness to the object. Cetasika is not citta. Cetasika does not need to be aware of the object even though they all are aware of the object that the citta is aware of. The awareness of object or knowing of the object is the function of citta and this is not the function of cetasikas. Cetasikas do have their specific functions. So cetasikas are separate realities even though they cannot be separated from citta when they arise as nama dhamma. So far 7 cetasikas and their functions have been discussed in the previous posts. It is these cetasikas that give different names to citta which originally is only one and a single entity which is just to know the object. After discussion on the permanent ministers or universal cetasikas, we are now going to discuss on another group of cetasikas called flexible ministers of the king citta. These cetasikas are called pakinnaka cetasikas or particular mental factors. They are referred to as flexible [ by me ], because they agree with citta that they arise together with. If these flexible ministers cetasikas arise with kusala they are kusala cetasikas and when cittas are akusala then the cetasikas will be akusala cetasikas. So these cetasikas are called flexible ministers of the king citta. When the king wants to go to The Buddha, they would agree and support the king. When the king wants to go to the festival and drink alcohol they all will happily help the king. So they are flexible ministers. There are still other 39 cetasikas. They are not universal or they are not flexible. Because they will not arise with unspecified citta. They have exact functions and they will only arise with their specific citta. Example is 14 akusala cetasikas will not arise with sobhana cittas and 25 sobhana cetasikas will not arise with akusala cittas. So 39 cetasikas are not universal and they are not flexible. In flexible ministers cetasikas there are altogether 6 cetasikas. Again they are grouped here because they may agree with kusala or akusala or abyakata dhamma. But they do not always arise and they do have their potentials to arise with specified cittas. These flexible ministers cetasikas are 1. vitakka, 2. vicara, 3. piti, 4. viriya, 5. adhimokkha, and 6. chanda. 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. 37234 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:52am Subject: Re: Rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: >> Hi All, > I have uploaded this new section (only 6 pages) to the files section > (there are a number of diagrams). I will leave it there for a couple > of weeks. Dear Rob M, After the comments I had on your first draft in august I will react again on this new chapter (or paragraph?) It's much better than the old one! I will say that not because I'm an expert like Htoo Naing but as a scientific thinking westerner who had to reduce the cognitive dissonance between natural science and the rupa-aspect of nama-rupa (and who wants to reduce because of my love for and faith in the teachings of the Buddha) Of page 63 and 64 I can just say: good Page 65: very good, makes me enthousiastic. For me the drawing of the circle has a soteriological meaning too: result of my (vipassana- insight) meditation is making that circle smaller, till the radius is zero; is that correct? Page 66: I have big problems in understanding your explanation - "The commentary uses this delineation to explain why eye-, ear-, nose- and tong-sensitivity …" I don't see any explanation in the metaphore of the hammer and the cotton-ball and I don't understand body-sensitivity works on another way as eye-, ear, nose- and tongue- sensitivity. And I don't see what is the role of the derivation of the derived rupa from the great essentials in this explanation - A smaller problem is the use of the word 'things' in the second half of this page: it is a not-elegant (a silly) word; I don't know a better one: 'compound entities' is perhaps too formal. - "Body-sensitivity": you don't mention that is a later invention of a commentary, not used in the Dhamma-sangani. Page 67: Two (minor) problems: - I don't understand the phrase "groups of rupas have the following rupas", all rupas 'exist' in groups, isn't it? - The differences between 'decay', 'impermance' (of a collection of rupas) and ''falling away' of an individual rupa is not clear. The time-scales of these three are different (decades of years, seconds (?) and billionths part of a second) but is that a real fundamental difference; are all three chraracteristics on a ultimate level? Page 68: Two (minor) questions: - 'Temperature' and 'Nutrition' are rupas themselves ànd causes rupa. But isn't that an example of rupa interacting with other rupa of which you say on page 65 that is in the domain of science and not in the domain of the Buddha's focus? - I will not call the last part 'Summary' but 'Conclusion' because a 'Summary' should not contain new statement. Or do you think the introduction of the relation between 'rupa' and 'right understanding' is not new in this paragraph? ============================================ I will use this message to express my surpise when I this week for the first time could read the Dhamma-sangani itself (translation of C.A.F. Rhys Davids) and COULD HARDLY FIND THE FOUR MAHABHUTA in it. One point of our discussion a month ago, about the difference between an ontological and a phenomenological view on the dhamma's (of which Bhikku Bodhi and you say these two views are nearly the same and of which Ven. Nyanaponika and I say they are fundamental different). I think it's funny mrs Rhys Davids doesn't use the term "phenomenology" but "Sensationalism"! (Introductory Essay, page lv) what is not exact the same but is very near ! Book II of the Dhamma-Sangani is about Material Form (rupakandham). After a short Introduction Chapter I is about 'Exposition of [Material] Form under Single Concepts Chapter II: The category of [Material] Form considered by way of dual attributes; in this chapter the derived forms are decribed Chapter III … under Triple Aspects Chapter IV … under Fourfold Aspects … etc. till: Chapter XI … under Elevenfold Aspect In Chapter V - nearly hided - the four not derived forms are mentioned: earth-element, fluid-element, heat-element and air-element. I thought till now these four 'elements' are the fundamental building block of rupa and an exposition should start with it and then derive the other 22 or 23 from them. Nina in her ebook, the Visuddhimagga (very short) and the Abhidhammattha start with the Four; you did not. Why? Metta Joop 37235 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hey Nina, Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do this or that in order to reach the goal. Then what is the impetus? Then what is Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If it is not based on thought, then is it based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' is not eradicated until Arahantship then what is the 'other factor' that manifests this 'perfection' in the beginning stages or the latter stages of development? PEACE E 37236 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: The world beyond? Hey Phil, Ph> Thanks for this. I'm grateful to be able to tap into your knowledge When I said I valued the idea of momentary rebirth, it wasn't to deny rebirth in the more conventional sense. My problem is with that "the world beyond" and that's beause of what I see here in Japan. Do you know people have expensive memorial cermonies for deceased relatives on the 1st, 3rd, 7th and other years? They have to fork out huge sums to the priests (monk is not the right word here) who chant sutras to continue the further progress of the deceased's spirit in the "world beyond." This has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching, and it's the sort of thing that has given people the idea that Buddhism is for funerals only, and is all about money. I still haven't gotten rid of the need to gripe about that every now and then. I don't think about it as often as I used to. All this is your own projections onto the world. There are the teachings, there are funerals, there is money. All this gets mixed up and 'the world' continues to move. I mean, like the Buddha's teachings are your own private means to salvation? Like 'others attainments', why should you care what people are doing or not doing with regards to 'the teachings'? Leave it be and you will be better off for it! PEACE E 37237 From: ericlonline Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hey Simon L, > > I'd like to know why Buddhas of the past, present and future arise > in samsara and when they do why they bother teaching the Dhamma to > ignorant sentient beings? It is kind of like winning the lottery. Once you have an abundance of 'goodness', you naturally wish to share it with all those around you. You know, it is fun to share. PEACE E 37238 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 080 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, 6 particular mental factors or 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 6 flexible ministers cetasikas of the king citta are vitakka, vicara, piti, viriya, adhimokkha, and chanda. Vitakka is a mental factor. It is not consciousness. It is not citta. But it arises with arising citta and falls away with falling citta. It takes the same object that citta takes and it bases the same rupa that citta bases. Vitakka is a flexible minister of the king citta. When the king citta's job is to be conscious to the object or to be aware of the object or to know the object, vitakka's job is not of these. Vitakka does different job from what the king citta does. Vitakka is initial application. This is the best explanation on vitakka cetasika. There are many translated English words for cetasika vitakka. But they all are confusing at least for me. I will point out some translated words how they are confusing. Some translate vitakka as applied thought. This is confusing because the readers may think that cetasika vitakka is a kind of thought. Vitakka is not conventional thought. And vitakka cetasika is not thinking. Thinking is the activity of mind and this is confusing when vitakka is referred to as applied thought. Here 'applied' will have to be explained. Some translate vitakka as applied thinking. Thinking is an activity. It is a conventioanl term for the activity of the mind. When this word 'applied thinking' is used, it is confusing for beginners. Cetasika vitakka is not conventioanl thinking. Thinking is one activity of citta. Some translate vitakka as initial thinking. This is also confusing. If vitakka cetasika is translated as 'initial thinking', there will be many 'initial thinking' when there are many many cittas that arise in billions within a period of an eye-blink. What do we have to do with these initial thinkings in such long long series? Initial thought is also the same and it is also confusing. All these do not carry the meaning of vitakka even though vitakka does exist in initial thinking, initial thought, applied thinking, and applied thought. I have said that initial application is the best translation. What exactly does vitakka do when it arises with a citta? It is an 'initial application'. 'Initial' here is the adjective to modify 'application' so that this can be differentiated from another word 'sustained application' which is for vicara. So vitakka in its simplest meaning is 'application'. As soon as it arises, it applies to an object. It advises the king citta to apply to the object. That is to take the object. Vitakka does not know the object but it does take the object. It does apply the object. It puts itself and its citta and other cetasikas on an object. Vitakka has pushing effect. It is like pushing citta and other cetasikas to the object. There are 3 cetasikas that worth to be considered together. They are cetana, manasikara, and vitakka. They are cetasikas or mental factors. Their functions are not to know the object. To know the object is the function of citta. But these three cetasikas each have their specific functions as have been discussed. Cetana urges the citta and co-arising cetasikas to do their job. He is like a co-ordinator or an organizer. Manasikara just steers the citta and other co-arising cetasikas to a specific object and not to other objects. Vitakka just applies the citta and co-arising cetasikas to the object. Vitakka puts them on the object. Vitakks applies them to the object so that they all are in contact with the object. Vitakka pushes all these mental faculties to the object. There is a boat and three people. The boat is moving forward. At the front is sitting the main rower. At the rear is sitting the steerer. At the middle is sitting the chief who organizes the boat journey. The rower rows the boat and the boat has to move. But he does not know how to steer but he will row as much as he can so that the boat is in the move to anywhere without considering any direction. The steerer just steers the boat. He will direct to the left, to the right and so on through out the journey. But he is not the main rower and his function is just to steer the boat so that the boat goes in a specific direction. The organizer or the co-ordinator is sitting at the middle and he urges the rower to row quickly or slowly and he also urges the steerer to steer the boat to the left or to the right or straight so that the boat is moving in co-ordinated fashion. Here at the front is vitakka. At the rear or at the back is manasikara. At the middle is cetana. Vitakka does not know directions. But he is just to row up and he is just to apply to the object. So because of vitakka, mind 'the conventional mind' is moving from the object of pleassure to displeasure to unwholesome to wholesome to neutral to and many other directions. There are different vitakkas. There are kama vitakka, vihimsa vitakka, byapada vitakka, jhana vitakka, lokuttara vitakka which is samma-sankappa, and many others. These vitakkas are a collection of many vitakkas in a setting of kama or sensuous thinking, byapada or destructive thinking, vihimsa or thinking of torturing other beings in different forms, thinking directed to a specific object of meditation in jhana and mental activity that arrives at nibbana. 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. 37239 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:40am Subject: Re: flippin off the moon Hello Jon. J> You suggest that everything can be seen as a matter of J> personal judgment ultimately. Then I must have expressed myself very clumsily. What I wished to suggest was that embracing one interpretation of the Buddha's teaching rather than another is a matter of personal judgment, and that we are in bad faith if we pretend otherwise. J> Well, that's one way of looking at it I suppose, but it J> still leaves the question of why prefer one source over J> another. Are you saying there are good reasons for J> preferring modern writers, or sectarian views, to the J> traditional commentators? Firstly, I would not make a distinction between sectarian views and the views of [those whom you call] the traditional commentators. If one lays aside one's faith bias and views the matter objectively, the commentators of the Mahavihara are sectarian commentators no less than those of any of the other schools generated after the 2nd Council. They differ only in that the Mahavihara branch of the Tambapanniya sect (now called the Theravada) survives as a living tradition, while the others can be known only through texts. Secondly, "modern writers" is too broad. I should prefer to limit it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within their field of expertise, not just anything that they happen to write. With these qualifications in mind I would then answer yes, with respect to certain issues there are good reasons for preferring modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars like the plague. As to which issues one would be better off consulting modern sources for, I dealt with this in summary form in my post to Robert K. on the pros and cons of the Mahavihara commentators. To recap, these would be Buddhist history (i.e. the history of both Buddhist thought and Buddhist institutions), and any subject on which the commentators erred due to the lack of science in their day. J> BTW, no-one is taking the ancient texts as 'absolutely J> authoritative', since that implies uncritical acceptance. 'Uncritical acceptance' is a fair description of what I am witnessing on this list. Here are some samples of it: "When you and I read suttas, Y might seem to be saying X, but if the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries say it is Y, then Y it is." "Forget the opinions of uninstructed worldlings; if something in the Tipitaka is unclear, let's ascertain the opinions of the ancient Theras." "Whenever I find any discrepancy or something which doesn't make sense, it always turns out to be my ignorance that's the problem, not the ancient commentators." "Victor, it is important that you accept the help of the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries. Without them, you (or anyone) will always misinterpret the suttas." "There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts." "Remember the Mattika for this text was laid down by the Buddha who forsaw events and knew when it would be the right time for it and so on, i.e only after various controversies and schisms arose." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37240 From: connieparker Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi Simon & Christine (& Sarah), I wonder if, when we say the paccekas can't or don't teach, we mean they don't have all the supreme qualities and capabilities of a sammasambuddha that make him/that role unique/supreme - not all the other conditions are in place for them to establish the sasana. I guess pacceka's another of those troublesome pali words: if we call them Silent, we might think they didn't speak at all; if we call them Solitary, we might forget things like one of the former Pajapati's serving 500 paccekas who hung out together. peace, connie 37241 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:41am Subject: Re: "The same" in Buddhism Hello Herman H> I have been doing some study on the concept of sameness in H> Buddhism and have only found it expressed in a negative form H> ie not other (anna - ananna). Are there any other terms that H> are used for sameness/otherness? What is the Pali term used H> where the question is asked if it is the same being (I think H> it was) that is born as the one that dies? There are several adjectives that mean 'same', but in the sense that you are asking about the common way of indicating sameness is to add 'eva' (often shortened to 'va'). This is an intensifier, like the English word 'very' in "You're the very man I'm looking for!" The word ana~n~na.m ('not another') may also be added to drive the point home. And so the foolish monk Saati says: Tathaaha.m Bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami: yathaa tadevida.m vi~n~naa.ma.m sandhaavati sa.msarati ana~n~na.m "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this very consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirth, not another." (tadevida.m = ta.m + eva + ida.m) _____________________________ And in the Sarvastivadin section of the Milindapa~nhaa: Raajaa aaha: bhante Naagasena, yo uppajjati, so eva so, udaahu a~n~no ti? Thero aaha: na ca so, na ca a~n~no ti. The king said: "Venerable Nagasena, is he who is reborn the same, or is he another?" The elder answered: "He is neither the same, nor another" More literally: "he who arises, [is it] that very he, or another?" "[it is] not he and not another." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37242 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:43am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Sarah. S> I'm only giving comments based on what I've heard, not read. S> I'm also not particularly familiar with the Jatakas and have S> forgotten many I read a long time ago. But, don't you think: S> a) it is stressed when it is the Bodhisatta or 'future S> Buddha' being referred to Just going from memory, I don't think that this fact is stressed, except in a handful of Jatakas where there are statements to the effect that in that particular life the Bodhisatta was devoting himself to developing danaparami, silaparami or whatever. In these cases one would know for sure that he was a Bodhisatta at the time in question. But these are only a minority of Jatakas. I don't recall any Jatakas where the Buddha says: "It was I myself who was the wise cuckoo (or whatever) ... *and I was a Bodhisatta at the time*." S> b) it would be rather obvious at Buddhist Councils and to S> those with far greater familiarity with them if there was a S> glaring inconsistency between say the Harita Jataka and the S> Kunala Jataka? The story of the seduction of Saccatapavi is not in the Jataka verses but in the Atthakatha. I don't share your belief that the Atthakathas translated by the Mahavihara commentators were recited at the Councils. S> c) We have approximately 540 'birth stories' of Bodhisattas S> (some repetition and sometimes more than one 'birth' S> included). If all tales of previous lives within these were S> included, then the number would be much larger.... Right. But I'm not sure what it is you want to conclude from this. S> d) I'm sure the official position is that there is no S> inconsistency and once again our ignorance blinds us to what S> may be a simple explanation;-). Your piety is touching, but I suspect this is more the Sugenius or the Sarah Abbott official position than that of the Mahavihara commentators. No doubt the MaCs would insist that all apparent inconsistencies are merely apparent, but they would not be content to leave matters there. Their usual tendency is to follow the Milindapanha in assuming that all apparent inconsistencies can be *demonstrably* resolved. Their demonstations tend to be absurdly unconvincing, but are demonstrations nonetheless. The exceptions to this, where the commentators merely say "Trust us, we know what we're talking about even if you can't see it" are very few. In fact offhand I can only think of one, from the Vinaya Commentary. In his account of the ninth expiation rule Buddhaghosa acknowledges that the commentary is contradicting the Buddha, but then reassures the reader that the author of the Maha-atthakatha knew very well what the Buddha really meant to say. S> I'd like to get into a discussion on the S> nirutti/discrimination of language issue which you've raised S> several times, but: S> i) I have very little time before going to India and must S> give some priority to some behind-the-scenes tasks. Okay, there's no hurry. In fact it might be better to postpone it until all the relevant texts are available for us to discuss. I have collated the 20 or so commentarial passages dealing with the Magadhan dialect as the "root-language of all living beings" and the "language of sabhaava" and will try to upload them to the files section. Then it will take some time to translate them. S> ii) I'm not sure of the value in it As I see it, the value of such a discussion is this: the subject of the names of dhammas in the Magadhan dialect, the contribution of these names to the forming of a dhamma's sabhava, and the implied necessity of knowing these names in order to develop vipassana, is clearly no trifling matter. If there's any truth to this theory, then it's clearly something that an aspiring vipassanayanika would want to know about. On the other hand, if the theory is a lot of baloney, then that too would be valuable to know. It would be one less papa~nca-generating distraction for us to worry about. S> or whether you really wish to hear any other comments If anyone HAS any comments then I really do wish to hear them. I'm on tenterhooks. But I'm not sure what you mean by "any OTHER comments". So far my queries about Pali-speaking wolf-children and the deification of the dialect of Magadha have elicited no comments at all, unless you count Jon's reply which didn't actually answer the question I put to him. S> iii) my understanding is very limited, so there'd be glaring S> holes and could just sound to you like your parody;-). That's no problem. If we can't give the readers bread, we'll give them circuses. S> Anyway, if you wish, we could start and maybe both learn a S> little in the process, but it's up to you. I have many other S> posts waiting for replies I'd like to give, including more S> on our other threads which I may or may not get round to. S> Thankyou for the feedback on the sutta comments meanwhile;-). You're welcome, and thank you too. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37243 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Ken O. K> To each his own. Even if we will to write till the cow comes K> home, it will not a single difference to say these are K> reliable or not. Anyway most of the texts are written after K> a few centuries - so what is reliable - only one K> understanding and faith from the text we read. Only then we K> can say which reliable and that I leave you to your K> discretion. I always find it a tedious task to explain K> authenticity of text as I am not interest in dhamma as a K> historian or an intellect, I am a practitioner. So am I. Being a practitioner of the teaching is not incompatible with researching how it came down to us and how it became altered in the process of transmission. Indeed, given the Ani Sutta, it seems to me such an investigation would be of great benefit in sifting the gold from the ore. But as you say, each to his own. K> It difficult to accept abdhidhamma because there is little K> faith due to historical reason and not because of our open K> minded to try to understand its value. I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical reason'. Do you mean that the mere elapse of time causes acceptance of the Abhidhamma to decline? Or do you mean historical reasoning, critical historical research? K> My personal opinion, in fact, a lot of sutta cannot be K> translated into english without the help of Abdhidhamma K> because it was Abdhidhamma that explain the term in the K> concise manner not found in any other texts. Horses for the courses. If a translator aims to translate a Sutta according to how that Sutta was understood in 5th century Ceylon, then yes, he must certainly acquaint himself with the Abhidhamma system of the commentators. But if his aim is to translate it according to its likely meaning for the Buddha's audience then the commentarial Abhidhamma is not a reliable tool at all, and translations that treat it as reliable (e.g. those of the Burmese Sasana Pitaka Association) are going to be riddled with anachronisms. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37244 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:47am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. R> To be honest even without reading said article I doubt it R> would change my thinking. You said in another post that R> Buddhaghosa and the other commentators were, with regard to R> grammer, "completely reliable." "I seldom study a Sutta R> without having its commentary at my elbow. The MaCs were R> excellent grammarians and I rarely have reason to doubt the R> way that they unravel the syntax of a complex sentence or R> analyse the case relations in a compound word." It seems R> unlikely that over the past 2600 yeras of the sasana that R> the sangha were so blind as to not be able to tell when the R> Buddha was making a joke. Since Buddhaghosa and his merry men didn't see the joke even when the humour was as blatant as in the Kevadda and Potthapada Suttas, it is unremarkable that they failed to discern the more donnish humour of the Aganna. And once they had made up their minds that the Sutta was a literal account of anthropogenesis, subsequent generations of monks just towed the line. There was no motivation to read the Sutta as a brahmin-bashing work, since the brahmins were not lording it over everyone as they were in India. Having said that, I doubt that the literalist reading of the Aganna actually originates with the commentators. I think it is more likely to date from a time when rival religious groups were staging public debates to obtain royal patronage. All the others -- the Jains, the Ajivikas and the various brahminical schools -- had their own elaborate cosmologies and the Buddhists needed one too, if only to save face. They were up against Jains whose teacher saw the whole universe through his omniscience, and the brahmins whose rishis of yore had received divine revelations telling how the gods make the universe tick. To impress the rajas and get their hands on the lucre, Buddhists had to come up with something more than just a sagacious old man with a bad back who could do a good comic routine when the occasion demanded it. R> I did do a google search in case I could find it on-line and R> found an interview with Richard Gombrich R> http://www.ordinarymind.net/Interviews/interview_jan2003.htm R> Just as aside he says about Dependent origination that "A R> Polish lady called Joanna Jurewicz has finally understood R> it." I wonder if you have read the paper she wrote?. R> According to Theravada it is very deep and hard to R> comprehend. No, I have not read it. From an earlier post: R> One I have problems with is somewhere where either the R> Buddha or a commentary talked about Rahu and the moon eating R> the sun or something during an eclipse. There are two such Suttas. In one Rahu swallows the sun and in the other the moon. At the Buddha's command he then lets them go. Here's the one with the sun: Sutta on the Sun Deity's Plea for Protection On one occasion the Blessed One was living near Savatthi, at Jetavana, in the garden of Anathapindika. Now on that occasion the deva Suriya had been seized by Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras. Thereupon, calling to mind the Blessed One, Suriya on that occasion recited this stanza: Homage to thee, the Buddha, Thou art released in every way. I have fallen into bondage, Be thou a refuge for me. Thereupon the Blessed One addressed a stanza to Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras, on behalf of Suriya thus: "To the Tathagata, the Worthy One Has Suriya gone for refuge. O Rahu, let Suriya go! Buddhas have pity for the world. "While coursing through the sky Do not, O Rahu, swallow the effulgent one, The dispeller of darkness, The disk of radiant light in the gloom. Rahu, release Suriya, my son." Thereupon Rahu, a chieftain of the asuras, released the deva Suriya, and hurried into the presence of Vepacitta, another chieftain of the asuras, and stood beside him trembling with fear and with hair standing on end. Then Vepacitti addressed Rahu in this stanza: "Why O Rahu, did you hasten here? Why did you release Suriya? Why have you come here trembling? Why are you standing terrified?" Rahu: "My head would have split into seven pieces, While living I should have found no ease, If I had not freed Suriya When the Buddha recited that verse." _____________________________ What is presented in this Sutta is a motif common in Indian bhakti texts. It is a rare Indian religious hero who does not at some point in his career rescue the sun, or moon, or both from the jaws of Rahu. With this in mind I would take this Sutta as a poetic composition in this devotional genre by some disciple. Somewhere in the Anguttara Rahu is described as being the foremost in attabhaava. But his attabhaava, immense though it is, is no match for the released state of a Tathagata. That the Sutta came to be included in the Canon could perhaps be explained by its efficacy in lauding the act of going for refuge, in a way that would appeal to those of brahminical sensibility (though probably not to anybody else). And so it may have been admitted on the Uttara principle ("Whatsoever is well-spoken....") at a time when the sangha's conception of 'authorship' was far more fluid than it later became. This is not of course the orthodox view. In Buddhaghosa's commentary to this Sutta, what is described above is taken to be an actual historical event. Rahu, a demon of enormous size (Buddhaghosa thoughtfully gives us his precise measurements) swallows Suriya, just like in the Vedic story where Rahu regularly swallows the sun deity to get at his store of soma-nectar. In the Vedic story Rahu starts out riding through the heavens on a chariot pulled by seven black horses. But then he gets decapitated by Indra. His body dies but his head lives on after the decapitation. From that point on Rahu's head goes hurtling through space snapping at any planet that gets in the way, like one of those spherical Playstation monsters. It is not quite clear in the Comm. if Buddhaghosa thinks that the Sutta deals with the pre- or post-decapitated Rahu. This literal interpretation does seem a little problematic. It is well-known that Rahu was (and still is) the Indian way of talking about solar and lunar eclipses. So if the Sutta is relating an historical event, then either there was a normal eclipse and when it was over the Buddha took credit for it (making him a con artist); or else there are two kinds of eclipses -- one caused by the moon passing in front of the sun, and another kind where the sun really does get swallowed by a demon. Maybe the latter sort of eclipse only happens once every 10,000 years or something. And that's why we've never seen one since. And only Indians get to see them. I guess this might just about save Buddhaghosa's theory. But how one has to stretch to do it! And what a pity no one here wants to do anything similar for the Pali-speaking wolf-children. Not even the bright spark who once wrote: "When you and I read suttas, Y might seem to be saying X, but if the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries say it is Y, then Y it is." Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ EXECUTIONER: Now though youÕd have said that head was dead (For its owner dead was he), It stood on its neck, with a smile well-bred, And bowed three times to me! It was none of your impudent off-hand nods, But as humble as could be; For it clearly knew The deference due To a man of pedigree! And itÕs oh, I vow, This deathly bow Was a touching sight to see; Though trunkless, yet It couldnÕt forget The deference due to me! CHORUS. This naughty youth, He speaks the truth Whenever he finds it pays: And in this case It all took place Exactly as he says! (Sub-sub-commentary on the Suriya Sutta Gilberata and Sullivana Theras) 37245 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:50am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. R> If you mean the commentaries though that even past Buddhas R> used pali language - that they believed it was a base R> language -I think you are right. I think it must be that way R> and the suttas support this belief: R> R> The Digha nikaya says R> R> "ninety-one aeons ago the Lord, the Arahant, the fully R> enlightened Buddha Vipassi arose in the world. Thirty-one R> aeons ago, the Lord Buddha Sikhi arose; in the same R> thirty-first aeon before this Lord Buddha Vessabhu arose. R> And in this present fortunate aeon the Lord Buddhas R> Kakusandha, Konagamana, and Kassapa arose in the world. And, R> monks, in this present fortunate aeon I too have now arisen R> in the world as a fully enlightened Buddha. ..In the time of R> the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty- thousand R> years;"" We see that these past Buddhas - even 91 aeons ago- R> had Pali names What a silly argument. Robert, have you been taking lessons from Nagasena? The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and Ivan Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and "Ivan the Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were Englishmen, or English speakers, or that their real names were English. And if you feel tempted to reply.... "Oh, but it's not the same. Pyotr Veliki and Ivan Grozniy are the original titles of the Tsars, and their English forms were invented later. But the Pali names of past Buddhas in the Digha Nikaya were not invented later. They ARE their original forms. They are the actual names by which these Buddhas were known in their own lifetime." ... if you are tempted to reply in this vein, I suggest you first search Google for the 'circular fallacy'. For your conclusion would then be no more than a restatement of your premise. In the Digha Nikaya we do not see that the past Buddhas HAD Pali names. The Digha Nikaya refers to past Buddhas by Pali names because the Digha Nikaya is a Pali text. In Pali texts everyone gets a Pali name. If disciples of the Buddha belong to, say, the Ka"syapa-gotra or the Katyaayana-gotra (two of the brahmin clans), then the Pali texts will rename them Kassapa and Kaccaayana. Even people whose given names are not in the Indo-European language-group will be referred to by Pali names. Tamils, for example, have Dravidian names like Sarmily Neduncheziyan and Gajea Thalaivar, which don't fit into the Pali phonetic or morphological system. So in a text like the Mahavamsa either the meanings of their names will be translated into Pali, or else some phonetic approximation will be devised. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37246 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:53am Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. dig>> On the most plausible interpretation of the evidence, the dig>> Pali Milindapanha is a composite text. It consists of an dig>> older portion (parts II & III, and a small section of part dig>> I) and a later one (parts IV to VII and the legendary dig>> material in part I). The older portion can probably be dig>> trusted as an accurate account of how the Dhamma was dig>> understood by the 1st century Sarvastivadins of Kashmir. R> I don't know much about the sarvasativadins, are they still R> popular? Their Abhidharma is still popular in Mahayana countries, especially in the curricula of Tibetan monasteries. In India and Central Asia they were probably the most influential Buddhist school of all. Though perhaps not as numerically large as the personalist schools like the Sammitiyas, their influence on Buddhist thought was enormous and in one way or another they affected virtually every Buddhist school. I would guess about 90% of Indian Buddhist history is simply the history of the Sarvastivada -- how its teachings were attacked, defended, consolidated, and modified; how it generated off-shoots; which texts it borrowed and which it lent to other schools etc. etc. R> Do the tikas on the Milindapanha record how a sarvastivadin R> text become part of Theravada? No, of course not. It's just modern scholars who say such things, so you're safe. ;-) R> I am very pleased you honor Abhidhamma. I had a recent R> converation with a scholar from a western university who R> says the Abhidhamma wasn't even recited at the first R> council! As there is no reliable evidence that it was recited at the First Council the scholar's comment is unsurprising. My own respect for the Abhidhamma Pitaka has nothing to do with the Atthasalini's fairy tale about its origin, and everything to do with the fact that it has proven an aid to aloofness, contentment, calm and detachment. If anyone had tried to get me interested in the Abhidhamma by rehearsing Buddhaghosa's silly arguments proving that it was taught by the Buddha, I would probably have just used its seven books as a draught-excluder. I guess I'm just not a saddhacarita. dig>> The MaCs' contribution to the sciences clearly bears the dig>> stamp of its time and appears to be the product of dig>> speculation rather than observation, or else is just the dig>> reporting of received opinion and prejudice. Whether this dig>> has any serious consequences for what they have to say on dig>> the Dhamma is an interesting question. It seems to me that dig>> it does at least throw their conception of paramattha dig>> dhammas into a parlous state. Every paramattha dhamma, it is dig>> claimed, has a sabhava. And that sabhava is partly dig>> constituted by the dhamma's NAME. Not just any old name that dig>> people might care to give it, but its name in the dialect of dig>> Magadha, which is its true and absolute name. R> The name is only a useful designation - The Abhidhammattha R> Vibhavani calls realities (such as rupa and nama) vijjamana R> pannatti to distinguish between non real concepts such as R> human and dog (called avijjamana pannattis) But the words in R> both cases are designated pannatti -concept. As I said in my post to Sarah, I should prefer to delay a full discussion until the relevant texts are available. If I can upload the file I have made, you might take a look at passage 10 from the Vibhanga-mulatika, which, unless I am misunderstanding it, seems to indicate that (unlike the name of a concept) a dhamma is properly designated only when designated in the 'language of individual essence' (sabhaava-nirutti). The file is entitled mulabhasa.txt Could you also tell me the chapter number of your Abhidhammatthavibhavini reference? The only occurrence of vijjamaanapa~n~natti I have been able to find so far is dealing with questions of grammar, not Abhidhamma. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37247 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 10:04am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Connie, Paccekabuddhas do speak. They are not silent. They do not found up any sasana. This is the chief difference between Sammasambuddhas and Paccekabuddhas. Savakas maintain the sasana that is taught by a Sammasambuddha. Paccekabuddhas are not the disciples of Sammasambuddhas. So they do not need to maintain the sasana. But they penetrate themselves all dhammas like Sammasambuddhas without any teacher showing them up. At a time, in an era, in a sasana, there always is only one and a single Sammasambuddha. But Paccekabuddhas can be many. They can arise in the presence of Sammasambuddha. But they do not need any information from the Sammasambuddha to attain their Paccekabuddhaship. Paccekabuddhas can also arise when there is no sasana at all. When there is a Sammasambuddha, there is only one and a single sasana. This sasana is founded by The Sammasambuddha. By the same token, when there is no Sammasambuddhas, then there is no sasana at all even though there may be many Paccekabuddhas in the absence of Sammasambuddha. Once a lady was in a filed of sugar-cane. There was a Paccekabuddha flying in the sky. She asked to accept her offering of sugar-cane which were very sweet. The Paccekabuddha came down and accepted her offering and then the Paccekabuddha said, [ Paccekabuddhas do speak ] ''Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' Paccekkabuddhas are not silent. If this word is used readers may think in the other way. This might have a bad kamma and this may lead to rebirth with deaf and damb. Please do not stick to that word. Pacceka means 'individually' rather than 'solitary'. One of 6 Dhamma attributes is paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'ti. Here all those ariyas each realize nibbana individually. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: Hi Simon & Christine (& Sarah), I wonder if, when we say the paccekas can't or don't teach, we mean they don't have all the supreme qualities and capabilities of a sammasambuddha that make him/that role unique/supreme - not all the other conditions are in place for them to establish the sasana. I guess pacceka's another of those troublesome pali words: if we call them Silent, we might think they didn't speak at all; if we call them Solitary, we might forget things like one of the former Pajapati's serving 500 paccekas who hung out together. peace, connie 37248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing and thinking. Hello Phil This is very helpful. We understand now that the Abhidhamma helps us in giving details about different processes, and about the object of seeing, visible object, different from a concept or story. The Abhidhamma supports satipatthana and satipatthana again is a condition for equanimity in difficult situations. On account of what I see there is a lot of worry, long periods of thinking with worry. We know this in theory, but tend to forget it in the situation of daily life. Thank you, Nina. op 03-10-2004 13:20 schreef plnao op plnao@j...: > Now I am feeling more confident about the effectiveness of these moments > of mindfulness. We can't see something and be someone at the same time. A > moment of > seeing, for example, is a moment of liberation from self and its endless > stories that cause so much dukkha. 37249 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 0:23pm Subject: Rob M'sTheory Behind The Buddha's Smile ( 12 ) by Htoo Continue-: Page 56 is fine. Page 57 1. In the middle bullet, Rob M mentions about 'a doctor stethoscope'. It is not clear what that nimitta refers to. To goodness or badness. 2. Figure in the Page 57 is very good to demonstrate marana asanna javana and patisandhi citta and next life bhavanga cittas, including the first mano dvara vithi of lobha mula akusala citta javana. Page 58. 3. It is good to give some similes to different kamma Exercise is equated with upatthambhaka kamma. Smoking is equated with upapiilaka kamma. Accident is equated with upaghataka kamma. Page 59 and Page 60 are flawless in my view. May these criticisms be beneficial. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37250 From: connieparker Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Htoo, Thank you very much. I'd never thought about the paccekabuddhas not being part of the sasana. Please tell me what the paccekabuddha said to the woman in the field: ''Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. Icchitam patthitam tumsham, khippameva samijjhattu, sabbe purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' I guess it is something to do with all his aspirations having succeeded like the full moon on the 15th or a bright, shining jewel. Is that anywhere near close? peace, connie 37251 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Fear of death (Was Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble") Hello Howard, Nina, and all > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intrinsically trouble? > They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root > cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No craving, > no trouble!! Ph: I got "The Fear" last night, if you know what I mean. Mortal fear as I lay in bed. I turned on the lights and read Dhamma as though it were a pacifier. Dukkha as "fear" might be suitabe a lot of time. Even with the pleasant dhammas, because there is the underlying fear that the pleasant times won't last. I have so much craving, and therefore so much dukkha. So much fear and sadness related to disease, aging, dying. It is usually related to Naomi, my wife, who doesn't have refuge in Dhamma. Dhamma really does liberate us from a lot of fear. But I was reminded last night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying my fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old and dying - or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing. BTW, there is a tendency, still, to assume that I will get old before I die, and that because some of you are several decades older than me, that I will be grieving you rather than the other way around. I was reminded that this is not the case last week when a friend from work, in his late 20s, was found dead in a shallow river in Tokyo after a night of drinking. He drowned in 10 centimetres of water. I had a similar accident about 8 years ago, when I crashed my bicycle into a roadside canal (drunk), was knocked out and lay face down in the river but happened to land on a clump of earth and weeds that had formed an island in the river. Otherwise I would have died, a week after my wedding. It's a good thing I don't drink anymore, though I know well enough that I may again, due to conditions. Anyways, the point is that death can come at anytime. One of the Yahoo groups has file photos of the decomposing corpse of a monk to assist in cemetery contemplations. I have been to another web site (not Buddhist) where there are all kinds of gruesome photos of people killed in accidents, murders, suicide etc. Even the beheadings of the hostages in Iraq. Why did I go there? Why did I not feel distressed by what I saw? It is the nature of people to get old, get sick, die, naturally, or in accidents, or by the cruel hands of others. I've only been to that site twice, and I may or may not look at it again, but really it's not a bad reminder of a certain reality of human life. (All middle way, of course - wouldn't want to become devoted to cemetery contemplations.I also read -and write- lovely stories with happy endings.) I wonder if that sounds peculiar? The cittas of the people who run the site and post the pictures are unwholesome, but I didn't feel looking at the pictures was an unwholesome thing to do. It was related to better understanding the first Noble Truth, perhaps. Metta, Phil 37252 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Finding suttas ----- Original Message ----- From: "connieparker" To: "dsg" Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:23 AM Subject: [dsg] Finding suttas > > Kind of a p.s. here, Phil - > Should've said the Anguttara are relatively easy depending on which system > is used! Who'd think that A IV 58-59 and AN VII 48 are the same thing? > Have fun looking things up anyway! Hi Connie. See, I don't know about the above. Could you explain if you have a moment? Thanks in advance! Metta, Phil 37253 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 1:42pm Subject: Re: Fear of death (Was Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble") Hi, Phil (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/3/04 8:16:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > Hello Howard, Nina, and all > > > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intrinsically > trouble? > >They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the > root > >cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > >little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > craving, > >no trouble!! > > Ph: I got "The Fear" last night, if you know what I mean. Mortal fear as I > lay > in bed. I turned on the lights and read Dhamma as though it were a pacifier. > Dukkha as "fear" might be suitabe a lot of time. Even with the pleasant > dhammas, > because there is the underlying fear that the pleasant times won't last. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, fear is a form of aversion, adversion is a from of craving (for things to be otherwise), and craving is the root cause of dukkha. ---------------------------------------- > I have so much craving, and therefore so much dukkha. > --------------------------------------- Howard: We all do, Phil. It's good you can see it. -------------------------------------- So much fear and> > sadness related to > disease, aging, dying. It is usually related to Naomi, my wife, > who doesn't have refuge in Dhamma. > Dhamma really does liberate us from a lot of fear. But I was reminded > last > night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying > my > fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of > seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old > and dying - > or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: And developing the habit of letting be and letting go - after seeing - is good. ----------------------------------------------- > > BTW, there is a tendency, still, to assume that I will get old before I > die, and that > because some of you are several decades older than me, that I will be > grieving you > rather than the other way around. I was reminded that this is not the case > last week > when a friend from work, in his late 20s, was found dead in a shallow river > in Tokyo > after a night of drinking. He drowned in 10 centimetres of water. I had a > similar accident > about 8 years ago, when I crashed my bicycle into a roadside canal (drunk), > was knocked > out and lay face down in the river but happened to land on a clump of earth > and weeds that had formed > an island in the river. Otherwise I would have died, a week after my > wedding. -------------------------------------------- Howard: As the Buddha said, death is a certainty, and the time of death is unknown. ------------------------------------------- > It's a good thing I don't drink anymore, though I know well enough that I > may again, due to > conditions. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps. But the decision and intention not to is one of those conditions. I think that training precept is very useful. ---------------------------------------- Anyways, the point is that death can come at anytime.> > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep. ----------------------------------------- > One of the Yahoo groups has file photos of the decomposing corpse of a > monk to assist in > cemetery contemplations. I have been to another web site (not Buddhist) > where there are all kinds of gruesome > photos of people killed in accidents, murders, suicide etc. Even the > beheadings of the hostages in Iraq. > Why did I go there? Why did I not feel distressed by what I saw? > It is the nature of people to get old, get sick, die, naturally, or in > accidents, or by the cruel > hands of others. I've only been to that site twice, and I may or may not > look at it again, but > really it's not a bad reminder of a certain reality of human life. (All > middle way, of course - wouldn't > want to become devoted to cemetery contemplations.I also read -and write- > lovely stories with happy endings.) > I wonder if that sounds peculiar? The cittas of the people who run the > site and post the pictures are unwholesome, but > I didn't feel looking at the pictures was an unwholesome thing to do. It > was related to better understanding the first Noble > Truth, perhaps. > > Metta, > Phil > > ========================= 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) 37254 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hi Eric > > Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > this or that in order to reach the goal. > > > Then what is the impetus? Then what is > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If > it is not based on thought, then is it > based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' > is not eradicated until Arahantship then > what is the 'other factor' that manifests > this 'perfection' in the beginning stages > or the latter stages of development? Ph: Mind if I take a shot at answering this as well? Good practice for me. As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self involved in this. For example, I can aspire not to use rough speech, but we all know how futile it is to intend to speak gently. The words are out before you know it. But as panna is cultivated, and strengthens, and one becomes more mindful, we find ourselves speaking more mindfully whether we intended to or not. It is panna that is the impetus here, not our overt (is that the right word?) intention. We learn more and more about the cost of rough speech, the way it hurts us more than it hurts the other person. And that learning arises in panna. Now, as I've said to you before, I do think there is some value in overt(?) intentional activities, early on. For example, I would keep a diary, and keep track of "regrettable incidents" as I called them. And intend to do something about it. And maybe that fairly crude intention helped clear the ground that now seems to be planted with a subtler and more lasting and reliable tendency to wholesomeness. It just seems that more moments of these countless moments of intention (there is intention with every citta) are happening in the light of a beginner's right understanding of realities, of anatta. It's all very liberating. There is no need to steer intention in a wholesome direction, and even if I did conditions would knock the steering wheel loose again to swing around every which way. Instead, there is riding along mindfully and being aware of moments when right understanding/panna steers me in the right direction. And those moments condition more moments of right intention. I know that sounds like AA or something - turn the steering wheel over to JeeeZus! But it does apply in Dhamma as well. Turn the steering wheel over to panna. Metta, Phil p.s Thanks also for your feedback in the "world beyond" thread. I do pay too much attention to others' practices - but that's another area panna is helping. I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and thinking about it far less often. 37255 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 6:20pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - listening to Dhamma is the most valuable thing in life Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits3.html In the following exchange with K Sujin, "W" is Ms. Wandhana. S. : Do you know what is most valuable in your life? W. : I believe that for us Buddhists seeing or hearing the Dhamma of the Exalted One is the most valuable thing in life. Everybody surely desires to see the Buddha or hear the voice of the Buddha who speaks with a heart full of compassion. The Buddhas appearance and the sound of his voice were admired by countless Buddhists who had great confidence in him and gave him the highest honour. But we, at the present time, can acquire very little merit, because we have no opportunity to see the Buddha, to visit him, or to hear the exposition of the Dhamma directly from the Buddha himself. S. : We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sixes, Ch III, 10, Above all ) about six things which are valuable above all, namely: the seeing above all, the hearing above all, the gain above all, the training above all, the service above all and the ever minding above all [43. W. : These six things which are valuable above all must also concern the listening to the Dhamma. Therefore we will deal again presently with these six excellent things. 37256 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 6:34pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Connie, > > Paccekabuddhas do speak. They are not silent. They do not found up > any sasana. This is the chief difference between Sammasambuddhas and > Paccekabuddhas. > > Savakas maintain the sasana that is taught by a Sammasambuddha. > > Paccekabuddhas are not the disciples of Sammasambuddhas. So they do > not need to maintain the sasana. But they penetrate themselves all > dhammas like Sammasambuddhas without any teacher showing them up. > > At a time, in an era, in a sasana, there always is only one and a > single Sammasambuddha. > > But Paccekabuddhas can be many. They can arise in the presence of > Sammasambuddha. But they do not need any information from the > Sammasambuddha to attain their Paccekabuddhaship. > ++++++++++ Dear Htoo, Yes very good. Pacceka buddhas speak but they cannot give the detailed teaching that a sammasambuddha can. Their parami arre immense. RobertK p.s Htoo, I don't think Paccekabuddhas exist in the presence of a sammasambuddha. Robertk 37257 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 7:00pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Robert. > > R> If you mean the commentaries though that even past Buddhas > R> used pali language - that they believed it was a base > R> language -I think you are right. I think it must be that way > R> and the suttas support this belief: > R> > R> The Digha nikaya says > R> > R> "ninety-one aeons ago the Lord, the Arahant, the fully > R> enlightened Buddha Vipassi arose in the world. Thirty-one > R> aeons ago, the Lord Buddha Sikhi arose; in the same > R> thirty-first aeon before this Lord Buddha Vessabhu arose. > R> And in this present fortunate aeon the Lord Buddhas > R> Kakusandha, Konagamana, and Kassapa arose in the world. And, > R> monks, in this present fortunate aeon I too have now arisen > R> in the world as a fully enlightened Buddha. ..In the time of > R> the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty- thousand > R> years;"" We see that these past Buddhas - even 91 aeons ago- > R> had Pali names > > What a silly argument. Robert, have you been taking lessons from > Nagasena? > > The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and Ivan > Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and "Ivan the > Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were Englishmen, or > English speakers, or that their real names were English. > Dear Dighanaka, This is possible - but in the example above I see Ivan is still called Ivan (and I don't think Ivan was originally an English name). Also I am not sure what you suggest is the case in general. Why do we call Tojo (the Japanese prime-minister in WW II Tojo (his name in nihongo. What do think historians will call Saddam Hussein in the future? RobertK 37258 From: plnao Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 8:18pm Subject: poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hello all A cold rainy day, 2nd in a row. More rain to come for the next few days. For some reason the gas isn't working and I can't take a nice hot shower to warm up. Thoughts of death and disease arise quite often. My two most hectic days at work are coming up and it makes me feel tired just to think about it. En bref, feeling blue. And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you said that.) Metta can't be controlled, but experience tells me that this will be the case. And it makes me wonder about the Christian expression "poverty of spirits" (which if I recall is used in praise of humility and selflessness) and whether it doesn't have an equivalent in Dhamma. On days like this I am filled with far less self-confidence, less self-interest, in my own projects and plans. That aspect of self is weakened, diluted, and there is nothing to hinder the arising of metta. There is a truer and deeper connection to others when I'm feeling blue. Irritation is more likely to come when I'm feeling bright and energetic and other people don't live up to self's expectations of the way people should be. But on lousy feeling days we're all in the same boat and metta arises easily. Of course, not to say that I always have to feel lousy for metta to arise easily! Just an observation. Metta, Phil 37259 From: Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/3/04 11:22:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days > like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection > to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you > said that.) > =========================== No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. 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) 37260 From: dragonwriter3 Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Hi to All, A kind-hearted thankyou to everyone for the replies. They helped ease the mind a bit :) The question had been bugging me for a while. It's amazing to reflect that despite of samsara, mental afflictions and negative kamma Buddhas do arise and teach the Dhamma. Kinda like the Mud and Lotus thingy. With Metta Simon L. 37261 From: dighanakha Date: Sun Oct 3, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hello Robert. dig>> The fact that you and I might refer to Pyotr Velikiy and dig>> Ivan Grozniy by their English titles "Peter the Great" and dig>> "Ivan the Terrible" does not mean the Tsars themselves were dig>> Englishmen, or English speakers, or that their real names dig>> were English. R> This is possible - but in the example above I see Ivan is R> still called Ivan (and I don't think Ivan was originally an R> English name). I believe it comes from the Greek Ioannas. But I guess it might go further back to some Hebrew name (I'm thinking of John the Baptist, for example). Historically there was little consistency in how European countries referred to each others' kings. If a continental king was called Hans or Jean the English would change it to the English form John. But Ivan -- the Slavic form of John -- was allowed to remain Ivan. R> Also I am not sure what you suggest is the case in general. R> Why do we call Tojo (the Japanese prime-minister in WW II R> Tojo (his name in nihongo. Firstly because there is no reason not to: the pronunciation of Tojo should pose no problems for an English speaker (unlike 'Piotr', which does not conform to the regular English phonetic system). Secondly because of a change in international diplomatic etiquette in the late 19th century. As nations began to deal with each other on somewhat more equal terms than formerly, there was no one dominant power with a mandate to give foreigners any name it wanted. This change in diplomatic policy then spread into other areas, such as commerce, and finally into general usage. R> What do think historians will call Saddam Hussein in the R> future? There is no way of knowing. It will depend on which (if any) is the dominant culture, which is the dominant language, and whether the speakers of that dominant language prefer to import foreign names unaltered, phonetically alter them, or translate their meanings. In English all three of these have been done in the past with Semitic names: Abdul Wahhab -- imported without change Ali al-Husayn Ibn Sina -- latinized to Avicenna Moses ben Maimon -- hispanicized to Maimonides Abu l-Walid Muhammad bin Ahmad Ibn Rushd -- hispanicized (and shortened!) to Averroes Yeshu'a bar-Yoseph -- anglicized and translated to Jesus, son of Joseph Now I'm no prophet, but since you asked, I would expect that for the next half century he will be called "Saddam Hussein", pronounced with an American accent. A hundred years from now I expect he will be "Saddam Hussein" pronounced with a Chinese accent. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37262 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:30am Subject: Science/truth (4) Dighanaka Dear Dighanaka, I reply to your post about why you think we should look to academics, rather than the Theravada tradition, to find the truth about aspects of what the Buddha taught. Dighanaka "I should prefer to limit it to modern academic scholars with expertise in some field relating to indology or Buddhist studies. I would also limit it to their peer-reviewed publications on subjects that lie within their field of expertise, >>..... there are good reasons for preferring modern academic scholars to Indian Buddhist sectarian writers, *if* it is the truth that one wants. But if one is not at heart really interested in the truth, but only in finding faith-building material, then probably it would be best to avoid modern scholars like the plague.** ========== Your position is accepted in academic circles but it has its own problems. Consider your comments about the Aganna sutta: "Richard Gombrich has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the Sutta is a lively and ingenious parody , Buddhaghosa, unfortunately, saw neither the joke nor the allegory of the Aganna Sutta, took the whole thing literally, and left the Theravada tradition saddled with a creation story so laughable it makes the creationism of Christian fundamentalists seem like sound science."" Certainly an Oxford don like Richard Gombrich has impeccable academic credentials with numerous peer-reviewed publications in his field of pali studies. Nevertheless, there are other academics, well-versed in pali, and published in peer-reviewed journals who reach different conclusions from the esteemed professor. Dr. Rupert Gethin wrote an article in the prestigious 'History of Religion' journal (Vol.36, No.3,1997), http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha190.htm ""According to Gombrich the first half of the discourse introduces the problem of the relative status of brahmanas and suddas; this question is then dealt with in a tongue-in-cheek satirical manner by the Aganna myth. Gombrich regards the overall form of the Agganna- sutta as we have it as attributable to the Buddha himself and thus original. But for Gombrich the text is "primarily satirical and parodistic in intent," although in time the jokes were lost on its readers and the myth came to be misunderstood by Buddhist tradition "as being a more or less straight-faced account of how the universe, and in particular society, originated." ...Gombrich's arguments for the essential unity of the Agganna text as we have it are extremely persuasive, yet I would DISAGREE with the implication that we should regard the mythic portions of the Agganna-sutta as solely satirical. It....seems to me UNLIKELY that, for the original compiler (s) of and listeners to the discourse, the mythic portion of the sutta could have been intended to be understood or actually understood in its entirety as a joke at the expense of the poor old brahanas. . The question I would therefore ask is, Do we have any particular historical reasons for supposing that it is unlikely that the Buddha should have recounted a more or less straight-faced cosmogonic myth? My answer is that we do not. Indeed, I want to ARGUE THE OPPOSITE: what we can know of the cultural milieu in which the Buddha operated and in which the first Buddhist texts were composed suggests that someone such as the Buddha might very well have presented the kind of myth contained in the Agganna-sutta as something more than merely a piece of satire. Far from being out of key with what we can understand of early Buddhist thought from the rest of the Nikayas, the cosmogonic views offered by the Agganna-sutta in fact harmonize extremely well with it. I would go further and say that something along the lines of what is contained in the Agganna myth is actually REQUIRED by the logic of what is generally accepted as Nikaya Buddhism."""endquote from Gethin Note that Dr. Gethin is no strong believer in the sutta (in fact, he considers it a myth); he is not labouring under the weight of piety towards the Theravada like some members of Dsg. Yet, despite Gombrich showing 'beyond any reasonable doubt'(according to you) that the sutta is a parody Gethin reaches an opposite conclusion. Who is right? Well, another leading academic, Steve Collins, has said he agrees with Gombrich, so I guess the 'Aganna sutta is a hilarious joke' theory is now winning the academic battle.. Then again there is the thesis put forward by Schneider and Meisig that the Aganna sutta had some input from the Buddha but that later monks added on the bulk of the cosmological pieces; so is that the actual truth? Or will another scholar weigh in and support Gethin, or will a completely different theory emerge oneday? You also wrote ""And it is only from the commentators that we get the idea that the Buddha's Dhamma has to do with paramattha dhammas and citta-khanas. These terms are not found in the Tipitaka -- not even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The shadow of doubt cast by the commentators' judgments on women should reasonably be taken to cover what they say about other things"" I work from an opposite perspective to you. I believe that paramattha dhammas and citta-khanas gradually (very, very incrementally) become evident, and that, unlike Buddhist history, we can see that these are really true. It is in fact because the teaching of paramttha dhammas(which are taught in the suttas, where they are classfied as khandhas, ayatanas or dhatus and nibbana) is so real and true that generally I am accepting of other sections of the suttas and commentaries which cannot be proven . RobertK 37263 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:18am Subject: Some fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur/sugenius reflections for D.(1) 1) Dear Dighanakha, I'll give a few comments to several of your posts here - pls feel free to break them up into different threads. I'm afraid I don't have time to pull out texts before going away, not even the ones I had out before. "All Women" & Jatakas ================= As I've said, I read this to be talking about women in general, certainly not to ariyans and to be understood in the light of what we read from other Tipitaka texts too. 'Opportunity', 'secrecy' and 'suitable wooer'. You're most welcome to give me the pali and a little more translation of the words in the context of the Jataka and Milinda Qu with the ref. As I've said, I found the latter convincing and helpful as obviously did K.Milinda! Again, the anusaya are very 'deep' so I don't call it 'cheating' as you do but understanding how we're not really being tested at this moment. Sometimes you seem to be saying you accept the Jataka verses and other times, as with the Kunala verses, you say the opposite. I'm also not sure if you accept the verses *and* stories were recited at least at the Vesali Council or not, though it doesn't matter. Dialect of Magadha (i.e. Pali) =============== This is going to be a long thread and I'm happy to hang in for the long haul;-). by any other comments, I was referring to any other than your own which of course are interesting, like all your comments. Passing comments only for now - I know you'll let me know what you disagree with as colourfully as usual;-): We speak the language we're brought up in. Realities are represented in words and the meaning is understood by these words. We live at this time, not the Buddha's time and so we cannot know/understand many strange occurrences we read about and I don't consider them of any great importance. Rob and Jon have mentioned some. We read about strange and talking animals, about the Bodhisatta walking and talking on birth, great ages lived to and so much more. Now, we cannot imagine arahants with patisambhidas or what it's like for someone to hear a few brief words and fully understand the teachings. it depends on previous accumulations whether someone like Sariputta will hear and understand so very deeply. Even amongst those who had the patisambhida knowledges, such knowledge wasn't equal. The 'individual essence language' for many of us here is English. So when we hear the word 'feeling', because we've studied and considered and developed a little understanding, it has some meaning immediately. In addition, because we're both familiar with the word 'vedana', it also can condition some immediate intellectual right understanding at least , perhaps a little more than 'feeling' might. For someone else, the Thai or another language will be more likely to condition understanding. In other words, there's nothing special about Pali for those who haven't studied it and for these peope it is not an *essence* language at all or necessary for any development along the path. The texts and commentaries were written by and for those for whom Pali was an individual essence language, for those who spoke and read it. This does *not* mean that a sotapanna or other ariyans have to speak or learn it. In brief, without nirutti patisambhida (discriminative knowledge of language), we cannot really understand the deep meanings of words whether in English or Pali. When we hear 'fealing' or 'vedanaa', we only understand the meaning very superficially. But for those who really had this discriminative knowledge, the word would have immediately conditioned understanding. This is why the Buddha could teach Sariputta the Abhidhamma in brief and the latter could share it in detail with others like ourselves. The same for Kaccayana or the other great disciples who acted as commentators, elaborating on the teachings, even during the Buddha's life. So it always comes back to the understanding, not to the language as I see it. Only panna 'discriminates' and directly knows realities as they are. You mentioned that the 'Name' was of significance and that this must be in Magadha which is its 'true and absolute name'. I think this is a wrong understanding of the meaning. Who was taking a snipe at 'literalist' interpretations?;-). Another section was quoted recently on DSG from Qus of K.Milinda - 'The Problem of Inference' in Bk2. It starts off with the qu about 'How can you know that the Buddha ever lived?' We are shown that just as we know old kings lived by the evidence we can see today -- the crown, the slippers, the sword and so on, so by the teachings left behind, we can infer the Buddha lived. In the same way about Buddhaghosa's commentaries, by testing out and proving more and more of what is written to be correct, one infers that those aspects not fully comprehended are likely to be right and that yes, it's likely each time to be my 'ignorance that is blinding'. < to be contd> 37264 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:21am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Dear Htoo, Yes very good. Pacceka buddhas speak but they cannot give the detailed teaching that a sammasambuddha can. Their parami arre immense. RobertK p.s Htoo, I don't think Paccekabuddhas exist in the presence of a sammasambuddha. Robertk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Robert K, Thanks for your p.s. I would check it. With respect, Htoo Naing P.S: I was considering they can be on the same earth, in the same era. 37265 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:22am Subject: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd cont (2) Dighanakha Sutta ============== We cannot talk about wrong views without grasping. By their nature, wrong views always arise with lobha (attachment), just as right views always arise with panna. In the Brahmajala sutta we read about how the holders of all the 62 wrong views experience feelings, craving, clinging and so on. All are trapped in the net. It is the very nature of wrong view to think it's right and to condition clinging. An annihilationist may not cling much to life -- for example, someone about to commit suicide believes in a self, but believes it will be destroyed at death and that any painful feelings will cease by the act -- but it is a kind of dispassion conditioned by wrong view and clinging to that view. So Dighanakha in the sutta was pleased to hear the Buddha describe the view as being close to non-attachment, but then the Buddha 'adds the qualification', i.e then he rubbishes it. It reminds me of our DSG posters like Andrew T or Phil who kindly find some areas to be polite and then prepare for the 'kill'. Whether it is an annihilationist view (as depicted by the commentary) or an eel-wriggling view as Bodhi suggests, it is not commended and is based on a wrong view of self and lack of understanding of the elements to be known directly as you agreed. You also agreed with me that 'one employs the speech currently used in the world without adhering to it'. So an understanding of paramatha dhammas or elements doesn't reclude the use of conventional terms. Whether 'paramatha' is or is not used in the suttas, there are definitely other terms which depict the distinction between worldly and non-worldly or conventional and non-conventional use and understanding, wouldn't you agree? Yes, I agree that Dighanakha was not told to chase after "*language-based* physical and pyschical atoms called 'paramatha dhammas", but then I've never suggested that this;-). As Htoo has pointed out, it's a mere convenience to distinguish absolute from conventional dhammas. That's all. Yes, I also agree fully that 'vedanaa' was referred to because it happened to be the language shared by the Buddha and Dighanakha. As I said, I think your other comment about the meaning of the commentators on the 'sabhava of feeling' missed the mark. Like you said, it was the 'essence' language for those like the Buddha and Dighanakha. Clearly, with your familiarity with Pali, it would also have greater significance for you than for me or most others here, as well. The same applies to your other comment in this thread: **** S: ...paramattha dhammas or impermanent elements without self or core. D:'without self or core', but with a real and eternal name in the dialect of Magadha? ***** S: If you look through the entire archives you'll never find a post where I've even hinted at anything like this. The only purpose, as far as I'm concerned, in studying Pali is to understand realities. There's no point in just remembering sounds and meanings in Pali which will be forgotten at the end of this life. Obviously, if someone has good understanding of the teachings, it's very useful, but if not, people will just follow the wrong views they have already. Similar comments would apply to learning the details of the Abhidhamma or even Suttanta. Having said that, I'm delighted to have your Pali expertise and great familiarity of the texts to help us out here and as I've said, I appreciate your comments and very careful reflections.* "We know better than Buddhaghosa" =========================== You mentioned this in regard to science which you're discussing in another thread with Rob. Simply put, this is not the kind of knowledge that leads us along the path, whether it is conceptually right or wrong. In psychology too, the emphasis is very much on what can be tested and proved scientifically and yet the entire premise for such testing is on the basis of what can be proved to be inherited via genes vs what can be proved in this life to have been learnt. Anything prior to conception doesn't count because it cannot be tested. Jatakas and Lies ============ I only looked at a few Jatakas, but in each it was clear that it was the Bodhisatta. In the Kunala Jataka, when the Buddha says it was he that was Kunala, I read this to mean, it was he that was Kunala, the Bodhisatta. Again, we have to read this in the context of the other tales. My comment about the number of Jataka Tales (about 540) refers to comments I've seen about the number of lives of the Bodhisatta discussed, but I can't give a reference (?Intro to Jatakas). I see no reason to go out of our way to read an inconsistency of magnitude when Buddhaghosa and other great commentators and Theras did not. I can't say if my reading here is correct, but I'm confident that there is an answer which conforms with the other Jatakas and texts and this one seems likely for now. On the question of lies, you mention that you don't accept parts of the Atthasalini, commentary to the Vinaya and so on with regard to their reporting of the First Council. This opens up another whole can of worms we'll have to look into sometime. What I find generally amongst those other scholars and historians you look to for historical facts, is that they all are happy to select and quote from these same commentaries and accept as fact those parts which suit their cases or understanding. We're obviously talking about a major Mahavihara conspiracy, fully accepted by the followers too, if these texts are full of lies. ***** It's funny D, when I first went to Bodh Gaya exactly 30 years ago, almost to the month, it was the fact that nothing at all had to be believed or taken on faith that was so very appealing to me in the Dhamma. I'd always challenged and questioned any views and here, anything of value could be tested and checked and proved and this was so different from my studies of other religions, politics and science too. Of course, it was only a matter of time before I'd also start questioning the 'check and prove' meditation practices being taught under the guise of the Dhamma. Now here I am in middle-age, along with other highly-esteemed-by-me friends who question what they read and hear more keenly and persistently than any others I know, put in a fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur pigeon-hole;-). I appreciate these discussions, but I may not be able to respond further until I return from India. Please continue to encourage others to participate and perhaps I'll return with reinforced vigour;-). Metta, Sarah *(in the file you've added, would you kindly give simple references for the texts, so that it's easy to look up English translations for those we have. Also, pls put a 'z' at the front of the name as you'll see others have done for non-mod files. Thx). ====== 37266 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? Connie: Dear Htoo, Please tell me what the paccekabuddha said to the woman in the field: ''Icchitam patthitam..snip..purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. ..snip..purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' I guess it is something to do with all his aspirations having succeeded like the full moon on the 15th or a bright, shining jewel. Is that anywhere near close? peace, connie ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Connie, I know you are like a Pali scholar. In a list you always discuss Pali words. I saw you were good at Pali. Your interpretation above is right. 'Like a moon in its fullest day, like a bright, shining ruby, be fulfiled all your wishes.' With Metta, Htoo Naing 37267 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 2:55am Subject: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear All, As there have been a few references to Nagarjuna recently, I'd like to repost an earlier message which I wrote after reading the paper Larry gave the link for below. I hope it may be of some assistance. ***** L:> Here is a link for several Nagarjunian views. Read the first two > sections at least: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/madhyamaka.html <..> ..... S: I think the following points should be appreciated by those reading the Tipitaka (including Abhidhamma) and ancient Pali commentaries, especially if they are familiar with Nagarjuna and his writings: 1. In the Theravada commentaries and Abhidhamma, sabhava does not refer to self or 'independent or autonomous being'.* It refers to a particular or differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. Read in context, this is apparent. Howard gave these quotes from the Visuddhimagga on su~n~nattaa and anattaa: H:> (1) In XXI, 56, there is the following: Having discerned voidness in the six modes in this way , he discerns it again in eight modes, that is to say: 'Materiality has no core, is coreless, without core, as far as concerns (i) any core of permanence, or (ii) core of lastingness, or (iii) core of pleasure, or (iv)core of self, or as far as concerns (v) what is permanent, or (vi) what is lasting,or (vii) what is eternal, or (viii) what is not subject to change. Just as a reed has no core, is coreless, without core; just as a castor-oil plant, an udumbara (fig) tree, a setavaccha tree, a palibhaddaka tree, a lump of froth, a bubble on water, a mirage, a plantain trunk, a conjuring trick, has no core is coreless, without core, so too materiality etc.' (2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dharana) for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are impermanent in the sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful in the sense of [causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ... (Howard's caps). ***** 2. There is a clear distinction between concepts (pannatti) and realities (paramattha dhammas). In the Tipitaka, paramattha dhammas which can be directly known and which have characteristics are clearly differentiated from pannatti (concepts). Indeed this is the 'essence' of the Teachings,without which a path would not be possible.* ***** 3. The Buddha's teachings are not about transforming 'unskilful mental events into skilful mental events'. Many Theravada teachers say this, but it is contradictory to what we read in the Tipitaka. Either attachment arises or it doesn't. Attachment doesn't change to detachment.For example: MN18 (~Na.namoli/Bodhi transl)**: " Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness arises.....contact...feeling......perceives. What one perceives,that one thinks about. What one thinks about,that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past,future,and present forms cognizable through the eye." <...> "'Bhikkhus, as to the source through which perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man: if nothing is found there to delight in, welcome, and hold to, this is the end of the underlying tendency to lust,of the underlying tendency to aversion,... to views.....to doubt.......to conceit....to desire of being..... to ignorance.....' " ***** 4. An understanding of conditions is very important. Only realities (paramattha dhammas) are dependent on other factors. MN 18: "Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness arises............contact....feeling. What one feels, that one percieves.....' If we talk about trees and rocks now, they are concepts. However, the rupas which make up the tree or rocks depend on temperature and not the mind to rise and fall and so exist momentarily. This is regardless of whether the rupas are directly experienced at any given time. Concepts do not arise and fall. In suttas, such as SN 22.95, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, when the imagery of foam, bubbles, mirages, a plantain trunk and illusions are used, it is referring to the nature of realities, to the khandhas as empty of self, insubstantial and fleeting. These are usually grasped at and taken for being substantial and lasting. The imagery is not referring to concepts in the mind. ***** 5. Conditioned dhammas or realities do originate. 'Dependently originating entities' are not a ' mental creation'. Concepts, on the other hand, are not conditioned and there is no suggestion of them originating or being referred to in suttas on Dependent Origination. That which is conceived does not exist and does not originate. MN 18: " 'When there is the eye, a form,and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact........feeling...perception....thinking. When there is the manifestation of thinking, it is possible to point out the manifestation of being beset by perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation." The eye, form,consciousness, contact, feeling,perception and thinking do not have 'merely conceptual existence.' The objects of thinking -- the proliferations -- have 'merely conceptual existence', but are not dependently orginating. ***** 6. The ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) are cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. Nibbana is the only reality which does not depend on causes. It can also be said to have sabhava or its particular features. But it is also anatta with no 'true being' or self of any kind relating to it.* Udaana Comy, 392 (Masefield transl): " 'Wherein there is neither earth....nor both sun and moon', whereby there is elucidated the fact that that which is the unconditioned element, which has as its own nature (sabhava) that which is the antithesis of all conditioned things,such as earth and so forth....." Furthermore, it should be stressed that nibbana, "the ultra-profound, extremely hard to see, abstruse and subtle.....", is not samsara or insight in any aspect. It is the unconditioned dhamma directly realised by supramundane consciousness accompanied by the supramundane mental factors including samma ditthi (right understanding). By contrast, the conventional nature of things can only ever be the object of thinking, not of insight. ***** 7. As we know, in the Theravada teachings, bhavanga cittas (life continuum consciousness) arise and fall between sense and mind door processes. These are not a substratum and there is no substratum.* ***** 8. Finally and most importantly, if realties were really inaccessible to sati and panna, the Buddha would not have taught the Satipatthana sutta, the Madhupindika sutta and the rest. Realities have characteristics which can be directly known 'as they are'. This is the path which leads to the eradication of defilements and the realisation of nibbana. Conventions, it is true, cannot be known and merely hide true elements or paramattha dhammas when there is ignorance of the latter or concepts are taken for realities. Furthermore, when panna knows a reality, such as seeing consciousness, visible object or feeling, there is no 'negotiation between the known entity and the knower'. There is no 'knower' other than panna. The reason that it seems that 'the apprehension of these things is always from a particular vantage point' is because no distinction is made between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (conventional and ultimate truths). Without this knowledge, panna will not develop and ideas of emptiness will be thinking about concepts. Indeed this is the very reason the teachings are inspiring and a path is possible. MN18; "'Bhikkhus,as to the source through which perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man: if nothing is found there to delight in, welcome, and hold to, this is the end of the underlying tendency to lust,of the underlying tendency to aversion,... to views.....to doubt.......to conceit....to desire of being..... to ignorance.....' " Udana comy 395 : " 'Monks, if there were not' that unconditioned element having as its own nature that which is unborn and so on, 'there could not be made known', there could not be discovered,there could not be witnessed, 'here', in this world, 'the escape', allayment without remainder, 'for that which is conditioned' reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature (sabhava) being born and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle..." Comments very welcome! Metta, Sarah *see: sabhava, concepts and realities, concepts, bhavanga, nibbana, sunnatta, anatta etc under this link for more references: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts **Also see posts by RobM on this sutta: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m22375.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m21612.html =================================================== 37268 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:13am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.1, Contact (Phassa)contd] ***** Through the Abhidhamma we acquire a more precise knowledge of realities, but the knowledge should not stay at the level of theory. When we study the Abhidhamma we can be reminded to be aware of whatever reality appears at the present moment, and in this way the study will lead us to realize fully the aim of the Buddha's teachings: right understanding of realities. ..... Questions i How can we prove that there is contact? ii Through how many doors is there phassa? iii Is phassa nåma or rúpa? iv What is the difference between eye-contact and the eye-door? v Are 'mano-samphassa' (mind-contact) and the mind-door different from each other? vi Why is there not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open? vii What kind of object does phassa contact when there is bhavanga-citta? viii When a loud noise hurts our ears, through which doorway is it felt? What kind of object is experienced at that moment? Can other realities apart from sound be experienced through the ear-sense? ix Why is it useful to know that phassa contacts only one object? x Is a concept an object that phassa can contact? xi Why must there be phassa with every citta? ***** [Contact (Phassa) Finished:-)] Metta, Sarah ====== 37269 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:41am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 081 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 6 flexible ministers cetasikas or 6 particular mental factors, we have discussed about vitakka in the previous post. Vicara is a cetasika. Vicara is translated as sustained thought, sustained thinking, persistent thinking, persistent thought, persisting thought and so on. Characterwise, it is not a simple thought. I would prefer vicara to call as sustained application. Vitakka is initial application. And vicara is sustained application. These 2 cetasikas almost always arise together and vanish together with the only exception of 2nd jhana out of 5 jhanas. In the 2nd jhana, there is no vitakka but there is vicara. While vitakka pushes citta and its accompanying cetasikas to an object, vicara cetasika pulls them toward the object. Vicara is a cetasika and this flexible minister advises the king citta to review on the object. He advises the king citta to wander around the object. He advises the king and other associated ministers cetasikas to stay in the object and to sustain the object so that they all can view the object. Vitakka and vicara almost always work together. There are similes regarding the work of vitakka and vicara. I will put my own similes after the known similes. When a bell is tolled, it rings. Here, initial hit causing ringing is referred to as vitakka and continuing ringing or sustained ringing is referred to as vicara. When a resting bird flies up, it initially flaps and when in the sky it just glides or continues to fly away. The initial flapping is referred to as vitakka and continued or sustained flapping which is much more subtle than initial flapping is referred to as vicara. When a bee dives down to a flower, this act is referred to as vitakka and its continuing wandering around above the flower is referred to as vicara. Initial dive is forceful and a bit rough. But its sustained action wandering around above the folwer is subtle. I would add further similes here. When a boat is row, the initial rowing is like vitakka. It is hard, rough, forceful. When the boat is in move and further rowing with oar is not as had as the initial one. This sustained rowing or continuing rowing can be assumed as vicara. When a ball is put on a table, this reaching to the table is like vitakka. The ball has to be pushed on to the table. When it is on the table, it sustained its touch with the table not to depart from it but it wanders over the table and contines to touch with the surface of the table ( object or arammana ). When these two cetasikas that is vitakka and vicara arise together in a citta and taking the same object that the citta takes, vittaka is pushing citta and all other cetasikas including vicara toward the object. On the otherhand, vicara cetasika pulls the citta and all other cetasikas toward the object. This means vicara maintains the meeting of all nama dhamma at the same object. This maintainence is called sustained action. So sustained thought, sustained thinking, sustained application all have some overlapping meaning. But application here means vicara applies citta and other cetasikas to the object in a sustained manner. This is why I am saying that vicara pulls toward the object. Screw in the wall sustains the material that it holeds. This sustension makes continuing meeting of the material and the wall. Vicara works like this. While vitakka puts the mind on an object, vicara sustains the mind' stay on that object. This is the character of vicara. It has the power of reviewing. At a time there have been many many cittas happened. If these cittas have vitakka, there will also be vicara. Vicara in these cittas altogether may be referred to as mental review. 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. 37270 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:12am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Dear Sarah and Nina, Thanks Sarah for your message of Nina's questions. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions i How can we prove that there is contact? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: We know there is contact because consciousness knows the object because of contact. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ii Through how many doors is there phassa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: 6 doors. 1. cakkhusamphassa at eye door 2. sotasamphassa at ear door 3. ghanasamphassa at nose door 4. jivhasamphassa at tongue door 5. kayasamphassa at body door 6. manosamphassa at mind door Eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, mind-contact. Simple English is good. But I think some essential Pali words should be maintained even when teachings are talked in translated languages. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iii Is phassa nåma or rúpa? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Clearly, phassa or contact is nama. It is a cetasika. it does not have any of rupa character even though contact is sometimes compared with physical matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iv What is the difference between eye-contact and the eye-door? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Eye-contact or cakkhusamphassa is a nama dhamma and it is a cetasika. Eye-door on the other hand is a rupa and it is a pasada rupa called cakkuppasada. As it is the main portal of the message of the object, this rupa cakkhuppasada is referred to as door by The Buddha. So it is called cakkhu dvara or eye-door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- v Are `mano-samphassa' (mind-contact) and the mind-door different from each other? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Manosamphassa is a cetasika. Mind-door or manodvara is a citta. Both are nama dhamma. But they are different as one is a citta and another is a cetasika. Just before manodvaravajjana citta is bhavanguppaccheda citta and this bhavanga citta is referred to as mind door. A life starts with patisandhi citta and ends with cuti citta. In between are bhavanga citta. But whenever there have to arise vithi vithi cittas, that block of bhavanga citta is made a hole so that vithi cittas can take positions. That hole is door or dvara where vithi cittas enter the life. That hole or door or dvara is the last bhavanga citta just before manodvaracvajjana citta which is a citta of manodvara vithi cittas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vi Why is there not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Even though eyes are open, eye-consciousness or cakkhuvinnana cittas do not arise all the time. So there is not eye-contact every moment our eyes are open. When eyes are open, sotavinnana citta or ear-consciousness may arise at ear or other cittas arise at mind door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- vii What kind of object does phassa contact when there is bhavanga-citta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is the past object. That is the object of marana asanna javana cittas of the immediate past life just before cuti citta in that life ( may be bhavanga citta follows then cuti citta follows ). That object may be panca arammana or dhammarammana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- viii When a loud noise hurts our ears, through which doorway is it felt? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Kayadvara. Kayappasada. Bleeding from ear because of noice of explosion causes feeling at ear. If it is just a noice, ears just hear. Sotapasada works so that sotavinnana citta arises and feeling upekkha vedana or indifferent feeling. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What kind of object is experienced at that moment? Can other realities apart from sound be experienced through the ear-sense? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sound or saddarammana. No saddarammana is the only sense that is experienced through the ear-sense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ix Why is it useful to know that phassa contacts only one object? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because citta takes only one object. Citta cannot take 2 objects at the same moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- x Is a concept an object that phassa can contact? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I believe so. Concept or panatti can serve as an object. When the citta takes that object, phassa has to arise even though (concept) it is not a reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- xi Why must there be phassa with every citta? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because without phassa, citta cannot meet the object. Phassa is introducer. It introduces citta with the object, other cetasikas with the object. Without phassa, this function will not be there and even citta cannot arise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** [Contact (Phassa) Finished:-)] Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thank you. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37271 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Hi, Sarah and Dighanakha - In a message dated 10/4/04 5:23:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > On the question of lies, you mention that you don’t accept parts of the > Atthasalini, commentary to the Vinaya and so on with regard to their > reporting of the First Council. This opens up another whole can of worms > we’ll have to look into sometime. What I find generally amongst those > other scholars and historians you look to for historical facts, is that > they all are happy to select and quote from these same commentaries and > accept as fact those parts which suit their cases or understanding. We’re > obviously talking about a major Mahavihara conspiracy, fully accepted by > the followers too, if these texts are full of lies. > =========================== Why must it be a choice between conspiratorial lying on the one hand, and perfect correctness of position on the other? Analogically, were the positions adopted by modern science on "the ether" and on "gravitational pull" (instead of accelerational force in curved spacetime) conspiratorial lies? Those older positions, it seems rather clear, were at the least incomplete and inadequate predictive descriptions/models. Ultimately, they were erroneous - as may also be the current models. But they were not conspiratorial lies either. Why could not those positions be a matter of "taking their best shot" at the time? As regards the commentaries, the original producers of them, while possibly arahants, were not Buddhas, and there is no reason to impute omniscience to them. For that matter, the attributing of omniscience to the Buddha is neither an essential aspect of the Dhamma nor an essential belief for a practitioner of the Dhamma. Perhaps it is so that a Buddha can know all conventional truths by means of a mere turn of the mind. But is it not also reasonable, especially from an Abhidhammic position, to understand the omniscience of a Buddha as his ability to know perfectly the tripartite nature of "the all", to be able to see, directly and perfectly, that all elements of all the aggregates are impermanent, flawed (dukkha), and not-self (i.e., impersonal, dependent/coreless, uncontrollable, and insubstantial)? 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) 37272 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:05am Subject: Re: Finding suttas Good morning, Phil, The best I can do by way of explaining sutta reference numbers is send you to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/abbrev.html . I guess you've noticed that the names change depending on the translator, too, but if you find one you're looking for on ATI, John does list the PTS reference in brackets in case that's useful. Thanks for the laugh, too: "I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and thinking about it far less often." I keep forgetting that I'm still officially a member (and have said I will be until they kick me out/excommunicate me). peace, connie 37273 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:08am Subject: Causality & Impermanance - transcript of TV program According to the Dharma, there is no first (primordial) cause that explains the nature and origin of existence, or the genesis of beings who inhabit this universe (as is held to be true in the Judaic-Christian-Islamic traditions). Instead, in Buddhism the integrated laws of causality and impermanence explain ontology without recourse to a creator deity . First, we will explore causality and then we will move onto impermanence. The Buddha¡¦s teaching on the law of causality (i.e., the law of cause and effect) is rooted in our everyday life experience of objects, events and time. The sole purpose of the teachings on the law of causality is to diminish grasping, and thereby help us become completely un-entangled from suffering. The Dharma of causality is an entirely pragmatic concern, and, unlike western explanations of causality, is not rooted in a metaphysical context ¡V in an a priori underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity ¡V an imaginary transcendental substrata outside the natural context of everyday experience and therefore divorced from any conceivable application that eliminates suffering. We typically think of causes and effects as distinctly different things ¡V as if they can be organized cleanly into their own mutually exclusive groups and categories ¡V the causes go in this box and the effects go into the other box. However, it is important to recognize that causes and effects do not exist independently of each other. Clearly, there are relationships between causes and effects. The question is in what way do they relate? Causes depend upon their effects in order to be causes, and effects likewise depend on their causes in order to be effects. Another way of expressing this is to state that where there is a cause there must be an effect, and where there is an effect, there must be a cause. It would be meaningless to conceive of cause and effect in any other way. The way in which causes and effects relate is best described as a reciprocal dependence. This is just the quality of way they are. This way that cause and effect just are is known by the Buddhist term ¡§suchness¡¨ (tathata in Sanskrit). As regards the reciprocal dependence between causes and effects, there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating causes and effects. The correlation of cause and effect is non-dual ¡V the apparent cause and effect duality is merely projected by the observer of the phenomena and is not intrinsic to the observed phenomena. Cause and effect are simply one phenomena viewed from two perspectives: one person¡¦s effect is another person¡¦s cause and one person¡¦s cause is another person¡¦s effect. It follows, therefore, that cause and effect are not mutually exclusive (in either an absolute or a conventional respect). Now that we have covered the ideas of cause and effect, let us move onto objects and events. The existence of an object or event is not due to a single cause, nor are they causeless. All phenomena (dhamma in Pali & dharma in Sanskrit) come into existence, and function, through innumerable reciprocal causes, conditions and their enduring effects. It is shortsighted to think in terms of a specific object or event arising in dependence upon a multiplicity of causes, conditions and effects. Instead, it is more accurate to imagine a network of innumerable objects and events relying upon innumerable causes, conditions and effects, and producing innumerable effects ¡V a network permeated by mutually reciprocal dependencies. Before going any further, let us tackle the term innumerable. The use of the term ¡§innumerable¡¨ in Buddhist discourses and commentaries points out the fact that we lack the necessary empirical means to be mindful of, and to establish clear comprehension of, all relevant facts. In this specific case, the fact is the collection of all the causes, conditions and effects an object or event is dependent upon, and the reciprocal manner of their relationships. Moreover, use of the term innumerable in this context directs us to: ƒæ Start with whatever causes one can discover that contribute to the object or event that has arisen in the present moment, and ƒæ Reflect upon our intentions so that the effects of our actions are not thoughtless, insensitive, shortsighted, reckless, or impulsive. According to the law of causality, these innumerable causes and effects are beginningless. To understand what Buddhism means by the term ¡§beginningless¡¨, we need to explore the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ and our three ideas of time, i.e., past, present, and future. For the idea of a present moment ¡V a ¡§now¡¨ - to be meaningful there must exist two other ideas of time, i.e., past and future. How could the idea of ¡§now¡¨ mean anything whatsoever if the other two ideas of time did not exist or, worse still, are not valid ideas? Each of the three ideas of time (past, present, future) required both of the other two ideas of time in order to be valid and meaningful. Each ¡§now¡¨ must have a ¡§past¡¨ and a ¡§future.¡¨ In addition, for a ¡§past¡¨ to exist, each ¡§now¡¨ must be an end of a ¡§past.¡¨ Agreed? Now let us dig into the idea of ¡§beginning.¡¨ For a beginning to occur it must do so in a present moment - a ¡§now¡¨ must exist within which the beginning occurs ¡V there must be a now that is the beginning. However, how could a now ever conceivably be a beginning when every now is the end of a past? In order for our three ideas of time to be valid, every beginning must originate from a preceding moment ¡V every beginning must have a beginning itself. Therefore, either the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless, or our three ideas of time are invalid and meaningless! Buddhism takes the position that our ideas of time are valid and meaningful, and the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless. Hence, the use of the terms ¡§beginningless¡¨ and ¡§beginninglessness¡¨ in Buddhist discourses and commentaries to indicate that the idea ¡§beginning¡¨ is invalid and meaningless. Just as all causes and all effects exist in dependence upon one another, likewise all phenomena are mutually dependent as well. How could it be otherwise (given the fact that all phenomena come into existence through a correlation of causes and their effects, and the causes and their effects themselves are mutually dependent)? Therefore, no phenomena exist as an independent isolate. Just as there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating cause and effect, phenomena is likewise devoid of an underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity. How could it be otherwise (given the fact that all phenomena come into existence through a correlation of causes and their effects, and there is no underlying nature, substance, essence, or entity relating causes and effects)? Therefore, each phenomenon is devoid of an intrinsic nature. According to the Dharma, there are three types of phenomena: mental phenomena, physical phenomena, and time. Mental phenomena (citta in Pali) and physical phenomena (rupa in Pali) are distinctly different types of phenomena, as is time. Physical phenomena consist of such aspects as shape, color, sound, odor, taste, and tangibility ¡V physical phenomena have both spatial and temporal extensions. Mental phenomena are devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste, and tangibility and cannot be measured in any physical terms (i.e., mental phenomena is formless), yet mental phenomena exists ¡V mental phenomena has temporal extensions - and mental phenomena manifests certain abilities as well. Mental phenomena is distinctly different from physical phenomena in that mental phenomena has the capacity to experience some thing ¡V mental phenomena has the ability to know of (it cognizes) some object or event. To the contrary, physical phenomena are not able to experience, to feel or sense, anything. However, mental phenomena and physical phenomena depend upon each other. Mental phenomena need physical phenomena in order to occur and physical phenomena need mental phenomena in order to occur. In that both mental and physical phenomena condition each other, they are both conditioned by time as well. Time is devoid of those aspects of physical phenomena as well as those aspects of mental phenomena, and so belongs in a separate category. In time, as conditioned phenomena, mental and physical phenomena arise because of causes, are present in a given moment due to conditions, they persist for a limited duration, produce effects, changing continuously and inevitably cease due to impermanence Now let us consider this network of causality through time. The potential of innumerable causes, conditions and effects, originating in the past, directly affects the genesis of phenomena arising in the present moment. Through the causal potency of arisen phenomena, the future genesis of phenomena is affected and conditioned as they arise into future moments. In this manner, all phenomena are conditional ¡V the causes they depend upon, and the effects they produce, condition all phenomena and their functioning ¡V those in the past, those in the present and those that will happen in the future. When we explore existence and begin to appreciate its immensely interesting state of affairs, we can be quickly overwhelmed. In response to this feeling, we tend to re-act by grasping onto the idea that there is a fixed order to existence. However, it cannot be proven that phenomena exist in a fixed order. A fixed order to existence would require a strict determinism and would necessitate that phenomena is static and permanent. While there is a ¡§semblance of order¡¨ to existing phenomena, existence is most certainly not constrained to a fixed order. For if, there were a fixed order to existence, then it would be impossible for phenomena to change, and realization of enlightened existence would be an impossible goal as well. Nor can it be proven that phenomena are governed by chaotic indeterminism in that both the law of karma and the law of dependent origination ensure conformity and continuity. So far, we have shown how all phenomena are mutually dependent and are devoid of an underlying nature; now let us take up the law of impermanence. We know from our everyday life experience that things come into existence and then later cease to exist. We naively think that it is only through the effects of some other object or event that a given object ceases to exist. The law of impermanence states that this is not the only case. We prefer to imagine that an object or event comes into existence, remains in an unchanging state for a period of time, and then ceases to exist. According to the law of impermanence, things are changing continuously, moment by moment - this change is an on-going process. It is because phenomena are impermanent that they continually, moment by moment, undergo a process of change. The mere fact that an object comes into existence makes it possible for that object to cease (or the object¡¦s mere existence makes it necessary that the object cease). Every object is going through the process of cessation moment by moment. According to the integrated laws of causality and impermanence, the nature and origin of existence, and the genesis of beings that inhabit this universe, can be summed up in this single line: ƒæ All phenomena arise dependent upon causes and conditions, manifest effects, and cease due to impermanence. 37274 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hey Phil, Thanks for the reply. Releasing the tiller. Yes, I get it. But this does not jive with much of the suttas in regards to wholesome or unwholesome development. I see the angle Nina has come in on and I quite agree on it with regards to the latter stages of development but in regards to the 'perfections', chanda is very much at the forefront. PEACE E Nothing new below. > > > > Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > > this or that in order to reach the goal. > > > > > > Then what is the impetus? Then what is > > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? If > > it is not based on thought, then is it > > based on a feeling? If the conceit 'I am' > > is not eradicated until Arahantship then > > what is the 'other factor' that manifests > > this 'perfection' in the beginning stages > > or the latter stages of development? > > Ph: Mind if I take a shot at answering this as well? Good practice > for me. > As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of > wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) > and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is > intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions > more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self > involved in this. > > For example, I can aspire not to use rough speech, but we all > know how futile it is to intend to speak gently. The words are out > before you know it. But as panna is cultivated, and strengthens, > and one becomes more mindful, we find ourselves speaking more > mindfully whether we intended to or not. It is panna that is the > impetus here, not our overt (is that the right word?) intention. > We learn more and more about > the cost of rough speech, the way it hurts us more than it hurts the > other person. And that learning arises in panna. > Now, as I've said to you before, I do think there is some value in > overt(?) > intentional activities, early on. For example, I would keep a diary, and > keep > track of "regrettable incidents" as I called them. And intend to do > something about it. And maybe that fairly crude intention helped clear > the ground that now seems to be planted with a subtler > and more lasting and reliable tendency to wholesomeness. > It just seems that more moments of these countless moments of intention > (there is intention with every citta) are happening in > the light of a beginner's right understanding of realities, of anatta. It's > all > very liberating. There is no need to steer intention in a wholesome > direction, > and even if I did conditions would knock the steering wheel loose again to > swing around every which way. Instead, there is riding along mindfully and > being aware of moments when right understanding/panna steers me in the > right direction. And those moments condition more moments of right > intention. > > I know that sounds like AA or something - turn the steering wheel over to > JeeeZus! But it does apply in Dhamma as well. Turn the steering wheel over > to > panna. > > Metta, > Phil > p.s Thanks also for your feedback in the "world beyond" thread. I do pay > too much attention to others' practices - but that's another area panna is > helping. > I didn't vow to stop bitching about Soka Gakkai. But I am doing it and > thinking about > it far less often. 37275 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 8:26am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear All, > As there have been a few references to Nagarjuna recently, I'd like to repost an earlier message which I wrote after reading the paper Larry gave the link for below. I hope it may be of some assistance. > ***** Thanks Sarah for introducing this thread. The importancy of the relation Abhidhamma -Nagurjuna is in how far the Message of the Buddha changed in the texts the centuries after his Parinibbana and that of the theory of the two realities. For that reason it's relevant to look at the work of the (Sri Lankan born) buddhology scholar David Kalupahana. He not only translated the Madhyamakakarika of Nagarjuna, het also wrote many books about early buddhism. One of his statements, with arguments, is that Nagarjuna was not a Mahayanist. His book 'A history of buddhist philosophy; continuities and discontinuities' (UHP, 1992) has chapters about Abhidhamma (XIV) and Nagarjuna (XVI) that has to do with the theme Sarah proposed in this DSG. I quote parts of it. Because Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga is used so many times in this DSG, I will quote some relevant parts of Kalupahana's ChapterXXI about him too. "The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or reductionist perspectives. No one reading the excessive long debate in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). Abononing the search for such ultimate realities, it becomes possible to explain the content of the Abhidhamma in terms of the two principle teachings of the Buddha, namely, non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) If the intention of the discourses in analyzing the human personality into five aggregates was merely to indicate the absence of a metaphysical agent (anatta) and not the irreducible elements called 'ultimate realities', there seems to be no justification for the various psychological and physical items listed in the canonical Abhidhamma texts (…) to be considered ultimate realities. …. The different lists in the two major Abhidhamma traditions, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha, would indicate that they do not contain ultimate realities. The compilers of the Abhidhamma texts simply picked what they thought were the significant elements; hence the difference between the two traditions. What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) … "Chapters III to XV of the Karika are intented to establish the non- substantiality of elements (dharma) but not, as is generally believed, to eliminate the conception of elements altogether. … Categories discussed are as follows: 1 Faculties (indriya) 2 Aggregates (skandha) 3 Elements (dhatu) … 13 Self-nature (svabhava) … Nagarjuna's concluding statement after analyzing 'elements' (dhatu) should serve as a corrective not only to the rather trancendentalist interpretation offered by Candrakirti but also to that of the substantialist, whose conception of objectivity calls for an annihilation of the human perspective: 'Those who are of little intelligence, who perceive the existence as well as the non-existence of existents, do not perceive the appeasement of the object, the auspicious'. What Nagarjuna is recommending is the appeasement of the conception of the object, neither its elevation to an ultimate reality nor its annihilation. It is not the elimination of any and every conception of it. Here he was faithfully following the footsteps of the Buddha. This, after performing a careful and delicate surgery in relation to all thirteen categories, Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 163/164) … "There seems no doubt that the Vusuddhimagga and the commentaries are a testimony to the abilities of a great harmonizer who blended old and new ideas without arousing suspicion in the minds of those who were scrutinizing his work. One prominent example shows how Buddhaghosa achieved his goal. In the commentary on the Dhammasangani, Buddhaghosa makes a very important remark regarding the theory of moments …The theory … was found neither in the discourses nor in the commentaries preserved at the Mahavihara …Yet this momentary telepathic insight apperas as a extremely important theory in his Visuddhimagga. Furthermore, Buddhaghosa utilized the theory of moments rather profusely in this and other works, especially in his explanation of the functioning of the mind and of the experience of material phenomena." (page 207/208). I hope this is useful in our discussions Metta Joop 37276 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - thanks Dear Robert K, Thank you for the encouragement and good wishes, Nina. op 03-10-2004 13:01 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Give my regards to Lodewijk and enjoy the pilgrimage. > Someone on another list asked me to send your their thanks. 37277 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard and Phil, op 03-10-2004 14:07 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ========================= > Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? > They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the root > cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > craving, > no trouble!! N: Howard, I read the sutta you refer to. It makes us see the benefit of developing vipassana so that we shall eventually reach the end of craving. But I cannot tell myself not to cling to Lodewijk, that would be unrealistic and insincere. What really helps is seeing one's own wrong view for a moment: our confusion as to seeing visible object and thinking sad stories on account of what we see. Seeing one's wrong view, that is a moment of right understanding. Some rare and brief moments of beginning to understand what seeing is, as different from thinking, that gives me confidence in satipatthana as the only way leading out from dukkha. Wrong view of self has to go first, and only after that other defilements can be eradicated. You and others use the expression let go, or relinguish. This implies detachment? But only pañña can detach, that is its function. By understanding phenomena as impersonal elements there can be detachment from the idea of self. A long process. What is Cha'n and choiceless awareness? But perhaps this subject is more suitable after your retreat in Nov. which I hope will be fruitful to you. Phil, I was impressed by your story, it is so amazing how kamma works. It was not yet your time to go. You were almost drowning. And now, eight years later, you are helping others, me included, not to get drwoned in the ocean of concepts. This happens to all of us from time to time, and then it is good to have Dhamma friends who can help us and remind us of the truth. Phil wrote:< But I was reminded last night, and by Nina and Mike's encouraging posts, that rather than pacifying my fear by reading about Dhamma, I should continue to value the moments of seeing, hearing etc. There is no melodramatic story about Phil getting old and dying or dying young of disease or accident -when there is a moment of seeing.> Yes, dhammas of daily life bring us back to reality, away from phantasies. We may be thinking and thinking about death, but that is only thinking. This will not change anything. Kh Sujin said that dying is only one moment, why should we fear? NIna. 37278 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections - "no need to think I have to develop determination" Hi Eric, op 03-10-2004 17:49 schreef ericlonline op ericlonline@y...: Nina > There is no need to think now I shall develop this or that > perfection. A. Sujin stressed this many times. It is not a matter of > thinking, then there is an idea of self again who shall try to do > this or that in order to reach the goal. E: Then what is the impetus? Then what is > Right Intention or Right Aspiration? N: As Phil explained: < As panna is cultivated, it comes to see the benefits of wholesome actions (or speech, or thought etc) and the costs of unwholesome ones. There is intention happening all the time, with every citta - panna conditions more of these moments of intention to be wholesome. There needn't be self involved in this.> N: What I said above was merely a reminder that the idea of self makes us think wrongly about the development of the perfections. The impetus: we read about them, consider them. As Phil stresses, it is understanding that sees the benefit of kusala. When kusala citta with pañña arises, it is accompanied by right energy, wholesome energy. We see the benefit of the development of the eightfold Path, but there are not many conditions for right mindfulness and right understanding. This is because of our defilements. We are sick, and we need medicine and vitamins to keep us going on this long, long journey. We need all the perfections of dana, sila, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, metta, and equanimity. The goal is to weaken defilements. When we have generosity, dana is not always a perfection. It is not if we wish for some personal gain, such as a happy rebirth. We need truthfulness and sincerity: our goal should be having less defilements. All the perfections are connected with each other. We need energy when giving, we need equanimity, when the receiver does not respond kindly. It is all very daily. We read in B.B.'s translation of the perfections (Co. Cariyapitaka): Thus pañña sees the benefit and the need for all the perfections, and sati does not waste the opportunities to develop them as the occasion arises. Nina. 37279 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina (and Phil) - In a message dated 10/4/04 1:35:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard and Phil, > op 03-10-2004 14:07 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >========================= > >Getting old and dying *is* trouble. The Buddha actually said that! > >But *why* are they trouble? Are aging and dying intinsically trouble? > >They are trouble because of craving, aversion, and clinging. Tanha is the > root > >cause of trouble: the second noble truth. The Buddha said that as well. A > >little craving, a little trouble. A lot of craving, a lot of trouble. No > >craving, > >no trouble!! > N: Howard, I read the sutta you refer to. It makes us see the benefit of > developing vipassana so that we shall eventually reach the end of craving. > But I cannot tell myself not to cling to Lodewijk, that would be unrealistic > and insincere. What really helps is seeing one's own wrong view for a > moment: our confusion as to seeing visible object and thinking sad stories > on account of what we see. Seeing one's wrong view, that is a moment of > right understanding. Some rare and brief moments of beginning to understand > > what seeing is, as different from thinking, that gives me confidence in > satipatthana as the only way leading out from dukkha. > Wrong view of self has to go first, and only after that other defilements > can be eradicated. > You and others use the expression let go, or relinguish. This implies > detachment? But only pañña can detach, that is its function. By > understanding phenomena as impersonal elements there can be detachment from > the idea of self. A long process. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. --------------------------------------------------- > What is Cha'n and choiceless awareness? But perhaps this subject is more > suitable after your retreat in Nov. which I hope will be fruitful to you. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps these can be discussed another time. BTW, the November retreat is off. The time was rescheduled, and I can no longer make it. (I'm not all that disappointed. I'm fairly regularly getting two one-hour meditation sessions each day, which is not bad. At some point I hope to go to a retreat at the wat that I visited previously to attend an ordination, but until then, I'll just continue on my own.) ======================== 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) 37280 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:07pm Subject: Re: "The same" in Buddhism Hi Dighanakha, Thank you very much for this information. The Gilbert and Sullivan stuff was hilarious :-) Nothing additional below. Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > Hello Herman > > H> I have been doing some study on the concept of sameness in > H> Buddhism and have only found it expressed in a negative form > H> ie not other (anna - ananna). Are there any other terms that > H> are used for sameness/otherness? What is the Pali term used > H> where the question is asked if it is the same being (I think > H> it was) that is born as the one that dies? > > There are several adjectives that mean 'same', but in the sense > that you are asking about the common way of indicating sameness > is to add 'eva' (often shortened to 'va'). This is an > intensifier, like the English word 'very' in "You're the very man > I'm looking for!" > > The word ana~n~na.m ('not another') may also be added to drive > the point home. > > And so the foolish monk Saati says: > > Tathaaha.m Bhagavataa dhamma.m desita.m aajaanaami: yathaa > tadevida.m vi~n~naa.ma.m sandhaavati sa.msarati ana~n~na.m > > "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this > very consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of > rebirth, not another." > > (tadevida.m = ta.m + eva + ida.m) > > _____________________________ > > And in the Sarvastivadin section of the Milindapa~nhaa: > > Raajaa aaha: bhante Naagasena, yo uppajjati, so eva so, udaahu > a~n~no ti? > Thero aaha: na ca so, na ca a~n~no ti. > > The king said: "Venerable Nagasena, is he who is reborn the same, > or is he another?" > The elder answered: "He is neither the same, nor another" > > More literally: > > "he who arises, [is it] that very he, or another?" > "[it is] not he and not another." > > > Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker > _____________________________ > The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this > persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is > close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to > non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. > (Dighanakha Sutta) 37281 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi Howard, and all > No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that > karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is > not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are > not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, > whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. OK, thanks for the clarification. I hesitate (probably too much) to think in terms of "called for" because it makes it sound as though metta and karuna are remedies we pull out of the bag. They arise beyond our control in a conditioned way, I think. And that seems to be my experience these days. The way I feel about the brahma-viharas (these days - my understanding is nascent) is that it all starts with the arising of equanimity, which is conditioned by whatever degree of understanding of the four noble truths we're able to maintain. Therefore, metta always inevitably arises with karuna for me, because of that sense of being in the same boat. I think that's good - otherwise there is such an easy tendency to imagine self feeling friendliness for the other. An understanding of dukkha based on the first and second noble truths and of anatta - even intellectually- dissolves the illusionary border between self and others, and we're all in the same boat. Or it could be that the boat dissolves too and we're all together in a sea of metta and karuna! That's just my over-intellectual take on it. I'll know differently someday. Metta, Phil p.s I say that, but I find myself wanting to generate metta for some people I am having trouble with at work. But I won't do it. The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult person, after the respected ones, neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just doesn't feel right to me these days. I would feel it was an exercise based in wrong view if I did it today, because it would clearly be a strategy for me to feel better about these problems, to feel cozier in life. I don't think we should expect Dhamma to give us instant relief like a painkiller. On the other hand, in Nina's "removing distracting thoughts" thread there was support in the sutta and commentary for using Metta as the means of removing hatred for living beings. I'll keep thinking about it for long years to come (hopefully!) Off the topic here, sorry. Just something I happened to be thinking about. > > And I've come to see over the last little while that it is on days > > like this that when I get to work, I will likely feel a real connection > > to the students, sympathy. There will be metta in the air, and karuna. > > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you > > said that.) > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > 37282 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:43pm Subject: Best wishes for your pilgrimage Hello all I'd like to wish all our friends who are off to India a wonderful time. I look forward to hearing more about your Dhamma talks when you get back. As it happens, your departure coincides with a need for me to concentrate on some stories I need to try to sell this winter or next spring, so I'll be signing off for a month or so as well. I have several binders full of messages that I've received so I'll be continuing my bhavana through rereading those. I'll finish posting passages from "Deeds of Merit" before signing off, since I'm near the end. I guess "Perfections" will fall by the wayside. You know where to find it! (abhidhamma.org) Wishing everyone a very pleasant autumn or spring, wherever you are. Metta, Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 37283 From: connieparker Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 3:59pm Subject: Re: Why Do Buddhas Arise? [snip] ''Icchitam patthitam..snip..purentu, candara pannara so rathaa. ..snip..purentu, mani jotira so rathaa.'' [snip] 'Like a moon in its fullest day, like a bright, shining ruby, be fulfiled all your wishes.' [snip] - ;) ===== Thank you for the encouragement, Htoo. I'm fairly handy with a dictionary and guessing some words from what I think the context is, but really poor on grammar and didn't know whether the paccekabuddha was saying he had succeeded or 'wishing' the woman her own success. peace, connie 37284 From: Suravira Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 11:41am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma [Suravira] Sarah, to explore the points you have raised, I have a few thoughts to share. > 1. In the Theravada commentaries and Abhidhamma, sabhava does not refer to > self or `independent or autonomous being'.* It refers to a particular or > differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. [Suravira] Of the two kinds of mental phenomena (nama)- consciousness (vinnana)& mental factors (cetasika) - it is consciousness that experiences, or knows of, that cognizes, an object - hence the critical importance of valid cognition within Buddhism. In addition, consciousness always experiences an object - there is not consciousness without an object. It is consciousness that innately misapprehends mental and physical (rupa) phenomena as existing intrinscially, as independent isolates - that is it misapprehends a differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality. Given that multiple mental factors always arise together with consciousness, there are only seven mental factors (universals) that always arise with each instance of mental consciousness. Those universals are sensation/feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), intention (cetana), contact (phasso), one-pointedness (ekaggata), mental life faculty (jivit-indriya) and attention (manasikara). As regards these universals, perception is a process of comparision that labels or identifies (the) perceived (six) sense objects. While it is consciousness that cognizes, or experiences the sense object, it is perception that re-cognizes the object. Whether revealed in the coherent grouping of classes of objects, in analogies, metaphors, or similies, objects are brought together through the function of perception to determine how similar or dissimilar they are. The discriminatory function of perception is to mark the object as "same as" or "as like" some other object. It is through the function of perception that we see an object as being the same as or alike some other object. It is perceptions that enables us to savor the sweet mystery of life. When consciousness is defiled (kilesa) by selfish desire (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha), the discriminatory function of perception is impaired, and as a consequence, the differentiating characteristic or nature of a reality are misapprehended. One of the ways that mental and physical phenomena are misapprehended is as having independent or autonomous being. For example, consider the five aggregates and revolutionary manner in which the Buddha came to understand them. What did the Buddha eventually come to know about the five aggregates? He realized that the five (5) aggregates casually support each other and thereby are the generative cause of an image of a single whole that arises naturally in our minds. This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or maintain the path of the bodhisattva. It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. The Buddha was able to see this image because his perception was not corrupted by kilesa. > 2. There is a clear distinction between concepts (pannatti) and realities > (paramattha dhammas). In the Tipitaka, paramattha dhammas which can be > directly known and which have characteristics are clearly differentiated > from pannatti (concepts). Indeed this is the `essence' of the > Teachings,without which a path would not be possible.* > ***** [Suravira] I am not certain if I understand what you mean when you express the view that "paramattha dhammas which can be directly known and which have characteristics (that) are clearly differentiated from pannatti (concepts)." Let me work towards an understanding by revealing the following points: A sense object is not experienced directly - the sense object is conditioned by the physical limitations of our five sense organs and by our mind. We merely experience an impression of the object, never the object itself - these objects are synthesized by our sense organs and by our minds. This is not to assert that life is an illusion - only that life is like an illusion. Within every moment of the experience of life, there is a discrepency between the way objects and events appear and the way they actually exist (unconditioned by our perception). Let me repeat the previous points that there is not consciousness without an object, and perception is concommitant with every moment of consciousness. > 4. An understanding of conditions is very important. Only realities > (paramattha dhammas) are dependent on other factors. MN 18: > [Suravira] At the risk of demonstrating that I did not understand this point, let me express the view that all mental (and physical) phenomena have reciprocal dependence with innumerable causes and effects. As this is just the way all phenomena exist (tathata), right views and false views (realities and non-realities) are both dependent of other causes and effects. Right views do not arise when ignorance (avija) is concommitant with the arising moment of consciousness. > "Dependent on the eye and forms,eye-consciousness > arises............contact....feeling. What one feels, that one > percieves.....' > > If we talk about trees and rocks now, they are concepts. However, the > rupas which make up the tree or rocks depend on temperature and not the > mind to rise and fall and so exist momentarily. This is regardless of [Suravira] Mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena, just as physcial phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. All perceptions of rupa are re-cognized and by so doing are functionally equivalent to symbolic representations. > whether the rupas are directly experienced at any given time. Concepts do > not arise and fall. [Suravira] Due to impermanence, all mental phenomena (concepts and all symbolic representations are included under this umbrella) arise and fall. > In suttas, such as SN 22.95, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, when the imagery of > foam, bubbles, mirages, a plantain trunk and illusions are used, it is > referring to the nature of realities, to the khandhas as empty of self, > insubstantial and fleeting. These are usually grasped at and taken for > being substantial and lasting. The imagery is not referring to concepts in > the mind. > ***** [Suravira] In that they are expressed in language, these images are not exempt form being symbolic representations, and are therefore concepts. Once again mental phenomena depend upon physical phenomena and physical phenomena depend upon mental phenomena. As regards mirages, are these mental phenomena not strickly imaginary objects? > 5. Conditioned dhammas or realities do originate. `Dependently originating > entities' are not a ' mental creation'. > [Suravira] The cognition and re-cognition of conditioned dhammas is predicated upon symbolic representations and the processing of symbolic representations. Therefore, the contact and perception of dependently originating objects & events, of which we are conscious, are the generative cause of symbolic representations. > Concepts, on the other hand, are not conditioned [Suravira] Concepts are conditioned by language, and by all manner of symbolic representation, and in turn, by the mindfulness and clear comprehension of those concepts. > and there is no > suggestion of them originating or being referred to in suttas on Dependent > Origination. That which is conceived does not exist and does not > originate. [Suravira] That which is conceived is an object that is a mental phenomena. Concepts do exist as mental phenomena. However, mental phenomena does not exist in the same manner as physical phenomena. Mental phenomena is formless, yet mental phenomena exists - it is devoid of shape, color, sound, odor, taste and tangibility, but it has temporal extensions. And mental phenomena manifests certain abilities as well, e.g., mental factors, defilements, faculties, etc. > By contrast, the conventional nature of things can only ever be the object > of thinking, not of insight. > ***** [Suravira] Yet insight arises when seeing through the illusory like charactertics of the conventional nature of things. > 7. As we know, in the Theravada teachings, bhavanga cittas (life continuum > consciousness) arise and fall between sense and mind door processes. These > are not a substratum and there is no substratum.* > ***** [Suravira] This is the same point that Nagarjuna makes. > 8. Finally and most importantly, if realties were really inaccessible to > sati and panna, the Buddha would not have taught the Satipatthana sutta, > the Madhupindika sutta and the rest. Realities have characteristics which > can be directly known `as they are'. This is the path which leads to the > eradication of defilements and the realisation of nibbana. {Suravira] Nagarjuna does not asert that "suchness", or just as they are, is not capable of being cognized. > > Conventions, it is true, cannot be known and merely hide true elements or > paramattha dhammas when there is ignorance of the latter or concepts are > taken for realities. Furthermore, when panna knows a reality, such as > seeing consciousness, visible object or feeling, there is no `negotiation > between the known entity and the knower'. There is no `knower' other than > panna. The reason that it seems that `the apprehension of these things is > always from a particular vantage point' is because no distinction is made > between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (conventional and ultimate > truths). Without this knowledge, panna will not develop and ideas of > emptiness will be thinking about concepts. Indeed this is the very reason > the teachings are inspiring and a path is possible. > [Suravira] Well, to delve into this paragraph, I need clarification from you as to what the meaning of the phrase "cannot be known" is. 37285 From: Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 0:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 10/4/04 6:34:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > I hesitate (probably too much) to think in terms of "called for" because > it makes > it sound as though metta and karuna are remedies we pull out of the bag. > ======================= I also balked at using that terminology when I was writing it, but it captures an aspect of what I wanted to say (at a cost). 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) 37286 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:28pm Subject: Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dighanakha" wrote: > > > R> The name is only a useful designation - The Abhidhammattha > R> Vibhavani calls realities (such as rupa and nama) vijjamana > R> pannatti to distinguish between non real concepts such as > R> human and dog (called avijjamana pannattis) But the words in > R> both cases are designated pannatti -concept. > > As I said in my post to Sarah, I should prefer to delay a full > discussion until the relevant texts are available. If I can > upload the file I have made, you might take a look at passage 10 > from the Vibhanga-mulatika, which, unless I am misunderstanding > it, seems to indicate that (unlike the name of a concept) a > dhamma is properly designated only when designated in the > 'language of individual essence' (sabhaava-nirutti). > > The file is entitled mulabhasa.txt ========== Dear Dighanaka, I look forward to reading it. ===== > > Could you also tell me the chapter number of your > Abhidhammatthavibhavini reference? The only occurrence of > vijjamaanapa~n~natti I have been able to find so far is dealing > with questions of grammar, not Abhidhamma. >======================= It is in book 8. Here is a summary/explanation of the section by Sujin Boriharnwanaket: The commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha,5 the Abhidhammattha Vibhavani, (Book 8), gives an explanation of paramattha dhammas (fundamental or ultimate realities), sammutti dhammas (conventional realities) and pannatti dhammas (concepts). This subject pertains to daily life, it is deep in meaning and it should be correctly understood. Names can be given because there is the reality of sound. Sounds form up names, in Pali: nama. This word nama does not refer to nama-dhamma, the reality that experiences. A name "bends towards," conveys the meanings of things. "Namati" in Pali means: to bend, incline towards. According to the subcommentary there are two kinds of names: a name which is suitable to convey a meaning, and a name which is used because of preference. About what do we speak in daily life? Why do we speak? We speak in order that someone else will understand the subject we refer to. Thus, sadda-rupa (sound) functions then as name, nama, it bends towards, conveys the meaning of the different subjects we want to make known. The fact that someone else understands the meaning of what we say and the subjects we speak about depends on the words we use to convey the meaning, it depends on the language we choose to express ourselves. The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani deals with several other aspects concerning different kinds of names. It distinguishes between four kinds of names. There are names which are generally agreed upon (samanna nama), such as sky, rain, wind, or rice. There are names denoting a special quality (guna nama), such as "Arahatta Sammasambuddho." Someone who does not have the special qualities of a Buddha cannot have this name. Then there are names denoting activity (kiriya nama) and names that are given according to ones liking. The Abhidhammattha Vibhavani (Book 8) distinguishes between six kinds of concepts that are names, nama-pannatti (see Visuddhimagga VIII, note 11). 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) 10. 2. Avijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is not real, such as the words Thai or foreigner. These concepts do not represent absolute realities, citta and cetasika which are nama, and rupa. Thai or foreigner are not real in the absolute sense, they are conventional realities, sammutti dhammas. Could akusala citta11 (unwholesome consciousness) be Thai or foreign? Akusala citta is a paramattha dhamma (a reality), it is a dhamma which has its own characteristic, it is not Thai or foreign. 3. Vijjamanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of the non- existent based on the existent. There is the expression "the person with the six abhinnas."12 The six abhinnas are real but person is not real. Thus this concept stands for what is real and for what is not real. 4. Avijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of the existent based on the non-existent. There is the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. 5. Vijjamanena vijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is real based on what is real. There is the term cakkhu-vinnana (eye- consciousness). Cakkhu (eye) is a reality, namely the cakkhu-pasada- rupa (eyesense, a reality sensitive to colour or visible object), and vinnana (consciousness) is also a reality, namely the reality which experiences. 6. Avija amanena avijjamana pannattis, concepts of what is not real based on what is not real. There is the expression "the kings son". Both king and son are not real, they are sammutti dhammas, conventional realities. http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm RobertK 37287 From: plnao Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 4:35pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - going to see the Buddha Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html I think today's rather long passage is timely for those about to go to on a pilgrimage! :) W. : We dealt with the meritorious action of listening to the Dhamma which is included in mental development. We also spoke about the six kinds of things most valuable above all, the first of which is the seeing that is most valuable above all. What is the meaning of seeing which is more valuable than all other kinds of seeing? S. : In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sixes, Ch III, 10, Above all) the Buddha explained to the monks about the seeing above all: ... Herein, monks, some go to see the treasures: the elephant, the horse, the gem; to see divers things; to see some recluse or godly man, wrong in view, treading the wrong path. And is that the seeing [44, monks? No, I say it is not; it is indeed a mean kind of seeing, common, vulgar, unariyan, not well-found, leading not to world-weariness, dispassion, ending, calm, knowledge, awakening, nibbaana. But some, endued with faith and piety, sure in trust, go to see the Tathaagata or the Tathaagatas disciple. That, monks, is the seeing above all seeing for purging man, overcoming grief and woe, clearing away ill and pain, winning truth, and realizing nibbaana; I mean, going to see the Tathaagatha or his disciple, endued with faith and piety, sure in trust. This, monks, is called the seeing above all. Herein is the seeing above all.... W. : At the present time there are quite a number of Buddhists who would wish to see the Buddha, who would wish to visit him in order to hear the Dhamma directly from him. However, there is no longer an opportunity to do so, because he passed finally away more than two thousand and five hundred years ago. S.: The Buddha left us the Dhamma as the teacher who represents him. What would you do in order to be able to see the Buddha? W.: We should listen to the Dhamma and study it. But I still doubt whether by listening to the Dhamma and studying it I would really see the Buddha. S. : We cannot see him in his bodily appearance, since his body has been cremated. At the present time we can only see the different relics of the Buddha which are still left. However, the Buddha himself explained that if we wish to see him we should see the Dhamma. The Buddha explained this to Vakkali who continuously followed the Buddha everywhere. We read in the Kindred Sayings (III, Khandhaa-vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch 4, 87, Vakkali) that the Buddha said to Vakkali: Hush, Vakkali! What is there in seeing this vile body of mine? He who sees the Dhamma, Vakkali, he sees me; he who sees me, Vakkali, sees the Dhamma. Verily, seeing the Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; seeing me, one sees the Dhamma. 37288 From: Egbert Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hi Phil, I am a bit curious about a point you made. p.s I say that, but I find myself wanting to generate metta for some > people I am having trouble with at work. But I won't do it. > The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult> person, after the respected ones, > neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just > doesn't feel right to me these days. I would feel it was an exercise based in wrong view if I did it today, because it would clearly> be a strategy for me to feel better about these problems, to feel cozier in > life. I don't think we should expect Dhamma to give > us instant relief like a painkiller. What I don't understand is why it is OK to intentionally designate particular people or situations as sources of trouble, but it is not OK to see through that with some intentional metta? Kind Regards Herman 37289 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 7:56pm Subject: Re: Science/Truth (2)Herman, Dighanka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > Hi > I'm sure you would recognise that there are many ancient traditions > amongst many different cultures. I cannot see why any tradition > would have a monopoly on insight into the nature of reality, though > I can understand the psychology behind a tradition making such a > claim. > Again I would say that there are many traditions with many > doctrines. There is only (a common) reality, though, and to the > extent a tradition or doctrine models reality well, such doctrines > may well serve to alleviate the reality of suffering that comes to > be recognised by all at some point of time. Buddhism as psychology > is priceless, but Buddhism as science has been superceded a long, > long time ago. > >=============== Dear Herman, I agree that all cultures have their own take on reality. The thing is, though, are the teachings of the Buddha universal (not limited to one culture) and are they, further than that, true and more profound than any other teachings. As you know I believe they are, and while many modern Buddhists revere science as some sort of counterpart or companion to Buddhism I find it quite mediocre and lacking. Even the skeptical kalamas of the kesaputta sutta - upon hearing a teaching from the Buddha could see its depth and they were inspired to proclaim "Marvelous, venerable sir! Marvelous, venerable sir! As if, venerable sir, a person were to turn face upwards what is upside down, or to uncover the concealed, or to point the way to one who is lost or to carry a lamp in the darkness, thinking, 'Those who have eyes will see visible objects,' so has the Dhamma been set forth in many ways by the Blessed One. We, venerable sir, go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma for refuge, and to the Community of Bhikkhus for refuge. Venerable sir, may the Blessed One regard us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life, from today." Do we have that same strength of faith? If not I think we should to endeavour to develop it with all speed. I have much appreciated our dicussion on these matters . Robertk 37290 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Hi Howard and Phil: When there is karuna cetasika, the citta is kusala citta and there is always alobha and adosa as well. Metta is adosa cetasika, but it is directed towards beings. Metta is different from karuna, they are aroused at different moments. Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering. But when you, for example, attend to the sick they arise closely one after the other. Nina. op 04-10-2004 06:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > (BTW, Howard, I agree with you that they always arise together. I think you >> said that.) >> > =========================== > No, I'm pretty sure it was not I who said that, but I do think that > karuna cannot possibly arise without metta. However, I believe the converse is > not always so, for karuna requires specific preconditions, I believe, that are > not always present, namely specific "difficulties" that call for compassion, > whereas metta, it seems to me, is always called for. 37291 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Oct 4, 2004 11:03pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Robert K, ------------------------ RK: > just to point out that cuti-citta takes the object from a previous life. It is the same type of citta and object as patisandhi and bhavanga cittas of this life. What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is during the process around the time of cuti-citta. Technical stuff, but helps us to see how automatic and unamenable to self control it is. -------------------------- Thanks, Robert, I finally looked up that textbook, and I think I have the gist of it. (By the way, I agree with you about the "technical stuff": as you have said before, learning lists of Abhidhamma terminology helps us to see the anattaness of it all.) ------------------------- RK: > So cuti-citta is coming - but it is going to be no different from the bhavanga we experience every day. > -------------- Agreed, although that's not quite the way I put it to Herman: "the cuti-citta is different from every other citta in the current lifetime." :-) But it is different in one important way, isn't it? In this lifetime, all the bhavanga-cittas have had the same object. But when the cuti-bhavanga-citta arises, it will take a different object. By doing so, it will set the trend for all the cittas that follow it, and that may be a radically different trend. (It may cause them to arise in a totally different realm of existence.) Ken H 37292 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 0:33am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== Part I: The Universals Chapter 2 Feeling (vedanå) ***** Feeling, in Påli vedanå, is another cetasika among the seven 'universals'. Feeling accompanies every citta, there is no moment without feeling. We may think that we all know what feeling is and we believe that it is easy to recognize pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling. However, do we really know the characteristic of feeling when it appears or do we merely think of a concept of feeling? Throughout our life we have seen ourselves as a 'whole' of mind and body; also when we consider our feelings we think of this 'whole' which we take for 'self'. When someone asks us: 'How do you feel?' and we answer, for example, 'I am happy', we do not know the characteristic of happy feeling, which is a mental phenomenon, a nåma; we cling to the 'whole' of mind and body. Thus we only know concepts, not realities. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37293 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) Hi Htoo (& Suan) Your answers were excellent! A distinction for sure;-). One brief comment is that I think that in the end, the only proof can be at moments of satipatthana when awareness is aware of that particular characteristic or reality, however slight or blurry in the beginning, otherwise it's just intellectual right understanding. Let me say here that I think the series you're running now on the cetasikas as part of your Dhamma Thread is really excellent. The ones on the universals and now on the particulars are really spot-on. As you and Suan have said, vitakka is very mis-understood and I think both your recent posts on this cetasika are very clear and helpful. (Suan, so nice to see your contributions again). I hope you'll both help with any abhidhamma questions and details when Nina, ourselves and others are away. (Actually, Jon will be checking in daily and will try to post when he can, when we come across internet facilities). You mentioned in one post to me about some adverse responses to your use of Pali or abhidhamma terminology and some allergies. Don't worry here, the worst that'll happen is you may get called 'hard-core' or a 'core member' or some other compliment;-) On our other discussion (Dear Htoo), I think everything was agreed. I just have a queery still about the nature of cetasikas accompanying jhana cittas and lokuttara cittas being the same apart from 'powerwise'. As you say, the function is the same, but I'm not sure that we can say the difference in say the panna is just one of power. It's a different kind of panna too, I think. I agree with all your responses on the objects of the arupa jhana cittas - you put it very well with the foot-prints for the 2nd. I like your examples very much, such as your rowing boat in the cetasikas too when showing the difference between vitakka, manasikara and cetana. ( I just winced a little in the manasikara section when you used 'stay in wise attention','this should be withdrawn' and the mind 'should be redirected'. Anyway, you know me;-)). Really, the recent chapters on the cetasikas are very good indeed and also the repetitions, clarifications and general comments about cittas and cetasikas like 37233. On the discussion about phala samapatti (pleasant abiding as you head it), just because 'they have attained lokuttara appana' doesn't mean that they can attain phala samapatti without jhanas. The Vism makes this clear I think as quoted in the extracts. But I know little about it. RobM's notes. You mentioned metta is not a cetasika,but I understand it is one kind of adosa cetasika. Also you mentioned tatramajjhattata is confused with upekkha. It is the same cetasika I believe, but upekkha also has several other meanings which have to be read in context. For example, upekkha as a brahma vihara is not the equivalent of upekkha that is detached and arises with all sobhana cittas or when used for neutral feeling. you also mentioned hadaya vatthu is not an ayatana, but surely it's included with all subtle rupas in dhammayatana? Perhaps you just meant it's treated differently from the other sense bases in ayatana terms. Htoo, we'll be following yours and everyone else's posts even while we're away, but you may be relieved to hear that I won't be able to give any further comments til we return. Please keep up your good work and help to everyone. I'd be especially glad if you (or anyone else) can help with any recent posts addressed to me;-). Metta, Sarah ======= 37294 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Flip-flopping Hi Matt & KenH, Having helped to throw a few comments back into the air, I'd really like KenH to help pick them up and for the two to help with any other threads at the same time;-). After all, I'm sure you're both included in D's 'bright spark' comments.... Just a couple of brief points here before I bow out and speak to you again on return. (I'm just trying to finish a few threads but will continue posting extracts from Cetasikas til I leave at the end of next week): --- matt roke wrote: M:> The object of a citta is dhamma; it is a reality which is either rupa or > > nama. ... S: or a concept when one thinks. Of course, if you mean the object of satipatthana, then it's only a nama or a rupa. Object condition - nama, rupa or concept. .... > And a concept is not dhamma; it is not a reality, neither rupa nor nama. > Therefore to say that an object of citta is a concept is the same as > saying > that a reality is a non-reality and that citta experiences nothing. .... S: A concept is not a (paramattha) dhamma as you say. When it is object, it's just that - a concept or a non-reality that is object....a shadow.... If there is thinking of a purple elephant or visible object now, thinking is real, the concepts are mere concepts, but they are still the objects of thinking. .... > > Ken wrote: "When there is pannatti, the presently arisen citta (together > > with > its cetasikas) is creating a concept and is experiencing its own > creation. > M:> It would seem that this is inferring that the citta and its cetasikas > experience > two objects; the one they originally arose to experience and the one > they > created. .... S: No - different moments. r-o-s-e.....Many different moments of thinking about different concepts with the help of sanna marking at each moment. One object at a time and in between, of course, the experiencing of realities too through the sense doors and then the mind door as you explain so well. .... M:> So what I meant when I wrote to Ken was that a citta experiences a > reality > but > not a concept and that something is known (there is concept) because of > the > conditioned process of citta (where citta experiences a reality). ... S: I think this is an important point to clarify. Please continue. Let me pass it back to KenH as I've hijacked the thread enough already. ***** Some earlier great quotes of yours I like a lot(#35789, #35539, #36974): M: "Hardness is a reality which citta experiences. When the citta experiences hardness, it is not *out there*, it is just hardness." ***** M: "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." ***** M: "In the world of concepts, a tree is real and unicorns are unreal. In Dhamma, hardness is real and tree and unicorns are unreal. I think fine lines and gray areas belong to concept not reality." ***** M: "Sometimes, as you know too well, there are no words that adequately explain certain dhamma concepts, we just have to do the best with what we have. Personally I would rather just call it visible object and not try to explain its characteristic with words like *absence of light*. When there are conditions for visual-object to be experienced by citta through the eye-door then that is what appears. " ***** Metta, Sarah ====== 37295 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > ------------------------ > RK: > just to point out that cuti-citta takes the object from a > previous life. It is the same type of citta and object as patisandhi > and bhavanga cittas of this life. > What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is > during the process around the time of cuti-citta. Technical stuff, > but helps us to see how automatic and unamenable to self control it > is. > -------------------------- > > > :-) But it is different in one important way, isn't it? In this > lifetime, all the bhavanga-cittas have had the same object. But when > the cuti-bhavanga-citta arises, it will take a different object. By > doing so, it will set the trend for all the cittas that follow it, > and that may be a radically different trend. (It may cause them to > arise in a totally different realm of existence.) > > ========= Dear Ken, We don't seem to be understanding this the same way. The cuti-citta which will occur in this life, sooner or later, takes exactly the same object as all the bhavanga cittas occuring now in this life, the same as this lifes patisandhi citta. But next life's patisandhi citta will have a different object. (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it will take a different object. By doing so..?) ]robertk 37296 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sunrises and Sunsets - Input 2 Dear J & Phil, Many thanks, Phil, for all your kind and supportive comments to J, all beautifully said. You really are a good friend to us all here. I wouldn't put it as J. mentioned that 'DSG is dedicated to developing an understanding of the Abhidhamma'. I'd put it.....--well I've had a big part in putting it-- just as it appears on the home page;-). On the 'many paths to enlightenment'/ 'wide' path, I know this sounds very appealing. Of course, as we read in the Satipatthana Sutta, there is only one path, one eightfold path or one path of satipatthana. But of course, we all have our own ways when it comes to what activities we engage in. Whatever these activities, though, there's no getting away from the development of understanding and so on. Like both of you, I also let go 'where things make my brain hurt' and find it easy to go off for a swim or walk instead. We don't get to see much in the way of sunrises and sunsets in the centre of Hong Kong however. J, there's no chance of your creating any 'problem or distraction'. Constructive discussion and exchange of views and experiences is helpful for us all, I believe. I think some recent exchanges clearly show we're not concerned about hearing contrary views here at all;-). You say you are more interested 'in what people are experiencing rather than what they are understanding' and I'd be glad sometime (no hurry) for any elaboration on this. "Be a lamp unto yourselves" is so deep. I just re-quoted a comment from Matt on this too. Again I'd be glad to hear more of your comments and also on 'What rises, pases away'. Simple, as you say, yet very profound. Anyway, I'll just look forward to any more of your contributions and fine writing in your own time. ***** Phil, thanks for your good wishes for our trip. I have more thoughts about students, leaking air-conditioners and DSG right now, but I will be giving the trip more attention next week. I'm sure we all have various apprehensions -- mine are mostly concerned with my recurring health issues, esp. on or after trips (asthamatic attacks triggered by cold viruses,esp on planes and buses) -- and all the usual kilesa as Nina said. Nori's comments about 'apprehension of pain' etc are helpful in this regard for me. The reality is just the present thinking, that's all. No India, no asthma, no plane....just thinking and then gone. Last time I was in Bodh Gaya (25 yrs ago, with K.Sujin,Nina, Phra Dhammadharo and a small group), there was no airport anywhere near, no hotels, no internet cafes and I can't really imagine what it will be like now. It was still just a very small sleepy village and we stayed in the Thai temple. When I was there the first time, I lived in a Tibetan tent just near the Bodhi tree for months, living on one rupee a day. I don't even know if there are still tents and can hardly imagine arriving with our group of over 100 in large buses and staying in a nearby hotel. Azita and I travel light but know that whether there or here, in a bus or on foot, with a backpack or case, the world is just the present visible object or hardness or thinking or other reality appearing. I'll try to send a brief word or two from B.Gaya if I can. I do wish to pick up on a few of your other fine posts in brief, maybe an 'Abhi-dilemma in Daily Life post'...so pls don't disappear too quickly. Thx so much for the Deeds of merit posts. I had thought some of the extracts from Perfections would be useful for everyone while we're away, but understand your other pressing commitments. Maybe just if you need inspiration only! Thx again. Metta, Sarah ======== 37297 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner27-Contact /Phassa(m) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: Hi Htoo (& Suan) Your answers were excellent! A distinction for sure;-). One brief comment is that I think that in the end, the only proof can be at moments of satipatthana when awareness is ..snip.. Please keep up your good work and help to everyone. I'd be especially glad if you (or anyone else) can help with any recent posts addressed to me;-). Metta, Sarah ======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, Regarding hadaya vatthu, I just compared with other 5 pasada rupas. 1. cakkhu pasada works as cakkhayatana 2. sota pasada works as sotaayatana 3. ghana pasada works as ghanaayatana 4. jivha pasada works as jivhaayatana 5. kaya pasada works as kayaayatana But hadaya is not like that. Yes you are right. It is dhammaayatana. External sense base like sound ( saddaayatana ) is perceived through internal sense base like ear ( sotaayatana ). When all 5 sense bases are all internal sense base, hadaya is not. Hadaya becomes external sense base dhammaayatana. With Metta, htoo Naing 37298 From: jwromeijn Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Howard and Phil: > When there is karuna cetasika, the citta is kusala citta and there is always > alobha and adosa as well. Metta is adosa cetasika, but it is directed > towards beings. Metta is different from karuna, they are aroused at > different moments. Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering. Hallo Nina You said (to Howard and Phil): "Karuna arises when you see beings' suffering" I agree with that but I don't understand the "psychological mechanism" behind it for the same reasons I didn't understand two month agree in my questions on "social psychology". And for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a cause. - There is a "being suffering"; - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps hear him/her too; - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with karuna when I was young) - Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that person is suffering - And then Karuna arises. How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and rupa's ? I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology describe the same reality? With metta Joop 37299 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 4:17am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 082 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Piti is a cetasika. Joy, rapture, pleasure etc are used to describe piti. This cetasika does not arise with each and every citta that arises at each moment. So piti is not a universal mental factor or a permanent minister cetasika of the king citta. However, piti does not choose bwtween kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, and abyakata dhamma. He can accompany with any of these kinds of dhamma. He can be good one and equally he can be a bad one. This is why piti is referred ( by me ) to as a 'flexible minister' of the king citta. When the co-arising citta the king does a good job that is kusala dhamma then cetasika piti also follows the king and he agrees with the king citta. When the king wants to drink alcohol he would bring some alcohol and gives it to the king citta and he would also drink it. So this shows flexibility. But the most important thing is that there is no permanent store of 'piti-s'. Piti as a cetasika last only one single cittakkhana or one moment when citta exists. When it arises with kamavacara mahakusala citta like when we are doing a great offering to The Sangha like offering of a wide place together with monastry and feeding to thousands of people, piti serves as a good cetasika. Equally when we do something cravingly, like watching movies which might attract and casue likeness or eating unattentively happily or having sex happily or drinking alcohol happily, piti in these states then serves as a bad cetasika and it may be referred to as akusala cetasika. As it can equally be kusala cetasika and equally be akusala cetasika, piti can be referred to as flexible minister cetasika of the king citta. So piti is also referred to as annasamana cetasika. Anna means 'dealing' and 'samana' means 'agree'. So pitit will agree with any kind of citta whether citta is kusala or akusala. But it is not a universal mental factor. So it is referred to as pakinnaka cetasika or particular cetasika. 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. 37300 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -Herman Hi Robert K, ----------------------- RK: > We don't seem to be understanding this the same way. The cuti- citta which will occur in this life, sooner or later, takes exactly the same object as all the bhavanga cittas occuring now in this life, the same as this lifes patisandhi citta. But next life's patisandhi citta will have a different object. ------------------------ I misread your previous explanation: "What conditions next life patisandhi (and bhavanga and cuti) is during the process around the time of cuti-citta." Sarah wrote the same thing recently and I misread that too - thinking it referred to the immediately following cuti citta. ------------------------ RK: > (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it will take a different object. By doing so..?) > -------------------------- Alas, no, but I think I've got it now. And it does make sense. (But then, I thought that about the other, completely different, version). :-) Thanks for your patience. Ken H 37301 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 2:57am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Sarah (and Nina, and all) - In a message dated 10/5/04 3:34:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > Part I: The Universals > > Chapter 2 > > Feeling (vedanÃ¥) > ***** > Feeling, in PÃ¥li vedanÃ¥, is another cetasika among the seven > ‘universals’. Feeling accompanies every citta, there is no moment > without feeling. > > We may think that we all know what feeling is and we believe > that it is easy to recognize pleasant feeling and unpleasant feeling. > However, do we really know the characteristic of feeling when it > appears or do we merely think of a concept of feeling? Throughout > our life we have seen ourselves as a ‘whole’ of mind and body; > also when we consider our feelings we think of this ‘whole’ which > we take for ‘self’. When someone asks us: ‘How do you feel?’ and > we answer, for example, ‘I am happy’, we do not know the > characteristic of happy feeling, which is a mental phenomenon, a > nÃ¥ma; we cling to the ‘whole’ of mind and body. Thus we only > know concepts, not realities. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============================ It is said that vedana is always present. What, effectively, is the difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and (what would be) absence of vedana? What exactly is detectably present when there is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? Vedana is not bodily sensation - for that is rupa. So it would not be a correct answer to say that neutral vedana is a type of neither pleasant nor unpleasant bodily sensation. The point is: On the occasion of bodily sensation that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, what does it mean to say there is vedana? Why could one not just as well truly say that there is bodily sensation lacking affective feel? There must be an experiential basis for distinguishing lack of feeling from neutral feeling in order for neutral feeling to be accepted as an experiential reality. (BTW, S.N.Goenka seems to treat vedana as bodily sensations - pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral, distinguishing them from rupas. That would solve this "problem", but it replaces it by the problem of a non-traditional understanding of the meaning of 'vedana'.) 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) 37302 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] poverty of spirits>>> metta? Hey Phil P> The traditional metta meditation has us generating metta for the difficult person, after the respected ones, neutral ones, etc. I really do have trouble with that formula these days, of intentionally designating people for metta. It just doesn't feel right to me these days. I hear you. Theravada metta practice is well...lacking. OK, I said it! But check out this book. _Training the Mind : And Cultivating Loving-Kindness_ by Chogyam Trungpa. He not only explains tonglen real well but other metta practices. He uses the H word a few times but dont let that offend your Theravada sensabilities. PEACE E 37303 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "... as parasites a tree." ??? Hi Dighankha Its been a while time I have discussed Abdhidhamma issues with people > So am I. Being a practitioner of the teaching is not incompatible > with researching how it came down to us and how it became altered > in the process of transmission. Indeed, given the Ani Sutta, it > seems to me such an investigation would be of great benefit in > sifting the gold from the ore. But as you say, each to his own. k: Researching is always good. To some extent, researching into historical authencity sometimes make it difficult to have a good understanding of what really matters. The problem with history is always being rewritten many many times. What is the gold and ore in your own opinion? I am not the "reseacher type" but I always glad to discuss whether an statement or a belief in a sutta true to the understanding vs Abdhidhamma commentarian texts. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'historical reason'. Do you mean > that the mere elapse of time causes acceptance of the Abhidhamma > to decline? Or do you mean historical reasoning, critical > historical research? k: Abdhidhamma sadly to say, always meet with its authencity problem. If I am not wrong, when I read the sutta translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, he also doubt it is from Buddha at times. > Horses for the courses. If a translator aims to translate a Sutta > according to how that Sutta was understood in 5th century Ceylon, > then yes, he must certainly acquaint himself with the Abhidhamma > system of the commentators. But if his aim is to translate it > according to its likely meaning for the Buddha's audience then > the commentarial Abhidhamma is not a reliable tool at all, and > translations that treat it as reliable (e.g. those of the Burmese > Sasana Pitaka Association) are going to be riddled with > anachronisms. k: If one aim to translate base on one understanding of the sutta, then definitely some of exact meanings will be lost. What level of understanding are we comparing to? It is easy to translate words in a passage but it is extremely difficult to put across the meaning. Even suttas translated in accesstoinsight by Thanissaro Bhikkhus have lots of problem. He translated based on what he thought is correct meaning of the sutta. If everyone do this and thought they are correct, then sutta meanings in the original Pali will eventually be lost. And to me that is how it is going to be lost in the next 2,500 years as we like to base what we think it is correct (researcher bias). When you say that commentarian Abhdhamma is not reliable then I would like to invite you to tell me the passage from any sutta and the Abdhidhamma commentarial text. You have to give me the English version as I am not in anyway study Pali in detail. Then I would give you the my personal comments what it mean by the Abdhidhamma commentarial text basing on what you give me. Is that good enough for you as I will base on your translation of the commentary. Ken O 37304 From: Ken O Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Joop > many times in this DSG, I will quote some relevant parts of > Kalupahana's ChapterXXI about him too. > > "The Kathavatthu's contribution to the study of the Abhidhamma lies > precisely in its elimination of absolutist and essentialist or > reductionist perspectives. No one reading the excessive long debate > in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that > the Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). Abononing the search for such ultimate realities, it becomes possible to explain the content of the Abhidhamma in terms of the two principle teachings of the Buddha, namely, non-substantiality (anatta) and dependent arising (paticcasamuppada) > If the intention of the discourses in analyzing the human > personality into five aggregates was merely to indicate the absence of a metaphysical agent (anatta) and not the irreducible elements called 'ultimate realities', there seems to be no justification for the various psychological and physical items listed in the canonical Abhidhamma texts (…) to be considered ultimate realities. …. The different lists in the two major Abhidhamma traditions, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha, would indicate that they do not contain ultimate realities. The compilers of the Abhidhamma texts simply picked what they thought were the significant elements; hence the difference between the two traditions. K: Kalupahana does not see it in the correct angle. when Abhidhamma talk about the five aggregates it is meant as paramatha dhamma. In the same way when sutta talk about the four great elements, it is not about heat as a concept but heat as element in the paramatha dhammas. When it is view in this way, there is no difference in the traditions. The difference arise because his understanding cannot compare to those who spoken at that time. He is basing on his own understanding to draw up this conclusion. > What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical > and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an > aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, > i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a > moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the > behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) k: Could you explain again the above text as I dont really get what is the author trying to drive at. > 13 Self-nature (svabhava) > … > Nagarjuna's concluding statement after analyzing 'elements' (dhatu) > should serve as a corrective not only to the rather > trancendentalist interpretation offered by Candrakirti but also to that of the substantialist, whose conception of objectivity calls for an annihilation of the human perspective: 'Those who are of little intelligence, who perceive the existence as well as the > non-existence of existents, do not perceive the appeasement of the object, the auspicious'. What Nagarjuna is recommending is the appeasement of the conception of the object, neither its elevation to an ultimate reality nor its annihilation. It is not the elimination of any and every conceptionof it. Here he was faithfully following the footsteps of the Buddha. This, after performing a careful and delicate surgery in relation to all thirteen categories, Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 163/164) k: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not about substantiality. Ken O 37305 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi, Ken (and Joop) - In a message dated 10/5/04 12:10:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > k: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this > word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as > Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - > that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. > If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we > have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does > not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience > bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of > feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it > own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an > annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana > Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not > about substantiality. > > ======================== The term sabhava in Theravada only means "characteristic", not "own-being". But the Saravastivadins and some other early schools seem to have accepted the literal meaning of "own being". This is apparently what is reacted to in the Patisambidhamagga (sp?) and, later, by Nararjuna. Also, Ken, the term 'insubstantial' does not mean "nonexistent". It only means coreless, lacking in own-being, dependent, and not self-existent. The meaning of 'substance' is that of an underlying, self-existent core/identity. But the manner of existence of dhammas as explained by the Buddha is that of dependent existence, and not self-existence. It is a subtle, middle-way, relational mode of existence which is neither substantial self-existence nor nihilistic nonexistence. What is nonexistent can neither arise nor cease. And whatever is self-existent can neither arise nor cease. Reality is neither of these. 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) 37306 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 10:31am Subject: Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Text Vis 105: III. i. D. The 'supramundane resultant' is of four kinds (66)-(69) because it is [respectively] the fruitions of the consciousnesses associated with the four paths (18)-(21). It occurs in two ways, that is to say, as [fruition in] the cognitive series of the path and as fruition attainment (see Ch. XXII). So resultant consciousness in all four planes is of thirty-six kinds. ******* Intro: As we have seen, there are four planes (bhumi) of citta: cittas of the sense-sphere (kaamaavaraa cittas), of the fine-material sphere (ruupa-jhaana), of the immaterial sphere (aruupa-jhaana) and supramundane or lokuttara cittas. The magga-cittas, lokuttara kusala cittas, arise when enlightenment is attained. As we have seen in XIV, 88, there are four stages of enlightenment: the stage of the streamwinner, of the once-returner, of the non-returner and of the arahat. At each of these stages defilements are successively eradicated. The Vis. deals here with supramundane vipaakacittas, the phala-cittas (fruition-consciousness), which are the results of the magga-cittas (path-consciousness). ========= Text Vis: The 'supramundane resultant' is of four kinds (66)-(69) because it is [respectively] the fruitions of the consciousnesses associated with the four paths (18)-(21) It occurs in two ways, that is to say, as [fruition in] the cognitive series of the path and as fruition attainment (see Ch. XXII). =========================== N: The Tiika mentions that during the process when enlightenment occurs, there are two or three moments of phalacitta. However, when there is fruition attainment, phalasamaapatti, it occurs uninterruptedly, and thus there are two ways (positions or .thaana) of its occurring. At the moment of enlightenment, magga-citta arises, and then it is followed in the same process by phalacittas, fruition consciousness. The magga-citta conditions the vipaakacitta, fruition consciousness by way of anantara-paccaya and other conditions. There is no delay, it is akaliko. Vis. VII, 31: Kamma that is worldly, lokiya, produces its result later on, but the kusala kamma that is magga-citta, is the only kamma that produces vipaaka in the same process. Also someone who is a sukkhavipassaka, with dry insight, experiences nibbaana with samaadhi of the degree of attainment concentration. The reason is that the object is nibbaana. Those who have cultivated jhaana, can attain enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by the jhanafactors of the different stages of jhaana. They can, after the process during which enlightenment occurred, experience nibbaana again with phalacittas in the course of life. That is the meaning of the two ways or positions of occurring of the fruition-consciousness. =============== Text Vis: So resultant consciousness in all four planes is of thirty-six kinds. =================================== N: The Tiika mentions that there are twentythree vipaakacittas of the sense-sphere (kaamaavaraa cittas). These are: eight sahetuka kusala vipaakacittas, eight ahetuka kusala vipaakacittas and seven akusala vipaakacittas (which are always ahetuka). There are five ruupaavacaara vipaakacittas (of the fine-material sphere), four aruupaavacaara vipaakacittas (of the immaterial sphere), and four lokuttara vipaakacittas. Thus, there are thirty-six kinds in all. The Tiika states that this is according to a method which is neither too short nor too detailed. N: When we include lokuttara jhaanacittas, lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhana-factors, the classification is more detailed. The Tiika explains that there is no lokuttara kiriyacitta because the vipaaka is sure to occur without interval (anantaravipaaka). It refers to a text in the Minor Readings, VI, The Jewel Discourse: This text speaks about samaadhi, concentration, and this is the ariyan right concentration which is lokuttara. The M. III, no 117, The Great Forty, states: The Tiika deals with the question why there is no lokuttara kiriyacitta. The questioner states that superior kusala of the ariyan who is a trainer, a non-arahat, produces fruit, whereas the superior kusala of the arahat, the non-trainer, is without fruit (nipphala), therefore why could there not be a lokuttara kiriyacitta? If the lokuttara magga-citta would arise again there could be a lokuttara kiriyacitta for the arahat. But since it arises only once this is not the case. N: Kusala kamma that is not lokuttara is a link in the cycle of birth and death. In the Expositor (II, p. 290) this kind of kamma that accumulates is compared to the building up a wall. The lokuttara magga-citta pulls down and demolishes this wall. Its result is completely different from the result of kamma of the other three planes of citta, it is not a link in the cycle of birth and death, it could not produce vipaaka in the form of rebirth-consciousness nor by way of a pleasant experience through one of the senses. The magga-citta can arise when the right conditions have been cultivated so that enlightenment can be attained. As we have seen in the Tiika Vis. 88, the six purifications, visuddhis, have to be reached which include all the stages of insight, before there can be the seventh purification, purification by knowledge and vision that is associated with the magga-citta, path-consciousness. The magga-citta is accompanied by all eight path-factors, including right action, right speech and right livelihood. The magga-citta eradicates the bases of wrong action, speech and livelihood in accordance with the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. The magga-citta produces, immediately after it has fallen away, the phala-citta, fruition-consciousness. The phala-citta is also accompanied by all eight path-factors, but at that moment the defilements that were to be eradicated by the magga-citta have been eradicated. **** Nina. 37307 From: Egbert Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Sukin, Sorry for the extreme delay. > > H > Are you unaware, even with hindsight, that your daily life is full > > of activity in which you are creating and maintaining your self- belief > > with vigour and determination? And this is preferable to any sort of > > activity, regardless of how highly praised by the Buddha, because a > self > > might be hiding in it? > > > > I really have to laugh, Sukin. You are a funny fellow :-) > > > Sukin: So? There is plenty idea of self all day and very little sati of any > level. There is the illusion of control precisely because there is no > satipatthana. Often this involves an identification of `self' as a concept > engaging in `activities' (concepts) in time (more concept) and no > awareness of not only paramattha dhammas, but even ignoring other > possible interpretations of `self doing something'. But do I prefer this? > But you are right; lobha does lead the way all day, against one's better > judgement. So is there control? > ========== If there is awareness of the possibility of doing X (jhana, vipassana, metta) and then one does not do it in a context of thinking that it could be a trap in which an "I" is lurking, this is as much the exercising of control as if one were to go ahead and do it unaware of the hidden "I". Except that in the first case, there is the added conceit that the self has outsmarted itself. It often sounds to me that those who reject intentional meditation see as being desirable the seemingly unprompted moments of insight that come out of the blue. This is seen as a moment of no control. It can also be seen as moments with complete ignorance of what led up to them. That a moment of mindfullness can be preceded by ages of mindlessness is a fact of nature, but not one in which the beggar should take delight. One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. Kind Regards Herman 37308 From: Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 6:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro Vis. XIV, 105, and tiika. Hi Nina, I'm a little confused by the chart. It seems to say both the magga citta and the phala citta are javana. Is it two javana series in a row or two lokuttara mind-door processes in a row? Is mind-door adverting not counted as lokuttara? What about registration (tadaaramma.na)? Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations? Larry 37309 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 04-10-2004 20:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Hi, Nina (and Phil) - > I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to > relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing > cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, > including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating > calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times at which > we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind > has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the > intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each > instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. N: Today I had a good Dhamma talk with Lodewijk about your points. We visited a museum and had lunch in a restaurant. He said: we should train the mind in what? In understanding. Not training in suppressing tanha, then we shall not see anatta, the incontrollability of phenomena. He likes to stress the latent tendencies. Without clear understanding of the meaning and the impact of the latent tendencies truthfulness is not possible, he said. Understanding the latent tendencies helps us not to delude ourselves. Thus, we should go to the root of the defilements that arise. The latent tendencies conditions the arising of akusala cittas, and these will always find a desirable object that is a condition for pleasant feeling. He realized in the museum that the impact of visible object on the eye is followed by a rapid succession of feelings. We discussed that we should not only know clinging. If we do not study seeing and hearing we shall not understand conditions for the arising of clinging. We do not know about all the many moments of clinging with indifferent feeling arising in a day after seeing, hearing, and the other sense-cognitions. Or thinking with indifferent feeling: this is mostly akusala. What about conceit? We find ourselves important but this is usually unnoticed. You say, I find that the Abhidhamma helps me to understand that there are countless arisings of tanha, and not only tanha, but all kinds of akusala. As soon as we even think of beginning there were already countless moments of clinging. I want to see, to hear. I want to be able to move around, not like my father being in a wheelchair. I want to be able to talk, to think, to write. I want to live, I cling to life. For me it is unnatural to try to relinquish clinging, but what is unnatural for one person maybe natural for another person. I cannot tell. I want to understand, not to let go. Understanding does the work of detachment, very gradually. Nina. 37310 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 9:20pm Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ŒCetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard, op 05-10-2004 15:57 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > It is said that vedana is always present. What, effectively, is the > difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and > (what would be) absence of vedana? What exactly is detectably present when > there > is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? N: It is not easy to know indifferent feeling. Only through awareness can we know it more precisely. When? Only after we have realized the first stage of insight: knowing the difference between nama and rupa. We begin to study seeing when it appears. It is accompanied by indifferent feeling. When feeling is neither happy nor unhappy, it is indifferent. This is the way to begin to study it. There is no absence of feeling, there is always feeling, but we are ignorant. In the suttas we find texts about indifferent feeling and ignorance. Bodily pleasant feeling and bodily painful feeling are also feelings. See Vis. studies. It is also difficult to know happy feeling and unhappy feeling, we confuse these with rupas, with bodily phenomena. We take nama and rupa as a whole. We do not know the characteristic of feeling cetasika, which is nama, different from rupa. Nina. 37311 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Oct 5, 2004 11:24pm Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard, --------------------- H: > It is said that vedana is always present > ---------------------- Just to state the obvious: Conditioned existence means the co- arising of each of the five khandhas. If there is no vedana, there is no conditioned existence. ----------------------- H: > What, effectively, is the difference between neutral vedana (i.e., neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) and (what would be) absence of vedana? ----------------------- There is no way of imagining 'what would be the absence of vedana.' In conventional thinking we sometimes say, "I have no feelings one way or the other," but what we really mean is, "My feelings are neutral." The fact that we are able to comment on the state of our feelings confirms they are there to be known. Otherwise, we would find ourselves saying, "I don't know what my feelings are, they aren't here!" ---------------------- H: > What exactly is detectably present when there is neutral vedana that enables one to assert that vedana is not absent? > ---------------------- Whenever neutral feeling becomes the object of consciousness, I suppose there is an experience of neutral feeling as distinct from pleasant or unpleasant feeling. I don't think the absence of a dhamma is ever directly detected. It is only by detecting the opposite of a particular dhamma that we can say that dhamma is absent. So for example, when neutral feeling is experienced we can conclude, "pleasant feeling is absent," or, "unpleasant feeling is absent." --------------- H: > Vedana is not bodily sensation - for that is rupa. So it would not be a correct answer to say that neutral vedana is a type of neither pleasant nor unpleasant bodily sensation. > ---------------- Actually, that's not a good example, is it? You will recall that sense objects, of all five kinds, are either pleasant (those experienced as the result of kusala kamma) or unpleasant (those experienced as the result of akusala kamma). Regardless of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of its object, sense-door consciousness is always accompanied by neutral feeling except in the case of body-door consciousness. When there is body-door- consciousness of a pleasant / unpleasant tactile object, there is always pleasant / painful feeling. When there is mind-door consciousness of a tactile object (or of any sense object), there can be any one of the three mental feelings (depending on our accumulated tendencies). ----------------------- H: > The point is: On the occasion of bodily sensation that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, what does it mean to say there is vedana? > ----------------------- For the above reasons, I think the question needs to be rephrased, but my answer would be; "It means vedana has arisen to perform its functions." -------------------- H: > Why could one not just as well truly say that there is bodily sensation lacking affective feel? There must be an experiential basis for distinguishing lack of feeling from neutral feeling in order for neutral feeling to be accepted as an experiential reality. -------------------- I think dhammas arise, perform their functions and cease regardless of whether or not we accept them. :-) -------------------- H: > (BTW, S.N.Goenka seems to treat vedana as bodily sensations - pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral, distinguishing them from rupas. That would solve this "problem", but it replaces it by the problem of a non-traditional understanding of the meaning of 'vedana'.) ------------ As I recall, Goenka students detect tingling sensations sweeping up and down the entire body as they breathe in and out. (Or is it out and in?) I don't recall how those sensations were to be understood. Naturally, I would say they were concepts, which distinguishes them, not only from rupas, but also from vedana (namas). Ken H 37312 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Dear Htoo, Sorry for the delay. > Sukin: > > However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to > think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be > observed. > Htoo: > > I understand. But some develop on their own accord. -S> You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an important condition isn't it? The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta sanna. Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is knowing only concepts. My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti level, about conditionality and anatta. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > I understand that there are some people who believe that one must > start with the above kind of practice, and that later on one then > comes to `observe' paramattha dhammas. I think this is wrong. The > correct practice must in my opinion, start with correct intellectual > understanding. Do you agree with this? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I largely agree. But may I ask you a question? Did Bodhisatta > Siddhattha have correct understanding before arising of magga cittas? -S> How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and these would be the best ones then. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> One reason I stress these two words is because many people tend > to link the development of `concentration' with the development of > panna. I think there is no basis for such a connection. > Htoo: > > I think you are referring to magga panna. But all rupavacara rupa > jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas do have panna as their > accompanying cetasika. -S> Yes, but the `understanding' is different. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> I think these individuals would least need to `sit in order to > practice' and instead would `practice no matter what they did'. But > as I expressed above, I think `sitting' was their normal and natural > activity. > Htoo: I agree. I meant activity. Yes it is activity. Their sitting is > activity. Should other people not do these activities while they are > trying to understand The Buddha's Dhamma? -S> Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world but have wrong pariyatti understanding? Htoo, I understand your stress on practice. One must see the big difference between intellectual understanding and satipatthana, only the latter truly qualifies as `practice'. `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. So it is always good to be reminded about the more important thing, which is `patipatti'. But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) Good talking to you Htoo. Metta, Sukin. 37313 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Herman, > Sorry for the extreme delay. -S> And I'm being unusually quick in responding. ;-) ------------------------------------- > > Sukin: So? There is plenty idea of self all day and very little sati of any > > level. There is the illusion of control precisely because there is no > > satipatthana. Often this involves an identification of `self' as a concept > > engaging in `activities' (concepts) in time (more concept) and no > > awareness of not only paramattha dhammas, but even ignoring other > > possible interpretations of `self doing something'. But do I prefer this? > > But you are right; lobha does lead the way all day, against one's better > > judgement. So is there control? > > > ========== > Herman: If there is awareness of the possibility of doing X (jhana, > vipassana, metta) and then one does not do it in a context of > thinking that it could be a trap in which an "I" is lurking, this is > as much the exercising of control as if one were to go ahead and do > it unaware of the hidden "I". Except that in the first case, there > is the added conceit that the self has outsmarted itself. -S> What if this is not just from the standpoint of `theory'? What if there is the realization that such ideas about `jhana, vipassana, metta' are conditioned in part by craving? And this I-lobha might generate more I- ditthi. What if instead there is a level of satipatthana which generate a degree of detachment and not any idea about wanting more `sati' or `metta'? But of course what you say above is also a possibility and it would be as you point out, the same thing. Anyway I think, `conceit' is not so big a problem as `wrong view' with regard to the idea of `control'. ----------------------------------------------- > Herman: It often sounds to me that those who reject intentional meditation > see as being desirable the seemingly unprompted moments of insight > that come out of the blue. -S> `Desire' can arise, but surely this is `undesirable'. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > Herman: This is seen as a moment of no control. > It can also be seen as moments with complete ignorance of what led > up to them. -S> It usually is, I think. Just to have a moment of satipatthana is already a great event, to understand the conditions which lead to it, requires I think very great panna. But we do get caught in speculations about what lead to what, but I think it wise to refrain from this. ------------------------------------------------- > Herman: That a moment of mindfullness can be preceded by ages of > mindlessness is a fact of nature, but not one in which the beggar > should take delight. -S> No memory of past dhammas no matter how sublime is worth clinging to. But when compared kusala is surely more valuable than akusala, and between kusala with panna and without, the former is. And whenever if there is a realization that much of the time only the non- or less- valuable dhamma constantly arises, then shouldn't the rare occurrence of satipatthana be a cause for some joy? But you are saying that this being not enough, we should `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! ------------------------------------- > Herman: One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to > nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types > of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. -S> "Seeds", other types or the particular type we wish for, what can understand which is which? Is that which is labeled now as `mindfulness' in fact, the opposite of it? When panna arises to know a reality, what is the wish to nurture it? Is there any self-view in terms of having arrived at this point and going somewhere? Time to go. Metta, Sukin. 37314 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 1:44am Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner29-Feeling/Vedana (b) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Is there feeling now? We think that we can recognize pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling, but are we not mixing up feeling with bodily phenomena? Feeling is nåma, quite different from rúpa. So long as we do not distinguish nåma from rúpa we cannot know the characteristic of feeling as it is. When we study the Abhidhamma we learn that 'vedanå' is not the same as what we mean by feeling in conventional language. Feeling is nåma, it experiences something. Feeling never arises alone; it accompanies citta and other cetasikas and it is conditioned by them. Thus, feeling is a conditioned nåma. Citta does not feel, it cognizes the object and vedanå feels. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37315 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:16am Subject: Re: Self control for crude defilements? (was Re: [dsg] most moving Buddha quote9 Hi Phil, Last babble from me to you before we take our breaks even though you've stressed there's no need for further comments;-). Nothng new either, but I've had a few posts I've been meaning to add a comment or two on, so here goes: --- plnao wrote: <...> >Take encouragement from this self-image, though it is a > self-image, > and wrong view. It could be effective dealing with a crude - just about > as > crude > as they come - defilement like pornography. There are suttas that use > self-images in this > way to encourage monks. .... S: Just to put it clearly, there's nothing wrong in using 'self-images', sitting quietly on your cushion with your coffee and reflecting, going to AA if one is an alcoholic or following any other steps appropriate. 'Each has his own way', like we read in the sutta on 'Removing Distracting Thoughts'. BUT, and I mean it as a big BUT... But, whilst following any of these activities or steps, they can of course be followed with right or wrong view. It just depends on the purpose, the intention and the understanding at any time. Whether you use or don't use a 'self-image' will depend entirely on conditions which are not of any self's making. If there is an idea that one is in control in anything other than a conventional sense or that by following certain steps, defilements will necessarily be reduced, it shows a lack of understanding of the intricate nature and complexity of conditions, including kamma and vipaka. If one therefore thinks, well it's hopeless, it's conditioned, there's no point in going to AA and so on, that would also be quite wrong. So we can 'deal' with the crude defilements as we find fit, BUT develop understanding while taking or not taking action. "Metta as the means of removing hatred for living beings",as you mentioned, but by understanding its value when it arises, not trying to have it for oneself or wishing for more. When it comes to Abby-dilemmas, it's the same,as you suggested to Christine when you aptly requoted everyone's (well, not Dighanakha's) favourite message from Matt. We're so used to being lost in our dilemmas, we forget about present realities and forget that whether we take action a) or b), it will be by conditions at the present moment. So often we may decide on one course or worry so much about whether xyz will happen, not realizing that there will always be so many unknown factors affecting our intentions, our courses of action and results at various times. The only island for refuge is the Dhamma and development of satipatthana at the present moment, no matter how we think or act as you and everyone else here knows. Anyway, there's nothing new for you here and nothing you don't appreciate as was very clear in your excellent comments on 'determination' (#37222). Thank you for that. Your conclusion on New Year's resolutions was just the same as K.Sujin's comments to a friend who raised the same subject once. You've mentioned 'wholesome doubt' a few times with regard to the Kalama sutta I think. Sometime back we checked the Pali and various translations. I think it was clear that the intended meaning was 'you may well doubt' or something like that. No wholesome doubt. Of course, this is the doubt about realities, about the truths as taught by the Buddha that is being referred to rather than everyday doubts about the weather, what to wear and how to earn more money;-). You also referred to impatience 'knowing how gradual panna is.' There can be impatience of course, but I think that when panna itself grows there's simply less and less interest or concern about 'how much', 'when', 'how quickly' and so on. There is more and more confidence that nothing other than the understanding of the present reality really matters at all. Even akusala (unwholesome) states are known more for what they are - conditioned dhammas, that's all. K.Sujin always says 'I don't mind at all' with regard to (her) unwholesome states. Ah, we might say, but they're not so gross. Still, any dhammas have to be seen with detachment, otherwise there's just more clinging to self again. Detachment goes along with the understanding which really sees the danger of these states for what they are, not the minding. I liked a quote you gave from 'Deeds of Merit' when K.Sujin said: "If the citta has a high degree of coarseness there will be behaviour and speech which is not polite, not gentle, without thoughtfulness and kindness". ***** A couple of other minor points- I've appreciated all the extracts you've posted from 'Deeds of Merit'. In one of the extracts you posted, there was a discussion on 'bhaavanaa' and the common use of the word in Thai. It was a good example of how it is the understanding rather than the 'right' term that is important. There are lots of examples like that. Olfactory sense or sense of smell - I was reading about a nobel prize for research in this field. One of my brothers has had no or very little sense of smell since an accident a few years ago. From the point of view of understanding dhammas, whether one has a keen or dull sense of smell or eyesight or any other sense, makes no difference at all in terms of bhaavanaa or the development of understanding of realities. We can compare and analyse sense experiences for ever and never come closer to the truth, but you weren't suggesting this either. Lastly on 'jhanifying' - better to understand a little about the meaning of calm or samatha that accompanies all wholesome cittas and a little more about samatha development naturally in daily life first (again no special action with an idea of self). otherwise we'll always have a wrong understanding of what jhanas are, rather than just understanding accumulations now. We don't know what'll be conditioned next or whether there will be any developed vipassana or samatha in future, but without any understanding of any bhaavanaa now, there won't be any further conditions for more in future. Also, on the Perfections, I think I rather agree with Andrew L in that we can't say 'they're all needed, fully and completely'. This was only so for the Buddha. But, as you stress so well, we can't underestimate the value of considering, reflecting and developing these qualities along with insight. Phil, the babble was of course longer than intended - I had a pile of your posts I'd wished to pick up on before. I know I speak for many people here when I say how much we've appreciated your enthusiasm for the Dhamma and lovely, natural posts. I'll look forward to chatting again when we both resurface;-). Metta, Sarah p.s.Best wishes with the story books - pls give us a link sometime too. I hope you have a way to access those India recordings sometime (if you don't have tapes already). We may still be able to make our last Bkk recordings accessible before we leave, but again no promises. Jon will be flat out with drafting and meetings til we go. ====== 37316 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:23am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Continue-: Sukin: Dear Htoo, Sorry for the delay. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That's fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to > > think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be > > observed. > > Htoo: > > I understand. But some develop on their own accord. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Life is short these days. It is the best if all pariyatti are learnt and properly understood. But those who attained some achievement may or may not have learnt all pariyatti. I usually use the story of Culapanthaka. He learnt nothing but did practise exactly as The Buddha asked him to do and he attained arahatta magga in a single morning. Pariyatti are good. It is good if you understand all and if you finish with all pariyatti. But wihtout patipatti, life will not be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of the practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an important condition isn't it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta sanna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Atta sanna will be cleared when it is seen. Noting the postures etc are just a method. Mahasatipatthana says to note body postures in iriyapatha pabba. When really practised, then the practitioner will see that there is no posture at all and what he will see is that there are just rupa such as vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- photthabba. If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is knowing only concepts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas and cetasikas. A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be destroyed. Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and they cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti level, about conditionality and anatta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But as I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > I understand that there are some people who believe that one must > > start with the above kind of practice, and that later on one then > > comes to `observe' paramattha dhammas. I think this is wrong. The > > correct practice must in my opinion, start with correct intellectual > > understanding. Do you agree with this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I largely agree. But may I ask you a question? Did Bodhisatta > Siddhattha have correct understanding before arising of magga cittas? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and these would be the best ones then. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before arising of magga cittas. I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding before arising of nay magga nana' ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > S> One reason I stress these two words is because many people > tend to link the development of `concentration' with the development of panna. I think there is no basis for such a connection. > Htoo: > I think you are referring to magga panna. But all rupavacara rupa > jhanas and arupavacara arupa jhanas do have panna as their > accompanying cetasika. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Yes, but the `understanding' is different. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sure. But no concentration, no magga nana. Samadhisambojjhanga is a requirement when magga nana is going to arise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: >> S> I think these individuals would least need to `sit in order to > > practice' and instead would `practice no matter what they did'. But > > as I expressed above, I think `sitting' was their normal and natural > > activity. > Htoo: I agree. I meant activity. Yes it is activity. Their sitting is activity. Should other people not do these activities while they are trying to understand The Buddha's Dhamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world but have wrong pariyatti understanding? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they practise for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta heard that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha Gotama had to practise for 6 years. If already understand, there is no need to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Htoo, I understand your stress on practice. One must see the big difference between intellectual understanding and satipatthana, only the latter truly qualifies as `practice'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes, exactly. Some do not. They even do not accept that they are just in theory. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the essence of instruction I am going to say. 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. That is why I stress to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: So it is always good to be reminded about the more important thing, which is `patipatti'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here I definitely see that you already accepted that pariyatti is more important. Actually all are important as all pitakas are important. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) Good talking to you Htoo. Metta, Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a car, please do not control it :-). With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 37317 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:53am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 083 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Piti is a separate entity standing on its own character. I have heard that someone confused with mudita with piti. Actually mudita is another cetasika. The reason for confusion is that mudita co-arises with piti. There are 121 cittas. As piti is not a universal mental factor, it does not arise with each of 121 cittas. They choose the right citta and if citta is not the right one for it, piti does not arise. There are 4 lobha mula citta which do not have piti as their accompaniment. They are upekkha sahagatam lobha mula cittas. All dosa cittas do not have piti. No one is happy when they are angry. So 2 dosa mula cittas do not have piti as thier mental factor. 2 moha mula cittas also do not have piti. All 10 panca vinnana cittas do not have piti. 2 sampaticchana cittas do not have piti. 2 upekkha santirana do not have piti. 2 ahetuka kiriya cittas pancadvaraavajjana citta and manodvaravajjana citta do not have piti. 12 of 24 kamavacara kama sobhana citta do not have piti. They are 4 upekkha kamavacara mahakusala cittas, 4 mahavipaka cittas, and 4 mahakiriya cittas. So 36 kamavacara cittas do not have piti. There are 27 mahaggata cittas and 40 lokuttara cittas left. 3 of 4th rupa jhana cittas, 3 of 5th rupa jhana and all 12 arupa jhanas do not have piti as piti is excluded by the practice. So 18 mahaggata cittas do not have piti. 36 + 18 = 54 loki cittas do not have piti. 8 of 4th jhana lokuttara cittas and 8 of 5th jhana lokuttara cittas do not have piti. So 54 + 8 + 8 = 70 cittas do not have piti. Piti arises in 121- 70 = 51 cittas. 4 lobha cittas, 1 somanassa santirana, 1 hasituppada, 12 kama sobhana cittas, 11 1st jhana, 11 2nd jhana, and 11 3rd jhana cittas do have piti. 4+ 1 + 1 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 11 = 51 cittas. So we need to differentiate between these kinds of citta when piti arises. 1. Lobha cittas 2. Ahetuka cittas ( one is vipaka and one is kiriya ) So we do not need to worry on these 2 cittas. 3. kama sobhana cittas ( 4 is vipaka cittas and 4 is kiriya cittas ) So again we do not need to worry on 8 cittas. 4. 1st jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas We do not need to worry on 8 lokuttara cittas. But 3 mahaggata has 1 rupakusala citta. It needs to be understood to differentiate from lobha cittas. 5. 2nd jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas. 1 rupakusala citta needs attention as discussed. 6. 3rd jhana cittas 3 mahaggata cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas. 1 rupakusala citta needs attention. So there are 4 lobha cittas, 4 mahakusala cittas, 1 1st jhana rupakusala citta, 1 2nd jhana rupakusala citta, 1 3rd jhana rupakusala citta. Jhana cittas are in appana samadhi and this cannot be confused if the practitioner is wise enough. So 4 lobha cittas and 4 kama mahakusala cittas left. Cetasikas that accompany akusala cittas and cetasikas that accompany kusala cittas differ. So the study of cetasikas become crucial. That is why I am now discussing on cetasikas in some detail. 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. 37318 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 4:58am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Hello KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > .....snip..... > RK: > (Unless you meant to say that AFTER the cuti-citta arises it > will take a different object. By doing so..?) > > -------------------------- > > Alas, no, but I think I've got it now. And it does make sense. (But > then, I thought that about the other, completely different, > version). :-) > Thanks for your patience. > > Ken H A: I've just managed to get this one clear in my head also. The javanna cittas that arise just before cuti-citta have something as object [who knows what] and that same something will also be object of the next patisandhi citta. So the bhavanga cittas and the cuti- citta of that life will take that same object. I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post when I return. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37319 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: Hallo Ken Ken : Kalupahana does not see it in the correct angle. when Abhidhamma talk about the five aggregates it is meant as paramatha dhamma. In the same way when sutta talk about the four great elements, it is not about heat as a concept but heat as element in the paramatha dhammas. When it is view in this way, there is no difference in the traditions. The difference arise because his understanding cannot compare to those who spoken at that time. He is basing on his own understanding to draw up this conclusion. Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which the theory of dependent origination belongs. I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the first time. ============================================== Kalupahana: Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) Ken : Could you explain again the above text as I dont r Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. This is an example of Kalupahan's general statement that the content of the texts ascribed to the Buddha's changed from realism to kinds of transcendentalism: much in Mahayana but even (less) in Theravada. And his statement that Nagarjuna has tried to undo that development (without result is his time but to our great pleasure now) . ============================================== Kalupahana: Nagarjuna, in Chaper XV, utilizes the executioners's block to get rid of the conception of substance (svabhava)." (page 164) Ken: What is svabhava? There is a lot of misunderstanding in this word by others. I used to discuss with another person known as Micheal about svabhava. Anatta is not about not substantiality - that is a wrong interpretation of its meaning. It is about not-self. If anatta is about not substantiality then the painful feeling we have should not be painful because it does not exist. It is I does not exist to feel but the feeling is real, even Buddha experience bodily pain. That is what it mean by sabhava the existence of feeling. It does not mean this feeling arise independently or has it own power to arise on its own. To me not-substantialy is an annihilistic point of view. If one look at the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Buddha always explain anatta in comparing with self and not about substantiality. Joop: Howard has answered your question about svabhava. Kalupahana simply translated it with 'substance', but is theme was 'substantialism' (nearly the same as 'essentialism') as a branch of Buddhism which is a deviation from the early Buddhism (of the Sutta's) Metta Joop 37320 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:15am Subject: Deeds of Merit - studying the Vinaya Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag.co.uk Today we consider the benefits of studying the Vinaya. (The Suttanta and Abhidhamma will follow in days to come.) W is Ms. Wanadhana, S is K Sujin. W. : You just said that generally speaking each of the three parts of the teachings are the condition for people who study them for seeing the excellent qualities of the Buddha. Is it correct to say that in each of these three parts of the Tipi~naka we can see the three qualities of the Buddha which are his purity, his compassion and his wisdom? S. : That is true. For example, we see in the Vinaya the purity of the Buddha who laid down in all details the rules of training in moral conduct by which unwholesomeness through body and speech can be eliminated. However, in the Vinaya we do not only see his purity, but also his wisdom by which he realized at the time of his enlightenment the causes leading to the appropriate results with regard to the rules of training contained in the Vinaya. He realized to what extent each training rule of siila was a powerful condition for the monk to be firmly established in the teachings and in the life of purity. Layfollowers are absorbed in the sense objects of visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object which tie them to the household life and prevent them from becoming a monk. Whereas for the monk, his siila is a powerful bond which is a condition for him not to leave the monkhood and turn to the laymans life, the life of sense pleasures. W. : Can people who study the Vinaya also see the compassion of the Buddha? I think that it is difficult to see this. I heard people say that the Buddha made life difficult for the monks by the different rules which are very detailed. Some monks find it difficult to apply these rules. How can we see the Buddhas compassion in the Vinaya? S. : Each rule of the Vinaya the Buddha laid down is for the sake of the living together of the members of the community of monks in harmony and happiness. In the Vinaya there are also minor rules; there are mitigations which means that there are allowances in the application of rules, that there are exceptions so that certain cases are not offenses. This shows the great compassion of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly knew that people who still have defilements would usually in their behaviour be led by those defilements. If such actions would not be greatly in conflict with their status of monkhood there were rules laid down by him which would serve to correct their behaviour. In his compassion the Buddha knew that someone who had left the household life to become a monk had not undertaken an easy task. 37321 From: plnao Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:22am Subject: Re: Self control for crude defilements? (was Re: [dsg] most moving Buddha quote9 Hi Sarah > Last babble from me to you before we take our breaks even though you've > stressed there's no need for further comments;-). Nothng new either, but > I've had a few posts I've been meaning to add a comment or two on, so here > goes: Your effusiveness rivals my own. Indeed, we have a lot in common! Thanks for your comments and kind words. I'll be printing it out and reading it along with all the posts I've gathered. I really do believe that reading and rereading these posts is a form of bhavana, and that the reading conditions understanding. Well, no kidding! Metta, Phil 37322 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina (and Lodewijk) - In a message dated 10/6/04 12:19:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > op 04-10-2004 20:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >Hi, Nina (and Phil) - > >I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to > >relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing > >cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever > arises, > >including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of > cultivating > >calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. There are times > at > which > >we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the > mind > >has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the > >intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go. And each > >instance of relinquishment is condition for future such lettings go. > N: Today I had a good Dhamma talk with Lodewijk about your points. We > visited a museum and had lunch in a restaurant. He said: we should train the > mind in what? In understanding. Not training in suppressing tanha, then we > shall not see anatta, the incontrollability of phenomena. He likes to stress > the latent tendencies. Without clear understanding of the meaning and the > impact of the latent tendencies truthfulness is not possible, he said. > Understanding the latent tendencies helps us not to delude ourselves. Thus, > we should go to the root of the defilements that arise. The latent > tendencies conditions the arising of akusala cittas, and these will always > find a desirable object that is a condition for pleasant feeling. He > realized in the museum that the impact of visible object on the eye is > followed by a rapid succession of feelings. We discussed that we should not > only know clinging. If we do not study seeing and hearing we shall not > understand conditions for the arising of clinging. We do not know about all > the many moments of clinging with indifferent feeling arising in a day after > seeing, hearing, and the other sense-cognitions. Or thinking with > indifferent feeling: this is mostly akusala. What about conceit? We find > ourselves important but this is usually unnoticed. > You say, arising of tanha..> I find that the Abhidhamma helps me to understand that > there are countless arisings of tanha, and not only tanha, but all kinds of > akusala. As soon as we even think of beginning there were already countless > moments of clinging. I want to see, to hear. I want to be able to move > around, not like my father being in a wheelchair. I want to be able to talk, > to think, to write. I want to live, I cling to life. For me it is unnatural > to try to relinquish clinging, but what is unnatural for one person maybe > natural for another person. I cannot tell. I want to understand, not to let > go. Understanding does the work of detachment, very gradually. > Nina. > =========================== I don't disagree with the foregoing except as to a subtle implication of the task being too hard to do. It is so that there are countless moments of craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be aware of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. It is best to be clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed pa~n~nq is key. The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such moments. Guarding the senses [please see the quoted material at the end of this post], repeatedly urged by the Buddha, is exactly what I am referring to when I say "There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for letting it go." A practice of vigilance, carefully monitoring the sense doors, is both possible and important as I see it. With metta, Howard > "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not > yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, > upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful > qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful > qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, > non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." /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) 37323 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/04 2:25:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Just to state the obvious: Conditioned existence means the co- > arising of each of the five khandhas. If there is no vedana, there > is no conditioned existence. > ========================= While such consistent simultaneity of arising may be asserted in Abhidhamma, I'm not aware of that being the case in the suttas. (As to the rest of your reply, I thank you for it - it is a clear exposition of what would be the Abhidhammic analysis of this matter.) 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) 37324 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Howard I appreciate your explanations. Please allow me to express some of my own thoughts on this. I think the word used not-substantial is not a good interpretation of anatta. It brings a connatation of what is exist and not exist. I am not an English teacher like James (hope he does not read the email ;-) ). So to me when the words is used, reader will not have a good sense what is anatta about. That is why the whole article by the writer will mispresent the necessary meaning of Sabhava giving it an interpretation of own being. If an writer put his own understanding to an important term, then to me the whole article already show his limitation and his understanding of what is the term original used for. Everyone has their own interpretation, but we should be faithful to the way it is presented. I am not saying I am good at dhamma, nevertheless I am willing to put fruitful discussion to dispell misunderstanding to terms. Putting Abdhidhamma aside, I believe we should always used sutta as a good comparision for the word Anatta. Not-self to me is the nearest to the word Anatta. Lets not try to reinvent the wheel because of the danger it brings to a reader who could not discriminate what is the original intent of the word being used and let us not let reader to second guess its meaning. I myself has wrestled with the word emptiness for almost seven years until I read anatta as not self. So I believe let us uphold the true meaning for the sake of future generations. Cheers Nonetheles, I used to avoid to discuss materials written by the author, since it keep creeping back to haunt me. So I decide this time once and for all let us have a fruitful dicussion on this. I am most willing to discuss them with Joop anytime since Sarah and gang not around to disturb my discussion with Joop (laughing away). Ken O 37325 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Larry, op 06-10-2004 03:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little confused by the chart. It seems to say both the magga citta > and the phala citta are javana. Is it two javana series in a row or two > lokuttara mind-door processes in a row? N: both the magga citta and the phala citta are javana cittas in one process. Phala-citta immediately succeeds the maggacitta, no delay, akaalika. It is the only vipaakacitta that can perform the function of javana. It is different from all other kinds of vipaakacitta. L: Is mind-door adverting not > counted as lokuttara? N: No. It adverts to one of the three characteristics. That is, it adverts to a reality that appears as impermanent, as dukkha or as anatta. Then it is followed by kusala cittas accompanied by pañña which are not yet lokuttara: preparatory consciousness (parikamma), proximity consciousness (upacaara), conformity (anuloma) and change of lineage (gotrabhuu). The gotrabhuu citta experiences nibbaana, but it is not lokuttara citta, it does not eradicate defilements. This is succeeded by the magga-citta and the phala-citta (two or three moments of phalacitta). See ADL Ch 24. L: What about registration (tadaaramma.na)? N: Never. Retention, tadaaramma.na, can only arise in the case of kaamaavacaara cittas, and in a sensuous plane of existence. Kamma produces this kind of vipaakacitta which hangs on to the sense object that is experienced by kaamaavacaara cittas. We cling so much to sense objects. Nibbaana and the lokuttara cittas are dhammas which are not objects of clinging. L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations? N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain. Nina. 37326 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Hallo Joop, You wrote: < I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame > of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology > describe the same reality?> Very good point you make. touches on the essence. Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, social psychology does not. Abhidhamma leads to detachment from the idea of self. See below. op 05-10-2004 12:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: Snipped... for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a > cause. > - There is a "being suffering"; > - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps > hear him/her too; > - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal > intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have > - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate > propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with > karuna when I was young) Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that person is > suffering - And then Karuna arises. > How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and > rupa's ? N: Cittas go much faster than that. I see it this way: we heard about the brahmavihaaras and it is paññaa that sees the value of them. We consider more and then we begin to realize that what we used to take for kusala was actually akusala. We learn that instead of metta there was the near enemy of attachment. Instead of karuna there was the near enemy of sorrow, which is a form of dosa. How valuable to learn the difference. Otherwise we go on accumulating akusala we take for kusala. When there is right understanding there can be a moment of true metta or true karuna, not what we used to take for metta and karuna. Such moments fall away but they are accumulated and can be a condition for their arising later on. Thus, when we notice someone who needs help (mental or material), it all depends on the conditions for the citta at that moment what will arise: aversion or true compassion. I do not reason or draw conclusions, but when there are conditions for karuna I make a move at once. Let us not forget that karuna is not mine, that it arises depending on conditions. it has no master, it is anatta. I do not have an intellectual approach, I find that this does not work. Cittas are too fast. If we delay, it may be too late to help! Thus here you see the difference with social psychology. I like your question, it is to the point. Nina. 37327 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Nina, "L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations?" "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. Is that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is nibbana the same for all four paths? Larry 37328 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 10/6/04 6:38:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Nina, > > "L: Are lokuttara cittas consciousnesses of particular cessations?" > > "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and > nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This > process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can > even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in > the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." > > L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for > a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation > of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. Is > that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is > nibbana the same for all four paths? > > Larry > > ========================== Here's how I think about it, without implying that my perspective is at all authoritative: Nibbana is the absence of the three poisons. In a sense, nibbana is always here. It is always present in the same way that chalk dust covering a chalk board is not a part of the board, and that even before erasing the board, the dust is absent from the board, and the board is free of the dust. That absence and that freedom is a kind of chalk-board nibbana. Under the proper conditions, one can see below the dust, glimpsing the absence of the dust from the board, and blowing away some of the dusty covering. Likewise, one can, under the proper conditions, get to see nibbana, the essential absence of the dust of defilements from the mindstream, their non-inherent and merely adventitious occurrence, and doing so blows away some of that dust. Whether the realization is the first, second, third, or fourth, it is the same nibbana that is realized. 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) 37329 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 5:43pm Subject: Scientist Herman Hi Herman I'm back and would like to weigh into the very interesting science thread. As you know, I am a bit of a science buff, have studied science at uni level and love the work of the late Stephen Jay Gould. I believe the scientific method has a crucial place in our culture and needs to be distinguished from pseudo-science like Creationism. However, I think you put the case for science far too high. In post #37189, you wrote: "Science explains the mechanisms of life in a testable, verifiable way, while Buddhism doesn't". Herman, if only what you say about science were actually correct, things would be a whole lot easier and I would be a whole lot happier. The fact is that the appearance of the scientific method has not dispeled all mystery in the universe. Why? Because some (many) things are not testable in the scientific way. Can we say that something that is not (currently) testable in this way is necessarily false? No. All we can say is that we presently have no way of testing it scientifically. In a previous post, I pointed out that designating something as a "scientific fact" in a great many cases actually involves making a value judgement that reasonable people could disagree about. So when people tell me that "science proves" that their view is correct, I keep my salt shaker handy. Over and above all this is the occurence of shonky science. Have you read Gould's award-winning "The Mismeasure of Man"? In it, he tells of the white American scientist who "proved" that black Americans aren't as intelligent as white Americans by measuring the volume of skulls. He did this by filling the skulls with lead filings and measuring it. He found that the white skulls had a bigger volume. Gould repeated this scientist's experiment using precisely the same skulls he had used in the museums. What did he find? The scientist had jammed the lead filings into the white skulls as much as he could and only lightly filled the black skulls! In truth, there *was* no significant difference at all! And for many many years, people with pre-set views went around proclaiming "science has proven that blacks aren't as intelligent as whites". Let's be frank. There are many parts of the Dhamma that are not testable in the scientific way (at the moment). In that sense, they are "unscientific". But we can't go further and say that they are necessarily false (even though that may be our belief). You also wrote that "ethics is not the domain of science". Traditionally, of course, both philosopher and physicist were called "scientists" - the former a "practical scientist" and the latter a "theoretical scientist". That's because a philosopher answers practical "what to do" questions and the physicist answers theoretical "how does it happen" questions. That's why Aristotle's "Ethics" is still on the curriculum whilst his "Physics" is now little read. But you mustn't forget meta-ethics: if you believe in Determinism, your ethics are going to be a lot different from one who believes in free will. Whether things work deterministically or not is a "how does it happen" question. Enough rabbiting on. Bye for now. Andrew T 37330 From: Andrew Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 6:12pm Subject: Scholar Dighanankha Dear Dighanakha I appreciate reading your views very much and note that you are both a scholar and a Dhamma practitioner (post #37243). I have some comments and questions to pose and would appreciate any further comments you may have, if you feel so inclined. First on the matter of saddha/faith. When the Buddha said: "Faith is the seed, austerity the rain, wisdom my yoke and plough, shame is the pole, mind the yoke tie, mindfulness my ploughshare and goad" [SN I 663], how do you interpret the place of faith in Dhamma practice? How does scholarly trading of views (such as that set out by RobK in a recent post) affect faith? Can it be faith-building? Or is it more likely to come within these words of the Buddha: "Well-spoken counsel is hard to understand By one who relishes contradiction, By one with a corrupt mind Who is engrossed in aggression." [SN I 693] I hasten to add I am not suggesting anyone here is being so described. But I have something to do with academia and IMHO these words are "fair comment" if applied to much academic discourse wherein scholars vie to leave their mark on their discipline by debunking a widely held view. I feel that scholarship has its place in Dhamma practice but much of it is pure reasoning. Buddha described his Dhamma as "deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, NOT WITHIN THE SPHERE OF REASONING, subtle, to be experienced by the wise" [SN I ch VI]. So I don't accept that scholarship is the be-all-and-end-all of determining "what the Buddha taught". Do you agree? With best wishes Andrew T 37331 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 8:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Howard, I'm trying to get a sense of what the consciousness of nibbana is. Are you saying it is a consciousness of the absence of desire, aversion, and ignorance? You seem to speak of these as a kind of glue. Is nibbana gluelessness, aka anatta? What about dependent arising? Dependence is sticky and the main dependence is root dependence, desire, aversion and bewilderment. This dependence of kamma depends on the glue of a sense of self. I can see how consciousness of nibbana could be a direct and profound consciousness of anatta. But I suspect it might be a little different for each stage of enlightenment. Larry ---------------------- H: "Here's how I think about it, without implying that my perspective is at all authoritative: Nibbana is the absence of the three poisons. In a sense, nibbana is always here. It is always present in the same way that chalk dust covering a chalk board is not a part of the board, and that even before erasing the board, the dust is absent from the board, and the board is free of the dust. That absence and that freedom is a kind of chalk-board nibbana. Under the proper conditions, one can see below the dust, glimpsing the absence of the dust from the board, and blowing away some of the dusty covering. Likewise, one can, under the proper conditions, get to see nibbana, the essential absence of the dust of defilements from the mindstream, their non-inherent and merely adventitious occurrence, and doing so blows away some of that dust. Whether the realization is the first, second, third, or fourth, it is the same nibbana that is realized." 37332 From: Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/6/04 11:23:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm trying to get a sense of what the consciousness of nibbana is. Are > you saying it is a consciousness of the absence of desire, aversion, and > ignorance? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I understand it, nibbana is exactly the absence of desire, aversion, and ignorance. What the consciousness of that would be I can only imagine. It would, I believe, be the supreme instance of wisdom, it would be a direct knowing, and, no doubt it would result in a kind of inexpressible suprise, amazement, and joy. Now, the realization of nibbana, would not just be the consciousness of it, but the consequent uprooting of defilements. And the ultimate realization of nibbana would consist in fully and permanently uprooting defilements, so that the absence that is nibbana would be, as it were, fully actualized. With that actualization, the never-arising of desire and aversion would be perfect peace, and the never-arising of confusion would be perfect wisdom, seeing exactly what is, as it is. --------------------------------------------------- You seem to speak of these as a kind of glue. Is nibbana > > gluelessness, aka anatta? What about dependent arising? Dependence is > sticky and the main dependence is root dependence, desire, aversion and > bewilderment. This dependence of kamma depends on the glue of a sense of > self. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is a good metaphor to speak of desire and aversion (and clinging) as kinds of glue, and the realization of their absence would certainly be an ungluing. But my metaphor was more one of a covering over, an obscuration, of the mind's natural luminosity. That metaphor applies to all three poisons, but most aptly to ignorance. ------------------------------------------------- I can see how consciousness of nibbana could be a direct and> > profound consciousness of anatta. But I suspect it might be a little > different for each stage of enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've read that it is the same at all stages except for the intensity and directness of view, ranging from a glimpse (as through a glass, darkly) up to pristine and perfect awareness (face to face). [In the parentheses here, I borrow some terminology from Chapter 13 of Corinthians, in the Christian "New Testament"] ------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 37333 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Dear Azita, Yes, this is also a Q. for Vis. XIV, 111, Larry mentioned to me. Kamma, kamma nimitta and gati nimitta (the future destiny) as object of the last javanacittas and then on to the rebirth-consciousness, bhavanga, cuti of the next life. Nina. op 06-10-2004 13:58 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: > I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post > when I return. 37334 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 9:28pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner30-Feeling/Vedana (c) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** Feeling accompanies all cittas of the four jåtis: akusala citta, kusala citta, vipåkacitta and kiriyacitta. Feeling is of the same jåti as the citta it accompanies. The feeling which accompanies, for example, akusala citta is also akusala and entirely different from the feeling which accompanies vipåkacitta. Since there are many different types of citta there is a great variety of feeling. Although there are many kinds of feeling, they have one characteristic in common: they all are the paramattha dhamma, non-self, which feels. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37335 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, --------------------- H: > I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several ways, the ability to relinquish increases. > --------------------- That's very persuasive logic, and I think it would be accepted in most quarters outside DSG. It comes back to another point you often make: 'By being attentive of concepts, we can train the mind to be attentive of dhammas.' I don't think anyone here is saying we should be inattentive of concepts, and I imagine that a person with right understanding is probably very attentive of them, but he/she would not make a ritual (a formal practice) of it. When I stub my toe and become angry, should I formally practise mindfulness of anger? In that same, short period of time dhammas of all sorts are coming and going - seeing, visible object, hearing, audible object, lobha, moha, and so on. So why single out anger? I think it is because I see it as MY anger. At that particular time, seeing and visible-object are of no consequence to me: I AM anger (anger is in me, I am in anger). So, unfortunately, any formal mindfulness of anger would be ritual observance of self. That is a gross example, but the same would apply whenever we try to choose one object from the millions of objects that are arising every second, don't you think? Kind regards, Ken H 37336 From: Egbert Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 11:50pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying, largely, and I think you have accurately outlined where we disagree. I'll cut to the chase :-) ==== S > But you are saying that this being not enough, we should `endeavour' to have more. And you think this is possible by some deliberate choice and I say that it is not. :-/ In the mean time, many dhammas arise and fall, why the idea of catching them?! ==== When the awareness arises that there is absorption in any act of any kind whatsoever, for me that is an opportunity to cease/desist/abstain from being absorbed in that act. But the possibility remains with that awareness to persist with the folly. I will have to accept that you live your life without any belief in choices or options, if that is what you are maintaining, but that is very far from how I experience my life. To be totally honest, the only people who I have ever observed to believe that they were without option or choice were on the brink of suicide. Many dhammas arise and fall, for sure, and the idea of catching them comes out of that, as does the idea of a self who has choices and options. Except for the rare saint, and the more common suicidally depressed person, everyone else acts from time to time as though they are an agent with choices. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And so while one is a person in the world of agents, one can choose to accept or reject the teachings of the Buddha to the Romans on the effort of cultivation of right-mindedness. Or one may outsmart themself, and while neither a saint or suicidally depressed, they choose to remind themselves of what they do not know, and presume the insight of anicca, anatta and dukkha while fully engrossed in the circus of life. I have not seen the stats regarding success rates of the dsg approach to sainthood, but I expect they will not rival those of the sutta approach. Conditions and accumulations, no doubt and for sure, but while one acts as agent one would do well to consider what futures one is conditioning and accumulating by ones choices. (Please be assured this is meant impersonally, not directed at speficic ones or theys :-)) ------------------------------------- > > > Herman: One who is presented with a seed of mindfullness would do well to nurture it, don't you think? Because there are plenty of other types > > of seed in the wind. The random garden is never a prizewinner. > > -S> > "Seeds", other types or the particular type we wish for, what can > understand which is which? Is that which is labeled now > as `mindfulness' in fact, the opposite of it? When panna arises to know a > reality, what is the wish to nurture it? Is there any self-view in terms of having arrived at this point and going somewhere? Thanks again Sukin and Kind Regards Herman 37337 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:34am Subject: Giving Hi all, There have recently been a number of posts about giving. The following are just my reflections on these posts. The giving of gifts that are subject to decay and depletion is a two- edged sword. Not hanging on to what is of no value is of great benefit for oneself, but in giving it to another person, it may well trigger the belief in the recipient that the gift is worth having. And so the seeds for attachment and suffering are nurtured. The reality of life is that we all require a small trickle of material goods for our sustenance. But material generousity to people who are not in need is a gift of attachment and suffering. On the other hand, the stores of metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha are boundless, and multiply with their giving. They are not subject to decay, nor depletion. Kind Regards Herman 37338 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:19am Subject: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Hello all More from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket, available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag.co.uk W. : People who study the Suttanta are able to see not only his compassion but also his purity and his wisdom. As you said, in each of the three parts of the Tipi~naka we would be able to notice these three qualities of the Buddha. S : The compassion of the Buddha is evident in the suttas which he preached so that people would benefit in accordance with their accumulations and abilities. Apart from seeing his compassion we also see the Buddhas purity which was unshakable by words of praise or blame, by gain, respect or homage. We read in the Dialogues of the Buddha (I, no. 1, Brahmajaala Sutta [46) that the Buddha, while he was staying in the pavilion in the Ambala~n~nhika garden, said to the monks: If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If you were to become angry or upset when others speak in dispraise of us, would you be able to recognize whether their statements are rightly or wrongly spoken? Certainly not, Lord. If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should unravel what is false and point it out as false, saying: For such and such a reason this is false, this is untrue, there is no such thing in us, this is not found among us. And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exaltation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves. If others speak in praise of me, or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should acknowledge what is fact as fact, saying: For such and such a reason this is a fact, this is true, there is such a thing in us, this is found among us. (end quote) Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. My current feeling is that it is a futile thing to try to sort out other people's false views, especially when they are overly assertive about them, because people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations. It seems to me there is distraction and restlessness and affirmation of self involved in disputing views, but perhaps it is a wholesome duty. " if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation (to hear the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha praised) you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves" This is an example of how difficult the Dhamma is to grasp, how subtle, how contrary to the ways of the world. It reminds me of a teaching of someone (K Sujin?) that it is a disservice to people to give them reason to feel attached to you. Metta, Phil 37339 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Joop & All, Many thanks for all your interesting and rather original contributions here. All very well-considered and you've obviously read a lot and widely. --- jwromeijn wrote: > For that reason it's relevant to look at the work of the (Sri Lankan > born) buddhology scholar David Kalupahana. >....No one reading the excessive long debate > in the Kathavatthu on the conception of a person can assert that the > Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (paramattha). .... As KenO said, we had some long and interesting discussions with Michael before on sabhava, paramattha dhammas and the Kathavatthu. Some of us concluded, like Ken O, that Kalupahana misunderstands vital aspects of the teachings, especially the Abhidhamma. I'll leave you to discuss the topics further with him and others as I'm trying to wind up threads ;-). You may like to look at these messages which show the comment above is clearly erroneous I think: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28613 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30417 You may also like to look at posts saved under 'sabhava' and 'paramattha' in Useful Posts sometime. I'd be glad to have any further discussion with you on these areas on our return, but meanwhile, you've got your homework and others to discuss further with;-) Any of the threads with Michael on these topics would be interesting for you to follow too. They're probably mostly starting at around post 27000 and run til about 30000.* On your other post to me on rupas (37101), I think the problem is that you are comparing them with physics. The translation is not so important, but while one is thinking in scientific terms, one will never directly understand the elements experienced, such as visible object, sound etc. These realities are just apparent today as ever, but it depends on whether any awareness has been developed as to whether they will ever be known. The sound now has gone already....very 'volatile' or impermanent. Why 17 times slower? Just the way it is, but no need to worry about the number. When there is awareness of a rupa, there's no care or concern about the speed - sati is just aware of its characteristic, that's all. Rupas are elemets (dhatus) - 'bearing' their own characteristics, not to be confused with concepts. Phenomena is OK, but not so precise as actualities, realities, (paramattha) dhammas perhaps. Pls keep posting your comments as usual and I'll look forward to discussing any topics further with you next month. (Suravira, I will be writing to you next......sorry for delays). Metta. Sarah ====== *If anyone would like to download the entire archives to read off-line, without ads or yahoo blurb or to be able to scroll through quickly on-line, you can now find them all at this temporary link: http://dhammastudygroup.org/ [It's just going to be a parking place for the archives and we're experimenting with search engines (not very successfully) to make it easier for anyone to find past posts, since we seem to have lost escribe completely as a back-up tool, due to their system breakdown. (Pls ignore the Google site search which isn't working:-/??#@ - anyone can experiment with the others. If any computer wiz-kids wish to design something just for this purpose, pls do, and show Jon or me off-list!).] ================================= 37340 From: Ken O Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O > wrote: Hi Joop > Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific > in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the > first time. k: I acknowledge that this is a problem of sutta and abhidhamma. The reason words used in sutta are usually for easy preaching of the dhammas. At this junction, I would say that when Nyanatiloka say that these five aggregates as conventional truth - that does not hold true to my opinion. When Buddha talk about the five aggregates in the sutta, it is always in terms of paramatthas and not in conventional truth. Only when he said I or he, it is in conventional truth. When Kalupahana tries to compare and contrast both traditions, he is looking at his own point of view. If he looks it as from a paramatha dhamma point of view, he will not have come to his conclusion. > Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the > psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not > only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) > which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. If we look at the the first sutta expounded by the Buddha on suffering, Buddha already expressed explicity craving as one of the problem of sufferings with the five aggregates (in short the clinging to the five aggregates as the root cause of suffering). In fact if you read Samyutta Nikaya on the book on aggregates, there are examples of the aggregates with the akusala roots. Ken O 37341 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Vis. XIV, 105. Hi Larry, op 07-10-2004 00:37 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "N: Your Q. is not clear to me. Lokuttara citta experiences nibbana, and > nibbana means the end of lobha, dosa and moha. Do you mean that? This > process arises in daily life, and it all happens extremely fast. It can > even be in the kitchen. Remember the Thera who watched her food burnt in > the oven. Or who fell down when climbing a mountain." > > L: I was thinking of the cessations of the four paths. For example, for > a sotaapanna when nibbana is the object nibbana is the (near) cessation > of personality belief, doubt, and attachment to rules and rituals. N: I see, you mean eradication. The magga-citta eradicates the latent tendencies stage by stage. L: Is > that what is cognized as magga and phala cittas for a sotaapanna or is > nibbana the same for all four paths? N: Nibbana does not change, it is the uncondiitoned element and it is non-self. But lokuttara paññaa that experiences nibbaana has different degrees, depending on the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. Lokuttara paññaa of the magga-citta of the arahat accomplishes the task of eradicating all latent tendencies. At the moment of fruition of the arahat the task has been accomplished. I do not think it beneficial to speculate much about nibbaana as absence, those are mere words. Most important is following the Path leading to liberation. Nina. 37342 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 06-10-2004 16:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: It is so that there are countless moments of > craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not > going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be > aware > of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. N: Thank you for the reminder, reminders do help. H: It is best to be > clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed > pa~n~na is key. > The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated > and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such > moments. N: It is just the term relinquish, I am not sure of. What do you think about this yourself? Of course I agree with the sutta text. This is the right effort of the eightfold Path, but it is not a Path factor when it is not accompanied by right understanding of the eightfold Path. It cannot be developed in isolation. You remember Jon's many posts about this? (Search in archives right effort.) They are among the factors of enlightenment which should develop together.When there is amoment of right mindfulness and right understanding, the four right efforts are being accomplished. (snip, snip)> I > say "There are times at which we can detect the barest beginning of the > arising > of tanha, and, if the mind has already been well cultivated, the clear seeing > of that arising and the intention of letting it go can be sufficient for > letting it go." A practice of vigilance, carefully monitoring the sense doors, > is > both possible and important as I see it. N: Whatever we are doing or not doing is dhamma, it is conditioned. Kh. Sujin said, dosa is no problem for me. Why? She sees it as just dhamma, a conditioned element. This is not easy at all. We may parrot: O, it is just dhamma, but that is not enough. Pañña can develop that realizes that lobha, dosa, seeing, that they are all dhammas and no self in it. They arise anyway when there are conditions for them, no matter what we do. And even when we do not want certain dhammas, that not wanting is also dhamma. A good subject to discuss in India! I remembered this morning when listening to music that you said, be vigilant. I like music, I cannot prevent lobha, millions of moments, but in between I can remember that there is lobha. That is not enough. Then I am still naming it, thinking about it, instead of realizing its characteristic. Moreover, there are also moments of hearing, and sound appears. But I also know that insight is developed stage by stage, first knowing what is nama, what is rupa. I do not reach for stages of insight when I am not as far yet. Take laughing. That is lobha. Should we prevent this? When you are going to laugh, and you notice the barest beginning of the arising of tanha, do you stop laughing? I bet it is already too late. When writing and you do this: ;-)) , there may be lobha. I say maybe, because I cannot read someone else's thoughts. You enjoy a soft cushion, or a delicious meal, and when you notice lobha, do you let go of it? I think it is better to understand it, to see it as just dhamma, than trying to get rid of it. We are not arahats yet, and we should not reach for levels we are not up to. I cannot live in an unnatural way. I am not a monk, I enjoy music. The Middle Way is leading our daily life as usual, but in between understanding can arise, and in this way it can be accumulated. When there is a moment of right mindfulness, without trying, arising because of its own conditions, then the doorways are guarded. We do not select a specific doorway that should be guarded. When trying to be vigilant there can be another kind of clinging: wanting to have more sati. That is a papañca, proliferation, obstructing the development of pañña. This kind of clinging is very dangerous. Especially when unnoticed. Nina. 37343 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo Dear Sukin and Htoo, your dialogue is very good reading and so peaceful. It is bhavana. Nina. op 06-10-2004 09:58 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: >> However someone who is not firm in pariyatti, this may cause him to >> think that standing, sitting, moving and so on are `realities' to be >> observed. 37344 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #1 Dear Htoo, *As my response has turned out to be very long, I am dividing it into two parts. Continuing: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of > pariyatti and when? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Life is short these days. It is the best if all pariyatti are learnt > and properly understood. But those who attained some achievement may > or may not have learnt all pariyatti. I usually use the story of > Culapanthaka. He learnt nothing but did practise exactly as The > Buddha asked him to do and he attained arahatta magga in a single > morning. Pariyatti are good. It is good if you understand all and if > you finish with all pariyatti. But wihtout patipatti, life will not > be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of > the practice. =S> This is how I interpret it. Culapanthaka obviously had very good accumulations. Being able to register and recall what is heard does not necessary relate to wisdom. Conditions are complex and I believe that it is possible for even a tihetuka individual to have moha arising much of the time. My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little. Obviously, the Buddha knew exactly what was the appropriate object of meditation for Culapanthaka, based on his accumulations and present position as an ordained monk. This wouldn't work for me, as I am not even familiar with the visesa lakkhana. Culapanthaka would have experienced satipatthana to a great extent in former lives and not only did he know exactly the particular characteristics of different dhammas, but also had a good idea of the tilakkhana. I on the other hand, can hardly grasp the concept of this. It only makes sense that I need to listen and read dhamma on and on. With so much avijja and craving, what would I find when I seek to practice? The feeling of urgency points to the present moment, and if there is no sati and panna, what can be done? Nothing can accelerate the process of development except when sati and panna does arise. Even if the Buddha were to speak to me, it still depends entirely on my own accumulations and how much panna and sati have been developed in the past. It seems that it is precisely because there is not enough panna, that at this point I can only appreciate the concept of satipatthana and how this is different from pariyatti. I expect that when the panna has been accumulated enough, then there would be no need to be reminded about `practice'. Pariyatti is a dhamma and is anatta and so is patipatti and pativedha. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > I agree that there would be many conditions at play and so no way to > say when the understanding is firm and how much this is informed by > any patipatti. But still being a `bahusutta' is an > important condition isn't it? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there > are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding > dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta > enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their > transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond > the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. =S> One of the things I realized when I joined this group is exactly this that I enjoy `thinking and reasoning' about dhamma. I saw the difference this was from actually being directed to the moment. This tendency is still quite strong, and I know that it is because of the kilesas and lack of firm understanding. However, I believe that this is known better now. And in practical matters the tendency to lobha, dosa, and moha is not quite the same as before, there arises some sati now. This I believe is because before, the study of dhamma was such that it conditioned more `thinking' whereas now, with the help of K. Sujin, Nina and DSG, it has become `pariyatti' knowledge and not `concepts' enjoyed by lobha. There is more often detachment when reading and considering dhamma now. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > The problem is not just the different body postures, but also atta > sanna. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Atta sanna will be cleared when it is seen. Noting the postures etc > are just a method. Mahasatipatthana says to note body postures in > iriyapatha pabba. When really practised, then the practitioner will > see that there is no posture at all and what he will see is that > there are just rupa such as vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- > photthabba. > =S> Actually I have no objection with atta sanna, but when it conditions `self- view' instead of being itself a potential object of sati. In the Mahasatipatthana when the reference is made to postures, I believe it is stated that this is meant only as a reminder to direct the mind, a reference point. The postures are as you know, only concept and cannot be the object of satipatthana. I don't believe the Buddha meant us to observe the postures with the idea that in time, we might then come to see that these do not exist. I don't think the `development' of sati and panna follows this route. Beings and selves can be the object of kusala as well as akusala, but when it comes to `own body' with as yet so weak understanding, I think it is more likely to be akusala, as in the practice taught by various meditation teachers. Without firm pariyatti knowledge of vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi- photthabba, there is no way that direct knowledge of these will arise as `conditioned and anatta'. I think Htoo, this is where our main difference lies and also it seems to point to a difference in our understanding of the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is > afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? =S> I hope you now understand that the objection is not with atta sanna, but with `wrong view'. ------------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: > > Sometimes we indirectly encourage more of this even when trying to be > more mindful of nama and rupa in a deliberate way, which in fact is > knowing only concepts. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. > > 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas > and cetasikas. > > A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more > mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be > destroyed. =S> Even wrong view is a single cetasika, but can condition the wrong practice, and lobha always ready to arise as many `single cetasikas' can make matters worse. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. > Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and they > cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. =S> And only panna can know this when there is sati to assist it. ------------------------------------------------------ Htoo: > But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If > these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? =S> Of course sati can be bread, why else are we studying dhamma. But perhaps we differ in our understanding as to how any sati is developed. I believe that it is via pariyatti and patipatti, both of which refer to corresponding levels of sati and panna and both are anatta. I am not saying that you do not value pariyatti; in fact I believe that presently on the web, you are doing more than anyone in this regard. I also believe that you see a connection between pariyatti and patipatti in an important way. However it seems to me that you suggest a kind of `deliberate doing' to accelerate the process and I think only when panna arises can anything positive happen. :-/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > My objection lies mainly in this `wanting' to have more sati and > mistaking any subsequent action as leading to this end. > And this I believe is due to not understanding on the pariyatti > level, about conditionality and anatta. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have > already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no > predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading > to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But as > I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also > possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. =S> Are you saying that there is no difference in the levels of panna? Regarding `wanting', you are right that there is only this presently arising reality and it does not make sense to project anything into the future. However people do, and often even when they do not think about it. One's attitude towards the present moment may reflect what one thinks about the past and the future. Of course there is `development', and dhammas accumulate results and tendencies whether or not we know it. How much we understand about the conditioned nature of dhamma in the present moment will determine what is indeed being accumulated. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > How much each person has heard from previous lives is impossible to > know before hand. If like Sariputta, one becomes enlightened with > only few words, then we can infer that he must have heard much in the > past. To be a Buddha too requires much hearing, though no hint is > needed in this regard in the last life. So I guess the answer to your > question is yes, as anusaya, but no, as sanna. And of course, in his > case the parami played a very major part in determining what practice > he would undertake (reference to the prevailing jhana practices) and > these would be the best ones then. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did > have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So > regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before > arising of magga cittas. > > I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no > one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. > > But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please > explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding > before arising of nay magga nana' ? =S> :-P I wasn't sure about using anusaya, whether it was appropriate, and I did not want to use accumulations. Anyway what I meant was that the panna along with other parami the Bodhisatta accumulated was so great that it was itself the condition for Right View to arise. So in a way, it is almost as if Right View was already present waiting for some other condition to bear fruit in enlightenment. But I know this is just `thinking'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Cont. in #2) 37345 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:22am Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #2 Dear Htoo, (Cont. from #1) > Sukin: > > Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the > influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other > activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world > but have wrong pariyatti understanding? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised > dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. > Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they practise > for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta heard > that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha > Gotama had to practise for 6 years. > > If already understand, there is no need to practise. =S> But the Bodhisatta was "ripe"!! We need correct pariyatti otherwise we *will* go wrong. No chance of correcting anything. Dhamma practice is not like learning to ride a bicycle. In this you can ride even if you break a toe for instance. In matters of mind and wanting to have more of one state than another, with so much accumulated lobha, there is always the danger of being deceived by apparent results. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are > potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the essence > of instruction I am going to say. > > 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the > practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be > done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. > > I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma > that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred > to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was > said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. > > He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who > was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' > and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. > > This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, > intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ > theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. > > That is why I stress to practise. =S> I appreciate your good intentions. But can anyone "throw away" anything? The idea of throwing itself will breed its own set of papanca, and if one starts out believing that thoughts should be thrown, what are the chances of detecting any resultant papanca? Thinking, like any other dhamma can and must be known, otherwise we remain ignorant of them and react to them with `atta'. The example you bring above is only a rare example in the Tipitaka. What about others who did not have to do anything other than hearing the correct dhamma. In the case of Pothila Thera, he might even have had the accumulation to `teach' and not be thinking about his own development. Surely he did not make the mistake of misunderstanding his book knowledge for direct experience did he? And do you think he threw out his knowledge of the Teachings or even considered it an obstacle?! Anyway whatever the reason and conditions were, they are too complex to know exactly what went on in his mind. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > > But at the same time it is not up to `us' isn't it? And even though > one can stagnate while accumulating lots of knowledge about dhamma, I > think if one held the snake by the head, then the danger of being > bitten is reduced. Meanwhile when there is patience and courage we > *are* following the Buddha's way aren't we? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a > car, please do not control it :-). =S> :-) Yes. But no need to ask me to control. Sanna, vitakka, vicara and the rest will perform their functions, and in my case there will be all the necessary akusala attempting to preserve the `self'. Yet I doubt that my driving would be any safer than say an anagami driving the same car. ;-) Another long post. :-/ Metta, Sukin. 37346 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are > therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as > opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which > the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the ================= Dear Joop, Could you give the full reference to the quote by Nyantiloka, I have the dictionary and could look at the whole passage. Robertk 37347 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 2:34:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --------------------- > H: >I agree that, under most circumstances, we cannot > simply "decide" to relinquish! We cannot typically just will letting > go. However, by ongoing cultivation of the mind consisting of > carefully attending to whatever arises, including wrong view, of > reminding oneself of right view, and of cultivating calm in several > ways, the ability to relinquish increases. > > --------------------- > > That's very persuasive logic, and I think it would be accepted in > most quarters outside DSG. It comes back to another point you often > make: 'By being attentive of concepts, we can train the mind to be > attentive of dhammas.' > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's not just a matter of logic, but of experience. Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't think anyone here is saying we should be inattentive of > concepts, and I imagine that a person with right understanding is > probably very attentive of them, but he/she would not make a ritual > (a formal practice) of it. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > When I stub my toe and become angry, should I formally practise > mindfulness of anger? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You should be mindful of whatever you can that is present. If anger, then anger. Certainly pain. Whatever. The more calm you have cultivated, the more clarity will likely be there as well. When a body of water with bottom-mud stirred up is permitted to settle, the water clears. ----------------------------------------------------- In that same, short period of time dhammas of > > all sorts are coming and going â€" seeing, visible object, hearing, > audible object, lobha, moha, and so on. So why single out anger? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: At a time of upset, can you choose? Probably not very effectively. Just look, with whatever degree of objectivity, impersonality, and equanimity possible. ------------------------------------------------------ I > > think it is because I see it as MY anger. At that particular time, > seeing and visible-object are of no consequence to me: I AM anger > (anger is in me, I am in anger). So, unfortunately, any formal > mindfulness of anger would be ritual observance of self. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't engage is reason seeking. Just observe what is observable. -------------------------------------------------- > > That is a gross example, but the same would apply whenever we try to > choose one object from the millions of objects that are arising > every second, don't you think? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the mind. The Buddha DID teach this. His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, clear, and capable. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 37348 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina - The gist of what you are addressing in the following is, I believe, a matter of what I mean by 'relinquishing'. What I do *not* mean is suppressing or pushing away. What I *do* mean is observing and relaxing around the experience, avoiding clinging and tension, and permitting the phenomenon to cease (and not soon recur), as will be the case unless we obsessively cling to it. This is not always possible. But the better cultivated in calm and clarity the mind is, the more often it will be possible. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/7/04 5:59:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > op 06-10-2004 16:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > It is so that there are countless moments of > >craving, aversion, and clinging - countless akusala states, and we are not > >going to be aware of but a fraction of them. But we should nonetheless be > >aware > >of whichever we can, and we must practice constant vigilance. > N: Thank you for the reminder, reminders do help. > > H: It is best to be > >clearly aware of as much that arises as possible, and, of course, developed > >pa~n~na is key. > >The task is enormous, but, the ability to relinquish can be cultivated > >and increased, and moments of relinquishment do condition further such > >moments. > N: It is just the term relinquish, I am not sure of. What do you think about > this yourself? > When trying to be vigilant there can be another kind of clinging: wanting > to > have more sati. That is a papañca, proliferation, obstructing the > development of pañña. This kind of clinging is very dangerous. Especially > when unnoticed. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. ----------------------------------------- > Nina. > ==================== 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) 37349 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > op 27-09-2004 18:15 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > > > AL: So there has to be another way to > >>> acquire this right view. I won't say I know how to do it, but the > >>> same goes for view of mother and father, possibly that of there > > being > >>> this world and the next world. It seems there should be some > > kind of > >>> direct understanding or vision of things as they are. > N: I came across a text about father and mother. > M.III, no 117, The Great Forty. This is about different kinds of right view. > Right understanding of kamma and vipaaka. is (benefit from serving) mother and father... > > At least we know now the meaning of this sentence. I have to be off, > Nina. Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to continue this thread? I would ask what your take on my statements about seeing the noble truths in this very lifetime and realizing unbinding in this very lifetime, or in under 10 more, as we accumulate the paramis, and even my stance that the paramis are not necessary for enlightenment. I would also ask your take on someone (ie me) who feels that, beings being related to their merit, and the human state having been obtained, he is obligated to set himself on a spiritual path and that includes making merit and abstaining from idle chatter and worldly ways but just walking a straight path to the ending of suffering, as one of very few beings who has the ability to do it. The relevance of this is that there is less of the 'daily life' side of Abhidharma, but Abdhidharma knowledge could still be very useful. My kind regards, Andrew Levin 37350 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:43am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard There is no way to say there is a difference when vedana is absent and when it is a neutral The assertation of vedana as an universal cetasikas from what I know now, is from the Abdhidhamma. I could only provide logical assumptions why vedana is an universal cetasikas. From the dependent origination, from the six senses, there are contacts and feelings thereafter, in order for craving to arise for the next birth or the mass of suffering, feelings become an important link. In that sense feelings condition craving or attachment, craving only arise with pleasure and neutral while aversion only arise with unpleasant feeling, while neutral feelings there arise with ignorance. (Ignorance rise with neutral feelings is state somewhere in the sutta just do not now where is it right now.) In that sense, all the three roots, there must be feelings. In this assumption, I would say that that is why there is always feeling in all cittas. When we think we have no feelings, because the neutral feeling is very weak, undetectable, there is why ignorance is not easy to detect but strong in underlying currents. As I say months ago, looking a simple tree, thousands of ignorance cittas would have arise through the eye door. Ken O 37351 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 9:44:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > There is no way to say there is a difference when vedana is absent > and when it is a neutral The assertation of vedana as an universal > cetasikas from what I know now, is from the Abdhidhamma. > > I could only provide logical assumptions why vedana is an universal > cetasikas. From the dependent origination, from the six senses, > there are contacts and feelings thereafter, in order for craving to > arise for the next birth or the mass of suffering, feelings become > an important link. In that sense feelings condition craving or > attachment, craving only arise with pleasure and neutral while > aversion only arise with unpleasant feeling, while neutral feelings > there arise with ignorance. (Ignorance rise with neutral feelings > is state somewhere in the sutta just do not now where is it right > now.) In that sense, all the three roots, there must be feelings. > In this assumption, I would say that that is why there is always > feeling in all cittas. When we think we have no feelings, because > the neutral feeling is very weak, undetectable, there is why > ignorance is not easy to detect but strong in underlying currents. > As I say months ago, looking a simple tree, thousands of ignorance > cittas would have arise through the eye door. > > Ken O > > ======================== I think it is probably true that neutral feeling is not the same as absence of feeling. Your point about dependent origination is well made. Probably my inability to experientially distinguish between neutral feeling and absence of feeling is that absence of feeling never occurs! ;-) 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) 37352 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 7:15am Subject: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana (a) Hi Howard I just got some material from message 24937 <> I hope this help to clarify maybe why feeling is an universal cetasikas Ken O 37353 37354 From: Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 3:37am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] â€ËÅ"Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana... Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/7/04 10:18:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > About the inseparability of the groups it is said: > > ''Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of > mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and > it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their > difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one > perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43).>> > > I hope this help to clarify maybe why feeling is an universal > cetasikas > ======================== I have come to agree that vedana is a universal. However, the foregoing doesn't clarify it, because included among these "inseparable" phenomena are the mental formations, and these include cetasikas that are not universals; so I think this point is not so well made. 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) 37355 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 8:47am Subject: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop and all How are you? Ken O wrote: "One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours." The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: --- jwromeijn wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O > wrote: Hi Joop > Joop: I think Kalupahana had tried (with success) to be scientific > in telling the history without mixing it his own opinions, his bias, in this text. The question is if in the Sutta's with this words, the dichotomy paramattha dhammes versus concept is used. As far as I know (but I'm not an expert) this is not the case. > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. > I had to say that I was surprised too when I read this for the > first time. k: I acknowledge that this is a problem of sutta and abhidhamma. The reason words used in sutta are usually for easy preaching of the dhammas. At this junction, I would say that when Nyanatiloka say that these five aggregates as conventional truth - that does not hold true to my opinion. When Buddha talk about the five aggregates in the sutta, it is always in terms of paramatthas and not in conventional truth. Only when he said I or he, it is in conventional truth. When Kalupahana tries to compare and contrast both traditions, he is looking at his own point of view. If he looks it as from a paramatha dhamma point of view, he will not have come to his conclusion. > Joop: As far as I understand Kalupahana tries to explain why the > psychological terms as the different citta's and citasika's are not > only listed, but combined with a moral charge (kusala, akusala) > which was not done with the lists of the five aggregates in the Sutta's. k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. If we look at the the first sutta expounded by the Buddha on suffering, Buddha already expressed explicity craving as one of the problem of sufferings with the five aggregates (in short the clinging to the five aggregates as the root cause of suffering). In fact if you read Samyutta Nikaya on the book on aggregates, there are examples of the aggregates with the akusala roots. Ken O 37356 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:41pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #1 Dear Htoo, Sukin: > You mean that there is no fixed determinative such as `how much' of pariyatti and when? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Life is short these days. ..snip..Panthaka..snip..But wihtout patipatti, life will not be as valuable as life of those who attained higher nana because of the practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: This is how I interpret it. Culapanthaka obviously had very good accumulations. Being able to register and recall what is heard does not necessary relate to wisdom. Conditions are complex and I believe that it is possible for even a tihetuka individual to have moha arising much of the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. But this will also depend whether he meets The Buddha teachings or not. You would say 'understanding' . I agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your sharing. Memory recall is a matter of kamma (in Buddhism). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Obviously, the Buddha knew exactly what was the appropriate object of meditation for Culapanthaka, based on his accumulations and present position as an ordained monk. This wouldn't work for me, as I am not even familiar with the visesa lakkhana. Culapanthaka would have experienced satipatthana to a great extent in former lives and not only did he know exactly the particular characteristics of different dhammas, ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Exactly. Culapanthaka did have in his past lives. The Buddha saw these and that is why The Buddha gave him a cloth to rub with the earth. In the same jataka, The Buddha preached that Culapanthaka-to-be was once a peasant. He was ploughing in the peddy fields. It was hot and he was sweating. To take a rest, he approached a tree and stayed under the tree. Then he wiped out his sweat with a white cloth. He noticed that the white cloth changed into dirty one. He had got anicca sanna. The Buddha saw this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: but also had a good idea of the tilakkhana. I on the other hand, can hardly grasp the concept of this. It only makes sense that I need to listen and read dhamma on and on. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This depend. One of a member in Yahoo Groups once mentioned a sentence that when he was looking at a painting he heard an old friend's calling him. He said he was shocked because he was on the painting and then next he was on the sound. The first mind died and another mind arose which was totally different to him. He was not boasting. But he reasoned out that if the first mind on the painting was cuti and second on the sound was patisandhi, he was already dead. Anyway, this is a good sanna. That is sanna of change or anicca sanna. Again this sanna may well arise with panna. Because notice of the change means notice of anicca however short it is. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: With so much avijja and craving, what would I find when I seek to practice? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand what you meant. But at least you see avijja and craving or tanha. Try to see them repeatedly. You will notice some improvement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: The feeling of urgency points to the present moment, and if there is no sati and panna, what can be done? Nothing can accelerate the process of development except when sati and panna does arise. Even if the Buddha were to speak to me, it still depends entirely on my own accumulations and how much panna and sati have been developed in the past. It seems that it is precisely because there is not enough panna, that at this point I can only appreciate the concept of satipatthana and how this is different from pariyatti. I expect that when the panna has been accumulated enough, then there would be no need to be reminded about `practice'. Pariyatti is a dhamma and is anatta and so is patipatti and pativedha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here 'accumulated' may bring the idea of self. There are drops of panna flow down from the roof into an atta bucket. That atta bucket accumulates drops of panna and when the atta bucket is full, arahatta magga arises. This is not the case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I do accept this. I also learnt a lot by different methods. But there are people who are enjoying thier life just reading and understanding dhamma in their thought. Actually this may well be lobha citta enjoying reading dhamma. When practical matters arise all their transferred wisdom from their books go away and they would respond the loka with lobha, dosa, and moha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> One of the things I realized when I joined this group is exactly this that I enjoy `thinking and reasoning' about dhamma. I saw the difference this was from actually being directed to the moment. This tendency is still quite strong, and I know that it is because of the kilesas and lack of firm understanding. However, I believe that this is known better now. And in practical matters the tendency to lobha, dosa, and moha is not quite the same as before, there arises some sati now. This I believe is because before, the study of dhamma was such that it conditioned more `thinking' whereas now, with the help of K. Sujin, Nina and DSG, it has become `pariyatti' knowledge and not `concepts' enjoyed by lobha. There is more often detachment when reading and considering dhamma now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand. But some did respond badly while on dhamma discussion. To the worst, discussion on brahmavihara was the topic. Even there were ideas of killing people. I was shocked. This shows strong atta and atta-sanna and ditthi. While discussing on anatta, if such matter happens, what is the main culprit behind? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> Actually I have no objection with atta sanna, but when it conditions `self-view' instead of being itself a potential object of sati. In the Mahasatipatthana when the reference is made to postures, I believe it is stated that this is meant only as a reminder to direct the mind, a reference point. The postures are as you know, only concept and cannot be the object of satipatthana. I don't believe the Buddha meant us to observe the postures with the idea that in time, we might then come to see that these do not exist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. So I said this is method. Mahasatipatthana is method. It is a sutta and it was preached in conventioanl terms. Concentrate on postures. Everyone understands this. If concentrate on that and if there is enough panna, panna will see just realities. Not the idea of posture. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't think the `development' of sati and panna follows this route. Beings and selves can be the object of kusala as well as akusala, but when it comes to `own body' with as yet so weak understanding, I think it is more likely to be akusala, as in the practice taught by various meditation teachers. Without firm pariyatti knowledge of vayo-photthabba, tejo-photthabba, pathavi photthabba, there is no way that direct knowledge of these will arise as `conditioned and anatta'. I think Htoo, this is where our main difference lies and also it seems to point to a difference in our understanding of the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: These points are good points. I think they go hand in hand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: If dhamma is seen, there is no problem of atta sanna. If someone is afraid of atta sanna and does not practise, who will lose? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> I hope you now understand that the objection is not with atta sanna, but with `wrong view'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Wrong view only clears at magga. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I see both you and Sarah. Any dhamma is not controllable. 'Trying to be more mindful' here is just combinations of many cittas and cetasikas. > A single 'sati' as a cetasika cannot be less mindful nor equally more mindful. And 'sati' as dhamma cannot be created nor cannot be destroyed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Even wrong view is a single cetasika, but can condition the wrong practice, and lobha always ready to arise as many `single cetasikas' can make matters worse. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Sati is a single cetasika. Its presence makes absence of ditthi or wrong view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: > Whenever I see 'this idea', I am thinking of who kilesas are going. > Kilesas such as lobha, dosa, moha, mana etc are also dhamma and > they > cannot be created not cannot be destroyed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> And only panna can know this when there is sati to assist it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Whenever there is panna, there always is sati. But when there is sati, panna may or may not be there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: >But we all understand that Arahats all destroyed all defilements. If >these defilements can be destroyed, why not sati can be bred? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Of course sati can be bread, why else are we studying dhamma. But perhaps we differ in our understanding as to how any sati is developed. I believe that it is via pariyatti and patipatti, both of which refer to corresponding levels of sati and panna and both are anatta. I am not saying that you do not value pariyatti; in fact I believe that presently on the web, you are doing more than anyone in this regard. I also believe that you see a connection between pariyatti and patipatti in an important way. However it seems to me that you suggest a kind of `deliberate doing' to accelerate the process and I think only when panna arises can anything positive happen. :-/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I see. I understand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Actually there is no level at all. Regarding 'wanting' I have > already discussed above. From dhamma side of view, there is no > predicted future and no future at all. So 'wanting' and leading > to 'this end' do not make any sense from dhamma side of view. But > as I said above, all arahats eradicated defilements. So it is also > possible that panna is cultivated and accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> Are you saying that there is no difference in the levels of panna? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I was thinking the atta buckets. Mr A.'s bucket is half-full, Mr.B's bucket is quater-full, Mr Z.'s bucket is empty. Mr X's bucket is full. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Regarding `wanting', you are right that there is only this presently arising reality and it does not make sense to project anything into the future. However people do, and often even when they do not think about it. One's attitude towards the present moment may reflect what one thinks about the past and the future. Of course there is `development', and dhammas accumulate results and tendencies whether or not we know it. How much we understand about the conditioned nature of dhamma in the present moment will determine what is indeed being accumulated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Very good Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: > Your answer is yes to anusaya. So regarding anusaya, Bodhisatta did > have right understanding. And your answer is no to sanna. So > regarding sanna, Bodhisatta did not have right understanding before > arising of magga cittas. > I agree sanna and the answer 'no'. Without sotapatti magga nana, no > one is exempted to be released from atta-sanna, including Bodhisatta. > But I am not clear your answer 'no to anusaya'. Could you please > explain on this matter that 'Bodhisatta had right understanding > before arising of nay magga nana' ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> :-P I wasn't sure about using anusaya, whether it was appropriate, and I did not want to use accumulations. Anyway what I meant was that the panna along with other parami the Bodhisatta accumulated was so great that it was itself the condition for Right View to arise. So in a way, it is almost as if Right View was already present waiting for some other condition to bear fruit in enlightenment. But I know this is just `thinking'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Cont. in #2) Htoo: Good discussion, Sukin. I will catch #2 With Metta, Htoo Naing 37357 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 0:52pm Subject: Re: Theory and Practice _Sukin & Htoo #2 Sukin: Dear Htoo, (Cont. from #1) > > Sukin: > > > > Should they do it if their particular life circumstance (the > > influence of kamma and vipaka) leads them to be involved in other > > activities? Should they do it if they had all the time in the world > > but have wrong pariyatti understanding? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > Htoo: Experience corrects worng things. Bodhisatta practised > > dukkaracariya for a time. He experienced it and knew it was wrong. > > Every Sammasambuddha practise 'Dukkaracariya'. At least they > practise > > for '6 days'. Buddha Kassapa practised 6 months. Our Bodhisatta > heard > > that 6 months and he said 'I would practise 6 years'. Siddattha > > Gotama had to practise for 6 years. > > > > If already understand, there is no need to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> But the Bodhisatta was "ripe"!! We need correct pariyatti otherwise we *will* go wrong. No chance of correcting anything. Dhamma practice is not like learning to ride a bicycle. In this you can ride even if you break a toe for instance. In matters of mind and wanting to have more of one state than another, with so much accumulated lobha, there is always the danger of being deceived by apparent results. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Agree. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Sukin: > > > > `Study' on its own cannot lead to real understanding and there are > > potential traps with regard to `intellectual knowledge'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > I have heard these. These may be right or wrong, I mean the >essence > > of instruction I am going to say. > > > > 'The vipassana teacher' said to throw away all what are in the > > practitioners' mind before they start vipassana. If this cannot be > > done, the intellectual thoughts may hinder him progress. > > > > I can see such things in case of 'Pothila' Thera who knew all Dhamma > > that The Buddha taught and great arahats taught. He can be referred > > to as Tipitakadhara. But he was initially puthujana and he was > > said 'tuccha..tuccha..tuccha'. > > > > He approached the elders and asked to instruct him. Each thera who > > was asked transferred 'Pothila thera' to younger and younger bhikkhu' > > and finally this reached 7-year-old arahat. > > > > This definitely reveals how practice is crucial. Without practice, > > intellectual understanding of Dhamma ( at Pariyatti level/ > > theoretical level )like Pothila thera does not add achievement. > > > > That is why I stress to practise. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: =S> I appreciate your good intentions. But can anyone "throw away" anything? The idea of throwing itself will breed its own set of papanca, and if one starts out believing that thoughts should be thrown, what are the chances of detecting any resultant papanca? Thinking, like any other dhamma can and must be known, otherwise we remain ignorant of them and react to them with `atta'. The example you bring above is only a rare example in the Tipitaka. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: At least your respond is neutral. Once I was attacked because of using rare event in The Buddha's time. :-). I smiled. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: What about others who did not have to do anything other than hearing the correct dhamma. In the case of Pothila Thera, he might even have had the accumulation to `teach' and not be thinking about his own development. Surely he did not make the mistake of misunderstanding his book knowledge for direct experience did he? And do you think he threw out his knowledge of the Teachings or even considered it an obstacle?! Anyway whatever the reason and conditions were, they are too complex to know exactly what went on in his mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: True. Sure. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > :-) The snake is atta-sanna. Yes, we are. One thing, when you drive a car, please do not control it :-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sukin:=S> :-) Yes. But no need to ask me to control. Sanna, vitakka, vicara and the rest will perform their functions, and in my case there will be all the necessary akusala attempting to preserve the `self'. Yet I doubt that my driving would be any safer than say an anagami driving the same car. ;-) Another long post. :-/ Metta, Sukin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think Anagami would drive a car. I think in Vinaya, bhikkhus should not run. With Metta, Htoo Naing 37358 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to > continue this thread? .... S: She didn't mean that at all - she was just telling you that she was having to finish up threads for now as she won't have any internet access for a month in India in her case. I know she'll be happy to hear any of your questions or comments on her return in November (I think after the 8th). Meanwhile, I'll print out any messages, like this one, addressed to her, to give here when I see her in a week or so. Perhaps in the meantime you can address your qus to others here. There are many kindly and wise folks around;-). I'll also try to add a few more comments sometime before I go too. Appreciating all your recent correspondence with Nina, Phil and others. Keep well. We'll be following any of your discussions even when we're travelling! Metta, Sarah ====== 37359 From: plnao Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Deeds of Merit - studying Suttanta and Abhidhamma Hello all A final passage, for the time being, from "Deeds of Merit" by Sujin Boriharnwanaket available at http://www.dhammastudy.com/merits4.html and zolag (I will leave consideration of the final deed of merit, teaching the Dhamma, until a later date.) Talk to you again in a month or so. Wishing you all an insightful autumn or spring, wherever you are. Metta, Phil S. : If one studies the suttas one will be deeply impressed by the beauty of the teaching of the Dhamma which is perfect as to the meaning and the words which explain the meaning, and also with regard to the similes which are very clear. The teaching of the Dhamma which is impressive and clear is the condition for those who study it for having confidence and being delighted with the Dhamma. The Dhamma conditions purity and calm of citta, and also the subduing of akusala. There can be samaadhi, concentration and calm, when someone is deeply impressed by the flavour of the Dhamma or when he recollects the excellent qualities of the Buddha. W. : Which qualities of the Buddha can be seen by the study of the Abhidhamma? S. : People who study the Abhidhamma can realize the wisdom of the Buddha, because he taught the Dhamma he had penetrated in all details at the time of his enlightenment. He classified the whole wide world into two components, namely, naama, mental phenomena, and ruupa, physical phenomena. In this way there isn't anything left which could be taken for self. W. : What is the meaning of the Abhidhamma being the object of pa~n~naa? S. : The Abhidhamma is the object of pa~n~naa because people who study it can have right understanding of the different realities as they are. The study of the Abhidhamma is the study of the ultimate realities the Buddha penetrated at the time of his enlightenment and which he taught in detail. 37360 From: Egbert Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:50pm Subject: Re: Scientist Herman Hi Andrew, > I'm back and would like to weigh into the very interesting science > thread. Glad to see you back, and I hope you are well and truly over your illness. As you know, I am a bit of a science buff, have studied > science at uni level and love the work of the late Stephen Jay > Gould. I believe the scientific method has a crucial place in our > culture and needs to be distinguished from pseudo-science like > Creationism. I agree. However, I think you put the case for science far too > high. In post #37189, you wrote: "Science explains the mechanisms of life in a testable, verifiable way, while Buddhism doesn't". Herman, if only what you say about science were actually correct, things would be a whole lot easier and I would be a whole lot happier. The fact is that the appearance of the scientific method has not dispeled all mystery in the universe. Why? Because some (many) things are not testable in the scientific way. Can we say that something that is not (currently) testable in this way is necessarily false? No. > All we can say is that we presently have no way of testing it > scientifically. You are right, I did overstate my case. The skill in science is to frame hypotheses in such a way that they can be tested. And this is where I see a dissonance between the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas, and the later scholastic works. I see the early teachings as being here and now solutions to here and now suffering. Those teachings are testable. The scholastics, on the other hand, have turned nibbana into a transcendental proposition that leaves the masses with nothing but faith to cling to. And faith resists testing. I snipped your section about shonky science. I agree with you. > > Let's be frank. There are many parts of the Dhamma that are not > testable in the scientific way (at the moment). In that sense, they are "unscientific". But we can't go further and say that they are necessarily false (even though that may be our belief). I think that if there is resistance to framing any part of the Dhamma in such a way so as to make it testable, then we may be dealing with a psychological need to keep certain matters transcendental, not a desire to discover what is true or real. The science of rebirth is a case in point. We have seen some recent discussions on the mechanisms of linking consciousnesses where issues are resolved by reverting to what is said in the texts. This is so of necessity, because there is no testable reality in the whole theory. If in asking for the method whereby anything can be known about bhavanga or cuti or patisandhi citta one is advised to have faith, the conclusion that we are dealing with strictly dogma is not unscientific, is it? > > You also wrote that "ethics is not the domain of science". > Traditionally, of course, both philosopher and physicist were > called "scientists" - the former a "practical scientist" and the > latter a "theoretical scientist". That's because a philosopher > answers practical "what to do" questions and the physicist answers > theoretical "how does it happen" questions. That's why > Aristotle's "Ethics" is still on the curriculum whilst his "Physics" is now little read. But you mustn't forget meta- ethics: if you believe in Determinism, your ethics are going to be a lot different from one who believes in free will. Whether things work deterministically or not is a "how does it happen" question. Yes, I agree with you. It is important to realise that one is adopting a viewpoint. I think as a scientifically minded person, one would feel uncomfortable with adopting any set of beliefs on a faith only basis. Joop used a very useful term the other day, cognitive dissonance. If there is a cognitive dissonance between what is believed and what is experienced, that can be a stimulus to modify the belief. But it can also be a stimulus to pour more concrete on the faith and blind it even more. If an ethicist puts forward a system on how to achieve happiness, and suffering persists, then there is room to challenge the validity of the system, or one can question the application of the method. Blame the user, so to speak. The transcendentalising trend of the scholastics in relation to the teachings of the Buddha places the end of suffering squarely in the future, and places the doctrine on a very high pedestal, accessible only by faith. This is contrary to the practical teachings of the Buddha, who was both a scientist and an ethicist. I think I have overshot the runway again. Dang! :-) > > Enough rabbiting on. Bye for now. > Andrew T Kind Regards Herman 37361 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 4:51pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Hi Azita, Thanks for your commiserations. I think I fit Sukin's description of himself: "My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, I recall very little." :-) All the best to you and your fellow travellers to India. Have a great trip. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hello KenH, > > > A: I've just managed to get this one clear in my head also. The > javanna cittas that arise just before cuti-citta have something as > object [who knows what] and that same something will also be object > of the next patisandhi citta. So the bhavanga cittas and the cuti- > citta of that life will take that same object. > I'm formulating a Q. for India on this very topic, so will post > when I return. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 37362 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Hi Phil (if you are still with us), Thanks for your great work in keeping these threads going: I look forward to your return. ----------------------------- Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. --------------------------------- I find it interesting, too. In DSG discussions, some of us are seen to be speaking in dispraise of the Dhamma when we advocate study-and- understanding and criticise formal practice. Others are seen to be speaking in dispraise of the Dhamma when they advocate formal practice and criticise study and understanding. ---------------------------------- Ph: > My current feeling is that it is a futile thing to try to sort out other people's false views, especially when they are overly assertive about them, because people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations. > --------------------------------- The statement, "people will believe what they believe, because of accumulations," is, IMO, an indication of right understanding. And the statement applies to all of us. So perhaps we should not discriminate when it comes to who we should talk to and who we should not - we are all in the same boat. We are just the presently arisen conditioned dhammas. -------------------- Ph: > It seems to me there is distraction and restlessness and affirmation of self involved in disputing views, but perhaps it is a wholesome duty. -------------------- The way of `disputing views' referred to by the Buddha is entirely wholesome, but the way it is practised by worldlings is at times wholesome and, at other times, unwholesome. ------------------------- Ph: > " if you were to become jubilant, joyful and exultant in such a situation (to hear the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha praised) you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves" This is an example of how difficult the Dhamma is to grasp, how subtle, how contrary to the ways of the world. > ----------------------------------- Very good! "Contrary to the ways of the world" - I like that. ---------------------------------- Ph: > It reminds me of a teaching of someone (K Sujin?) that it is a disservice to people to give them reason to feel attached to you. --------------------------------- Imagine being able to help people by discouraging their attachment. It's out of my league; I'll take all the attachment I can get. Although I have, at times, feigned indifference to puppy-dogs to stop them following me across the road. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 37363 From: antony272b2 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 5:32pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Dear Ken, Phil and all, I have read conflicting thoughts on whether to speak in dispraise of the unworthy. Ledi Sayadaw taught: "Those who realise the value of a human existence in this Buddha's dispensation should not consider the faults and defects of others. No attention should be paid to the affairs, shameless behaviour, ignoble conduct, or bad character of others. One must regard only one?s own rare opportunities and high status in the Buddha?s dispensation. Amid turmoil, one must maintain poise and serenity at all times. Abuse, condemnation, criticism, slander, and accusation, will bring unwholesome kamma for oneself. Realising the urgency of one?s own one task, must be steadfast and equanimous, ignoring the mistakes and faults of others so that one?s mind remains undefiled." (from "Cultivating a Skillful attitude" by Ledi Sayadaw) http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Library/Ledi/Dhamma/Skilful/skilful.html Elizabeth J. Harris wrote: The Buddha was once faced with the remark that the most worthy person is the one who speaks neither in dispraise of the unworthy nor in praise of the praiseworthy. The Buddha disagreed with this. He replied that, because of his ability to discriminate, the person who speaks in dispraise of the unworthy and in praise of worthy is best.'(12) The Buddha rejects the self-distancing which refuses to take sides or to speak out against what should be condemned. He criticizes the desire to keep the truth inviolate and unspoken through a wish not to become involved with society. Viveka and viråga therefore do not imply the kind of withdrawal which is unconcerned with what is good or bad for human welfare. (from "Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism" by Elizabeth J. Harris, Bodhi Leaves BL 141, Buddhist Publication Society, PO Box 61, Kandy, Sri Lanka) http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/H/Harris/detachmentHarris .html For more Theravada Writings by Women go to: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/ and click on Women at the top of the screen. metta / Antony. > ----------------------------- > Ph: Interesting. The Buddha speaks here of an obligation to "unravel > what is false and point it out as false" when dealing with those who > speak in dispraise of the Dhamma. > --------------------------------- 37364 From: Andrew Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:37pm Subject: Re: Scientist Herman Hi Herman Thanks for your response. I see where you are coming from and largely agree. We both agree that it is very important for scientists to act scientifically. When it comes to Dhamma practice, however, I think it is acceptable to act unscientifically (without pretending to act scientifically). This, for me, is where faith steps in - I am not going to say that the existence of devas is a scientific fact because, from my perspective, it isn't. However, acknowledging this, I can remain open to the possibility of their existence. The Atthalasalini says that faith is like something that purifies water, it lets the muddiness settle so that you can see beyond. This is not science and nor is it intended to be, IMHO. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > The skill in science is to frame hypotheses in such a way that they > can be tested. And this is where I see a dissonance between the > teachings of the Buddha in the suttas, and the later scholastic > works. I see the early teachings as being here and now solutions to > here and now suffering. Those teachings are testable. Andrew: In our present condition, I don't think it *is* always possible to frame hypotheses in a scientifically testable way. Where it is possible, I have no problem with it being done. Again, the history of science has many cases of the testing process later being found to be invalid due to factors that were unknown at the time of testing. So how do you ever know that test results are absolutely watertight? Answer: you don't. You make a value judgment that you will accept that the results are correct until such time as further proof indicates to the contrary. Can you see how that process is starting to sound like my definition of faith? > The scholastics, on the other hand, have turned nibbana into a > transcendental proposition that leaves the masses with nothing but > faith to cling to. And faith resists testing. Andrew: I don't accept that faith *necessarily* resists testing. I agree that, for some people, things end up being that way - and there's probably something unwholesome about it: attachment maybe? In my definition, faith doesn't pretend to be science. It just allows the mud of doubt to settle to the bottom of the lotus pond so that you can look at things beyond your nose. Don't deny that the mud exists, of course, but just let it settle and see how the picture looks when it does. > I think that if there is resistance to framing any part of the > Dhamma in such a way so as to make it testable, then we may be > dealing with a psychological need to keep certain matters > transcendental, not a desire to discover what is true or real. Andrew: I take your point but again with the proviso that we will never know absolutely that the results of scientifically testing the Dhamma will stand forever. Are you familiar with string theory and M theory and F theory. One scientist is arguing that there are 2 time dimensions in our universe. Science is an unfolding process and we simply don't know how it will unfold in the future. It would be sad to grow averse to the Buddha's counsel purely because of doubts based on the current state of scientific knowledge. > The science of rebirth is a case in point. We have seen some recent > discussions on the mechanisms of linking consciousnesses where > issues are resolved by reverting to what is said in the texts. This > is so of necessity, because there is no testable reality in the > whole theory. If in asking for the method whereby anything can be > known about bhavanga or cuti or patisandhi citta one is advised to > have faith, the conclusion that we are dealing with strictly dogma > is not unscientific, is it? Andrew: I think "dogma" here is perjorative. Faith doesn't have to be dogma. It doesn't have to be "pulling the wool over your eyes". When you have faith, you have mindfulness too. > I think as a scientifically minded person, one would feel > uncomfortable with adopting any set of beliefs on a faith only > basis. Andrew: I think your use of the word "adopt" is instructive here. You seem to think that faith entails taking on beliefs in a dogmatic way. That to me is a non sequitur. Taking my momentary view, I think that, when faith is present, there is an absence of cynicism and doubt - and that absence allows one form of testing of beliefs. At other times, beliefs are tested against doubt. I think we all have moments of faith and doubt. Is that doubt wholesome? Only when it is panna by which I mean when it sees something as it really is (not as it seems or as we have to take it based on current science). Joop used a very useful term the other day, cognitive > dissonance. If there is a cognitive dissonance between what is > believed and what is experienced, that can be a stimulus to modify > the belief. But it can also be a stimulus to pour more concrete on > the faith and blind it even more. Andrew: True, but Joop has to acknowledge that science may unfold in such a way as to show that his cognitive dissonance was really cognitive harmony. Remember when the atom was the smallest unit in the universe? > If an ethicist puts forward a system on how to achieve happiness, > and suffering persists, then there is room to challenge the validity > of the system, or one can question the application of the method. > Blame the user, so to speak. The transcendentalising trend of the > scholastics in relation to the teachings of the Buddha places the > end of suffering squarely in the future, and places the doctrine on > a very high pedestal, accessible only by faith. > > This is contrary to the practical teachings of the Buddha, who was > both a scientist and an ethicist. Andrew: Bhikkhu Bodhi, I note, feels that the Buddha was quite happy to be ontological when the need arose. Is it your claim that the Buddha ONLY gave practical teachings? If so, I will dig out Bhikkhu Bodhi's sutta references and put them up for discussion. Must fly. Best wishes Andrew T 37365 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 8:23pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit - a duty to dispute false views? Dear Antony, Thanks for giving us this juxtaposition of quotes about the speaking of dispraise about the unworthy. I think in the end it comes down to whether the speech is akusala or kusala - and finally to what citta is conditioning the speech at what moment. In the nettippakarana atthakatha they have a clasification of 38 vangcaka dhammas . And these are what Gayan (past member of dsg) translated as "cheating dhammas". Two of these are relevant here: These are saccavadita patirupataya pisunavacata vangceti. saccavadita - speaking the truth. pisunavacata- slandering In this case one criticises someone - but thinks that because it is the truth that it must be kusala. But the citta doing the action is rooted in akasula. The other is apisunavadita patirupataya anatthakamata vangceti. It is not wrong to speak about the evil qualities of a wrongdoer if one is helping to warn others. In fact it is a good thing. If one remains silent on such an occasion thinking "I will not slander" or "I will not argue" then this can be a subtle type of ignorance that just doesn't care about what happens to others. AS Gayan said " The point here is to check whether what's operating is genuine apisunavacata (not slandering) or a cheating akusala. ( and to be aware of the kusala as kusala , and the akusala as akusala ) RobertK dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "antony272b2" wrote: > > Dear Ken, Phil and all, > > I have read conflicting thoughts on whether to speak in dispraise of > the unworthy. > > Ledi Sayadaw taught: > > "Those who realise the value of a human existence in this Buddha's > dispensation should not consider the faults and defects of others. No > attention should be paid to the affairs, shameless behaviour, ignoble > conduct, or bad character of others. One must regard only one?s own > rare opportunities and high status in the Buddha?s dispensation. Amid > turmoil, one must maintain poise and serenity at all times. Abuse, > condemnation, criticism, slander, and accusation, will bring > unwholesome kamma for oneself. > > 37366 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] OK, Abhidharma Hi Andrew L, This is a misunderstanding, I do not wish to discontinue this thread. I am leaving for India next Monday, so, on Saturday I am closing off my Email. I shall be back Nov. 11. Then we can speak about the perfections and the realisation of the noble Truths. A. Sujin says that we cannot neglect any one of the perfections, so, I take this to heart. Most important for daily life. And Abhidhamma is not for academic purposes, it is for practice, practice in daily life. Otherwise it is not very beneficial. For the realisation of the noble Truths, the right cause has to be developed. We have to begin at the beginning, the first stage of insight. I do not think of the end result, since I have accumulated ignorance for aeons. It will not help to long for a result, that is clinging. Remind me of this thread. I printed it out and will discuss it with Sarah in the bus in India. But I have work to do with the Visuddhimagga. In one week, as soon as I am back, I intend to add a little to all the missing paras of the Vis. that Larry will keep on posting meanwhile. (I am already making notes, looking up Pali). That means, my first week I have to do household chores and this work. I also have to put order to my notes and tapes about India and see what I can share. All the best, Nina. op 07-10-2004 15:16 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > Nina I hope I'm wrong but are you telling me you don't want to > continue this thread? 37367 From: Andrew Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 10:40pm Subject: Scientist Herman/Faith Hi Herman I was just looking in the SN notes for Bhikkhu Bodhi's ontology references (no luck - must be the MN - I'll try to find the time to search it). In any event, I came across one note that interested me. It is Bhikkhu Bodhi's note #2 to Chapter 1 of the Samyutta Nikaya. The relevant text is about the deva who asked the Buddha "how did you cross the flood?". The Buddha gave a very short reply: "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." Note #2 reads: "... Spk [one of the Pali commentaries]: The Blessed One deliberately gave an obscure reply to the deva in order to humble him, for he was stiff with conceit yet imagined himself wise. Realizing that the deva would not be able to penetrate the teaching unless he first changed his attitude, the Buddha intended to perplex him and thereby curb his pride. At that point, humbled, the deva would ask for clarification?and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he could understand." My take on Buddhist faith is that it's function is to usher in an attitude conducive to bhavana. If we get hung up on "oh this stuff is not very scientific", then that's where we stay. Of course the stuff isn't scientific and we should be open about that! Still doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong, though! Science can't and won't give an absolute guarantee. I have a Catholic background and I well remember the concept of Christian faith - at every mass, we would all recite in unison "We believe in the Father etc etc". And in medieval times, if you refused to speak those words, you were endangering your life! That was dogmatic faith. Buddhist faith (or "confidence" or "trustful confidence") is something very different. If I'm wrong on the above, it wouldn't be the first time. (-: Best wishes Andrew T 37368 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 1:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" > wrote: > Dear Joop, > Could you give the full reference to the quote by Nyantiloka, I have > the dictionary and could look at the whole passage. > Robertk Hallo Robertk The Buddhist Dictionary in on the Internet: www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm After I did send my message, I realised my quote was not complete. Now I have the problem how to combine what Nyanatiloka writes in the entry "Paramattha" and what he writes in the entry "Khanda" My quote came from "Khandha", but from "Paramattha" one can read something else. The question is if the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada has the same meaning as in Mahayana. As far as I understand this is not the case, in Theravada it has more the meaning of: "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological language"; like in physics we can use conventional lanhuage but better describe phenomena in mathematical language. But perhaps I'm wrong. Metta Joop paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti- satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance whith undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha- desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths. khandha: the 5 'groups (of existence)' or 'groups of clinging' (upádánakkhandha); alternative renderings: aggregates, categories of clinging's objects. These are the 5 aspects in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appear to the ignorant man as his ego, or personality, to wit: (1) the corporeality group (rúpa-kkhandha), (2) the feeling group (vedaná-kkhandha), (3) the perception group (saññá-kkhandha), (4) the mental-formation group (sankhára-kkhandha), (5) the consciousness-group (viññána-kkhandha). "Whatever there exists of corporeal things, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, all that belongs to the corporeality group. Whatever there exists of feeling ... of perception ... of mental formations ... of consciousness ... all that belongs to the consciousness-group" (S. XXII, 48). - Another division is that into the 2 groups: mind (2-5) and corporeality (1) (náma-rúpa), whilst in Dhamma Sanganí, the first book of the Abhidhamma, all the phenomena are treated by way of 3 groups: consciousness (5), mental factors (2-4), corporeality (1), in Páli citta, cetasika, rúpa. Cf. Guide I. What is called individual existence is in reality nothing but a mere process of those mental and physical phenomena, a process that since time immemorial has been going on, and that also after death will still continue for unthinkably long periods of time. These 5 groups, however, neither singly nor collectively constitute any self- dependent real ego-entity, or personality (attá), nor is there to be found any such entity apart from them. Hence the belief in such an ego-entity or personality, as real in the ultimate sense, proves a mere illusion. "When all constituent parts are there, The designation 'cart' is used; Just so, where the five groups exist, Of 'living being' do we speak." (S. V. 10). The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on. Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and - mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities. In S. XXII, 56, there is the following short definition of these 5 groups: "What, o monks, is the corporeality-group? The 4 primary elements (mahá-bhúta or dhátu) and corporeality depending thereon, this is called the corporeality-group. "What, o monks, is the feeling-group? There are 6 classes of feeling: due to visual impression, to sound impression, to odour impression, to taste impression, to bodily impression, and to mind impression.... "What, o monks, is the perception-group? There are 6 classes of perception: perception of visual objects, of sounds, of odours, of tastes, of bodily impressions, and of mental impressions.... "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations? There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects.... "What, o monks, is the consciousness-group? There are 6 classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose- consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind- consciousness." About the inseparability of the groups it is said: ''Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental formations, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is conscious" (M. 43). Further: "Impossible is it for anyone to explain the passing out of one existence and the entering into a new existence, or the growth, increase and development of consciousness independent of corporeality, feeling, perception and mental formations" (S. XII, 53) For the inseparability and mutual conditionality of the 4 mental groups s. paccaya (6, 7). Regarding the impersonality (anattá) and emptiness (suññatá) of the 5 groups, it is said in S. XXII, 49: "Whatever there is of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness, whether past, present or future, one's own or external, gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, this one should understand according to reality and true wisdom: 'This does not belong to me, this am I not, this is not my Ego.' " Further in S. XXII, 95: "Suppose that a man who is not blind were to behold the many bubbles on the Ganges as they are driving along; and he should watch them and carefully examine them. After carefully examining them, however, they will appear to him empty, unreal and unsubstantial. In exactly the same way does the monk behold all the corporeal phenomena ... feelings ... perceptions ... mental formations ... states of consciousness, whether they be of the past, present or future ... far or near. And he watches them and examines them carefully; and after carefully examining them, they appear to him empty, unreal and unsubstantial." The 5 groups are compared, respectively, to a lump of froth, a bubble, a mirage, a coreless plantain stem, and a conjuring trick (S. XXII, 95). See the Khandha Samyutta (S. XXII); Vis.M. XIV. 37369 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 1:20am Subject: Re: About having strong opinions (Was: The five aggregates As Being Morally --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. Hallo Suan Lu Zaw, Ken and all After I stopped being a christian (as a adolescent) and started thinking "(perhaps) I'm a buddhist" I long time called myself an agnost. In fact I still am an agnostic buddhist as Stephen Batchelor describes it in his 'Buddism without beliefs'. This in introduction to a reaction on Suan Lu Zaw's statement "So the five aggregates are morally charged" I'm glad you accepted my metaphorical use of the propertie 'being charged' from physics: An electron is charged with (an unit of) electricity, nobody can divide electron and charge, in fact they are the same. The question is: can nobody divide an aggregate and morality? I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too? My personal opinion is: only a human being can have morality; but still I think citta and cetasika can be kusala or akusala because that's not the same as positive or negative moral intention. More important than our opinions is the question is if in the Sutta's, in early buddhism, "the five aggregates are morally charged". Kalupahana says: no. I quote him again: " What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) If you can mention Sutta's in which an aggregate or an element of an aggregate in "charged", then you're welcome and I'm convinced. Metta Joop 37370 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Oct 1, 2004 11:15pm Subject: 7 Steps + blank sorry ... ;-) BlankFriends: The seven Steps to Enlightenment: 1: Perfection of Morality. 2: Guarding the Senses. 3: Moderation in Eating. 4: Wakefulness at Night. 5: Continuous Clear Comprehension. 6: Suppression of the Hindrances. 7: Mental Absorption into Jhana 1-4. Source: MN 107 (iii 3-7) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn107.html PS: Blank sorry for the BLANK erroneously inserted in some posts by the yahoo HTML-to-Text converter... !!! May it not have induced much undue inconvenience ;-) Allowance of attachments & thereby HTML mode is hereby recommended to all group owners & members. True type ASCII text mode is somewhat archaic today IMHO. HTML enables smooth graphics & visual communication. Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 37371 From: siddu_drdl Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 4:19am Subject: I am looking for samyukta nikaya Please let me know where from I can down load Samyukta nikaya from web if available in English translation PLEASE HELP ME OUT WITH METTA SIDDU 37372 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Dear Nina Thanks for your answer, it was very helpful: I understand it and agree with it. I think talking about 'karuna' is being active in one of the most important themes in Buddhism. I have one problem with your explanation. When you state: "Thus, when we notice someone who needs help", I feel a kind of jumping. What is 'noticing'? What faculty in us does noticing? In my opinion it is the result of a property we have as human beings (potential or factual): the ability to recognize suffering in human beings, a kind of intuition. But I think that not a Abhidhamma way of reasoning? Maybe you already stopped answering mails: I hope you have a good time in India and come back in health to the Netherlands in november. Dus: het allerbeste en Veel metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hallo Joop, > You wrote: > < I realize this is a critical question, not totally within the frame > > of reference of the Abhidhamma, but Abhidhamma ànd social psychology > > describe the same reality?> > Very good point you make. touches on the essence. > Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, social psychology does not. > Abhidhamma leads to detachment from the idea of self. See below. > op 05-10-2004 12:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > Snipped... for me there must be a "mechanism": nothing arises without a > > cause. > > - There is a "being suffering"; > > - I see him/her (literally, so with eye-consciousness) and perhaps > > hear him/her too; > > - Then somewhere in my mind I compare the behavior (body and/or vocal > > intimation) of that person with the concept "suffering" I have > > - (How did I get this concept in my mind? Either as a innate > > propertie of all human beings or as a result of my being treated with > > karuna when I was young) Then a kind of conclusion arises in my mind: that > person is > > suffering - And then Karuna arises. > > How to describe this process in terms of the citta's, cetasika's and > > rupa's ? > N: Cittas go much faster than that. I see it this way: we heard about the > brahmavihaaras and it is paññaa that sees the value of them. We consider > more and then we begin to realize that what we used to take for kusala was > actually akusala. We learn that instead of metta there was the near enemy of > attachment. Instead of karuna there was the near enemy of sorrow, which is a > form of dosa. How valuable to learn the difference. Otherwise we go on > accumulating akusala we take for kusala. When there is right understanding > there can be a moment of true metta or true karuna, not what we used to take > for metta and karuna. Such moments fall away but they are accumulated and > can be a condition for their arising later on. > Thus, when we notice someone who needs help (mental or material), it all > depends on the conditions for the citta at that moment what will arise: > aversion or true compassion. I do not reason or draw conclusions, but when > there are conditions for karuna I make a move at once. Let us not forget > that karuna is not mine, that it arises depending on conditions. it has no > master, it is anatta. I do not have an intellectual approach, I find that > this does not work. Cittas are too fast. If we delay, it may be too late to > help! > Thus here you see the difference with social psychology. > I like your question, it is to the point. > Nina. 37373 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 7:32am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: ( From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Joop, Ken, Nina, Robert K, Andrew T and all Joop wrote: "I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too?" I wrote: "The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates." Rupa is pure abyaakata dhamma, meaning it cannot be described in terms of kusala and akusala (moral terms). That leaves us with the four mental aggregates. The feeling aggregate (vedanakkhandhaa) is a mental associate that participates in any bad, or good, or amoral consciousnesses. The memory aggregate (saññakkhandhaa)is also a mental associate that can do aiding and abetting any good, or bad, or amoral consciousnesses. As I wrote yesterday, The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates come with moral elements. What exactly is your problem, Joop? :-) The five aggregates are not only the subjects of the Suttam Pi.taka, but also those of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Kalupahana is only a speculative academic who wrote his personal opinions like other academics before or after him or like his contemporaries did and do. So, if Kalupana's personal opinions satisfy your liking, please stay with them by all means. Even though you reacted to my post with the title "About Having Strong Opinions", I have no personal opinions of my own on the Five Aggregates, let alone the strong ones. I merely repeated what I learnt from Pali texts. I am not here to convince you or argue with you or pressure you to accept the wisdom of the Pali texts. As I do not know if you are a Pali scholar, I won't be providing any Pali passages on the issue. But, if you would like to do so, please check Vibhanga, the Second Book Of Abhidhamma, the very first chapter of which starts discussing the Five Aggregates in details. Vibhanga and its commentary are both available in English translations from Pali Text Society. Good luck! With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" > wrote: The five aggregates cover all the kusala and akusala mental aggregates. The activation aggregate (sankhaarakkhandhaa) covers 50 mental associates (cetasikas) which includes both kusala mental associates and akusala mental associates. Similarly, the consciousness aggregate (viññaa.nakkhandhaa) covers both bad and good minds. So the five aggregates are morally charged. Hallo Suan Lu Zaw, Ken and all After I stopped being a christian (as a adolescent) and started thinking "(perhaps) I'm a buddhist" I long time called myself an agnost. In fact I still am an agnostic buddhist as Stephen Batchelor describes it in his 'Buddism without beliefs'. This in introduction to a reaction on Suan Lu Zaw's statement "So the five aggregates are morally charged" I'm glad you accepted my metaphorical use of the propertie 'being charged' from physics: An electron is charged with (an unit of) electricity, nobody can divide electron and charge, in fact they are the same. The question is: can nobody divide an aggregate and morality? I'm not sure you mean all the five aggregates, can rupa have it too? My personal opinion is: only a human being can have morality; but still I think citta and cetasika can be kusala or akusala because that's not the same as positive or negative moral intention. More important than our opinions is the question is if in the Sutta's, in early buddhism, "the five aggregates are morally charged". Kalupahana says: no. I quote him again: " What appears to be new in the Abhidhamma enumeration of physical and psychological elements emerges from the need to account for an aspect of discourse that could not be accommodated in the Abhidhamma methodology. For example, in thediscourses the human personality is analyzed into five aggregates. In this discursive system of exposition, there was no need to bring in ethical or moral problems, i.e., whether or not any of these aggregates is associated with a moral quality. That question is discussed in relation to the behavior of the human person. But the Abhidhamma method does not allow for such discursive treatment: it simply lists the physical and psychological constituents in a non-discursive way. Hence the need to account for moral quality and so forth in the very enumeration of these elements." (page 145) If you can mention Sutta's in which an aggregate or an element of an aggregate in "charged", then you're welcome and I'm convinced. Metta Joop 37374 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:11am Subject: Re: Dighanakha Sutta and more contd Hello Sarah. S> Dighanakha Sutta S> ============== S> We cannot talk about wrong views without grasping. By their S> nature, wrong views always arise with lobha (attachment), S> just as right views always arise with panna. In the S> Brahmajala sutta we read about how the holders of all the 62 S> wrong views experience feelings, craving, clinging and so S> on. All are trapped in the net. It is the very nature of S> wrong view to think it's right and to condition clinging. An S> annihilationist may not cling much to life -- for example, S> someone about to commit suicide believes in a self, but S> believes it will be destroyed at death and that any painful S> feelings will cease by the act -- but it is a kind of S> dispassion conditioned by wrong view and clinging to that S> view. S> S> So Dighanakha in the sutta was pleased to hear the Buddha S> describe the view as being close to non-attachment, but then S> the Buddha 'adds the qualification', i.e then he rubbishes S> it. Qualifying is not rubbishing. Qualifying is modifying by adding some conditional clause. If I say "Sugenius ostriches are an easily domesticated species," and then qualify it with "...as long as you give them enough sand to bury their heads in," the qualification does not undermine the original assertion. Likewise when the Buddha tells Dighanakha that his view is close to non-attachment, he does not rubbish the view by adding the warning that the view will lead to conflict *if* obstinately adhered to. What the Buddha's qualification DOES rubbish is the commentator's claim that Dighanakha is an annihilationist. If that were true, we should not expect the Buddha to give Dighanakha's view even qualified approval. Now if I understand you correctly, you are saying that it is not possible to hold the view that Dighanakha holds without obstinately adhering to it. But this is because you have uncritically swallowed the commentator's claim that Dighanakha is an annihilationist, in spite of everything in the Sutta that militates against such an interpretation, e.g. the fact that the Buddha DOES state the view to be "close to non-attachment," -- "The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping." -- in the Suttas ucchedavada is NEVER described in this way. S> You also agreed with me that 'one employs the speech S> currently used in the world without adhering to it'. So an S> understanding of paramatha dhammas or elements doesn't S> reclude the use of conventional terms. Whether 'paramatha' S> is or is not used in the suttas, there are definitely other S> terms which depict the distinction between worldly and S> non-worldly or conventional and non-conventional use and S> understanding, wouldn't you agree? No. I would say that what can be described in terms of selves and persons is also describable in impersonal terms. The latter manner of description is closer to dispassion and so to be preferred. But both descriptions are matters of convention. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ The view of those ascetics and brahmins who are of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me' is close to non-attachment, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-cleaving, close to non-grasping. (Dighanakha Sutta) 37375 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: Some fundamentalist/hard core/blind faith/parrot/dinosaur/sugenius reflections for D.(1) Hello Sarah. As the subject title of this thread is addressed to me, let me note that I have not myself referred to any Sugenius as having blind faith, or as being a dinosaur or a parrot (not even the self-confessed parrot Ken Howard). In fact, 'parrots' as a designation for Sugeniuses had never even occurred to me until you mentioned it. Ostriches certainly, but not parrots. Still, if you feel more comfortable being viewed as parrots, I shall be happy to comply. S> "All Women" & Jatakas S> ================= S> As I've said, I read this to be talking about women in S> general, certainly not to ariyans and to be understood in S> the light of what we read from other Tipitaka texts too. S> 'Opportunity', 'secrecy' and 'suitable wooer'. You're most S> welcome to give me the pali and a little more translation of S> the words in the context of the Jataka and Milinda Qu with S> the ref. The verse as it appears in the Amaraa Dialogue reads: sace labhetha kha.na.m vaa raho vaa nimantaka.m vaapi labhetha taadisa.m sabbaapi itthii kareyyu.m nu paapa.m, a~n~na.m alatthaa pii.thasappinaa saddhi.m This is a pretty literal translation of it: "If they would get a [spare] moment, or privacy, Or would merely get a man of some sort who invites [them], All women would then do evil, [If] not having obtained another, then with a cripple." But in all the editions of the Pali Ku.naala Jaataka that I have consulted, the word "man of some sort who invites" (nimantaka.m taadisa.m -- or 'suitable wooer' as Horner translates it) appears as nivaataka.m taadisa.m, which could mean "an opportunity of some sort" or "hiding place of some sort." Buddhaghosa glosses the words thus: 'kha.na.m vaa raho vaa' ti paapakara.natthaaya okaasa.m vaa pa.ticchanna.t.thaana.m vaa "[Spare] moment or privacy" -- an opportunity/occasion for doing evil or a concealed place. 'nivaatake' ti rahomantanake paribhedake. "A hiding place" -- a concealed place that is sufficient for conversation and is set apart. 'alatthaa' ti aladdhaa "Not having obtained" -- not having obtained (the author means that alattha is just an alternative spelling of aladdha). ayameva vaa paa.tho, a~n~na.m sampannapurisa.m alabhitvaa pii.thasappinaapi tato pa.tikkuulatarenaapi paapa.m kareyyu.m "The meaning is that [women], failing to obtain an able-bodied man, would do evil even with a cripple (or possibly 'palsied man'), or someone even more loathesome." Moving on now to the passage in the Mahaa-Ummagga Jaataka (No. 546), describing Amaraa's restraint. [Prince Mahosadha, the Bodhisatta, but disguised as a tailor, is performing a series of sadistic tests on Amaraa to see if she is docile (or stupid) enough to be his wife. Amaraa is performing well. He comes to the last test:] "When the Great Being came, he had brought with him a thousand rupees and a dress in his betel-nut-bag. Now he took out this dress and placed it in [Amaraa's] hands, saying, "Madam, bathe with your companions and put on this dress and come to me." She did so. The sage gave her parents all the money he had brought or earned, and comforted them, and took her back to the town with him. Then to test her he made her sit down in the gatekeeper's house, and telling the gatekeeper's wife of his plans, went to his own house. Then he sent for some of his men, and said, "I have left a woman in such and such a house; take a thousand pieces of money with you and test her." He gave them the money and sent them away. They did as they were bid. She refused, saying, "That is not worth the dust on my master's feet." The men came back and told the result. He sent them again, and a third time; and the fourth time he ordered them to drag her away by force. They did so, and when she saw the Great Being in all his glory she did not know him, but smiled and wept at the same time as she looked at him. He asked her why she did this. She replied, "Master, I smiled when I beheld your magnificence, and thought that this magnificence was not given you without cause, but for some good deed in a former life: see the fruit of goodness! I thought, and smiled. But I wept to think that now you would violate the property which another watched and tended, and would go to hell: in pity for that I wept." After this test he knew her chastity, and sent her back to the same place. Putting on his tailor's disguise, he went back to her and there spent the night." In this story Amaraa clearly is in a situation where she had the opportunity, the place and someone to have sex with, and yet refrained, thus contradicting what is predicated of women in the Ku.naala verse. And as I mentioned in my last post on this subject, Naagasena commits the fallacy of equivocation in his attempt to harmonize the two stories. When appraising Amaraa he allows the terms 'opportunity', 'privacy' etc. to mean things that they did not mean in the Ku.naala. S> As I've said, I found the latter convincing and S> helpful as obviously did K.Milinda! Since the Amaraa Dialogue is from the late part of the Milindapa~nhaa, its "Naagasena" and its "Milinda" are merely fictional characters. It is therefore no surprise that the author has Pseudo-Milinda agreeing with even the dumbest arguments from Pseudo-Naagasena. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37376 From: dighanakha Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 8:18am Subject: Translations of texts on Magadhan (1) Hello All. I am going to start posting translations of the passages that I uploaded to the files section. I will begin with those which are already available in English translation. This is passage 12 in the file. It is from the Visuddhimagga, and the following translation is by ~Naa.namoli (Path of Purification XIV 25). _____________________________ 'Tatradhammaniruttaabhilaape ~naa.nan' ti tasmi.m atthe ca dhamme ca yaa sabhaavanirutti abyabhicaarii vohaaro. Knowledge about enunciation of language dealing with meaning and law: there is the language that is individual essence, the usage that has no exceptions, and deals with that meaning and that law. Tadabhilaape tassa bhaasane udiira.ne ta.m bhaasita.m lapita.m udiirita.m sutvaava aya.m sabhaavanirutti, aya.m na sabhaavaniruttiiti eva.m tassaa dhammaniruttisa~n~nitaaya sabhaavaniruttiyaa maagadhikaaya sabbasattaana.m muulabhaasaaya pabhedagata.m ~naa.na.m 'niruttipa.tisambhidaa' . Any knowledge falling within the category concerned with the enunciation of that, with the speaking, with the utterance of that, concerned with the root speech of all beings, the Magadhan language that is individual essence, in other words, the language of law (dhamma), [any knowledge that] as soon as it hears it spoken, pronounced, uttered, knows, 'This is the individual-essence language; this is not the individual-essence language' -- [such knowledge] is discrimination of language. Niruttipa.tisambhidaappatto hi phasso vedanaati evamaadivacana.m sutvaava aya.m sabhaavaniruttiiti jaanaati. Phassaa vedanoti evamaadika.m pana aya.m na sabhaavaniruttiiti. One who has reached the discrimination of language knows, on hearing the words 'phasso, vedanaa', etc., that that is the individual-essence language, and on hearing 'phassaa, vedano', etc. he knows that that is not the individual-essence language (XIV 25) Translator's note: The idea behind the term 'individual-essence language' (sabh‡vanirutti), that is to say, that there is a real name for each thing that is part of that thing's individual essence, is dealt with at DhsA 391-92. Magadhan as the 'root speech of all beings' and the 'individual-essence language' is dealt with in greater detail at VbhA 387. 'Phasso' and 'vedan‡' as respectively masc. and fem. nom. sing. have the correct terminations. 'Phass‡' and 'vedano' are wrong. Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) _____________________________ from the Visuddhimagga musical sub-commentary by Gilberata and Sullivana Theras: Dr. Ferdinand de Saussure meets Dr. Buddhaghosa DE SAUSSURE: I have the perfect model for historical comparison, For analysing languages when data is as rare as in... BUDDHAGHOSA: ...the case of pre-Sanskritic? Or perhaps it's post-Atlantean? Well *mine* is a project whose scope is more gargantuan. DE SAUSSURE: I know all the mythologic functions Dumezilian, And I can trace our species back to ancestors reptilian; BUDDHAGHOSA: But I shall seek a broader view, for by my ideology Your details are just residue left over from typology. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: His details are just residue left over from typology, His details are just residue left over from typology, His details are just residue left over from typo-polo-gy. BUDDHAGHOSA: For all your forms of pedantry I offer up this medicine: The weighty methodology of old you'll have to jettison. To link the tongues of everyone from Maagadhans to Saracens, You'll need another model for historical comparisons. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: To link the tongues of everyone from Maagadhans to Saracens, He'll need another model for historical comparisons. BUDDHAGHOSA: You philologists and linguists sitting in your ivory edifice Must take the blame for having let the Hindus get ahead of us, For if you are so quick to pale when some small detail menaces, How do you ever hope to reach linguistic monogenesis? DSG PARROTS CHORUS: If de Saussure is so quick to pale when some small detail menaces, How does he ever hope to reach linguistic monogenesis? DE SAUSSURE: Through my analysis of Lycian and Lydian and Luwian, I've reconstructed 'water' terms ante- and post-diluvian! BUDDHAGHOSA: Well I just use the handbooks that the forms are predigested in And waste no time on learning any language they're attested in! DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested in, He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested in, He wastes no time on learning any language they're attested-tested in. BUDDHAGHOSA: So many forms share elements (and meanings, if you think a bit); Phonetic counter-evidence I set aside or shrink to fit. Indeed I am quite certain (although scholars seem to vary some) *Mine* is the perfect model for historical comparison. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He really is quite certain (although scholars seem to vary some) *His* is the perfect model for historical comparison. DE SAUSSURE: You Buddhist commentators are so megalocomparative, Indulging your propensity for hyperbolic narrative, BUDDHAGHOSA: As unrelenting advocates of Pali exaltation, Why should we waste a moment on each petty permutation? DSG PARROTS CHORUS: Why should we waste a moment on each petty permutation? DE SAUSSURE: Right in the nitty-gritty is where you'll find me wandering, Assembling the details you dogmatists are squandering; BUDDHAGHOSA: I'm keen to bag the languages they always thought akin to none By stepping round the finer points and joining them all into one. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into one, He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into one, He's stepping 'round the finer points and joining them all into into one. DE SAUSSURE: Including Basque and Burushaski? And what about Sumerian? Or scratchings unidentified on tablets antiquarian? BUDDHAGHOSA: I let *no* language go astray -- 'twould just be too embarrassin' And mar my perfect model for historical comparison. DSG PARROTS CHORUS: He lets *no* language go astray -- 'twould just be too embarrassin' And mar his perfect model for historical comparison. (to the tune of "Model of a Modern Major-General") 37377 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 9:18am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 084 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Vitakka, vicara and piti have been discussed in the previous posts. There are still other three particular mental factors or pakinnaka cetasikas. They are flexible ministers of the king citta. Remaining three flexible ministers are viriya, abdimokkha, and chanda. Viriya is a cetasika. It is not a citta. But it support the citta that arises together with it. Viriya is effort. Its has a power of non-withdrawal. If viriya is walking, it will continue to walk with effort. Viriya is like energy. It is steadfastness. In the presence of strong viriya, everything can be accomplished. Viriya appears in bodhipakkhiya dhamma as samappadana. All four samappadana dhammas are all viriya. If someone is continuously in mahasatipatthana, this continuation on satipatthana stops arising of new akusala kamma in connection with already existing akusala kamma. As long as in satipatthana that is knowing of realities, no new akusala will arise because satipatthana is not an akusala and as it is a strong bhavana, this bhavana kusala kamma stop arising of new unarisen kamma. When stay in satipatthana steadfastly, this will support arising of new kusala as it is kusala bhavana. More importantly, already existing kusala may become exponential. Even though mahasatipatthana is sati as cetasika, mahasatipatthana practice comprise all kusala cetasikas as it is a strong bhavana kusala citta. When the practitioners are in walking meditation, viriya maintain that position and by the same token, when in sitting, this posture is also maintained and supported by viriya. This steadfastness and effort or viriya also appears as iddhipada or the base for accomplishment of everything. It is viriyiddhipada. When viriya is there standing very strongly, all other sobhana cetasika have to follow viriya. Viriya also appears as adhipati dhamma. There are viriya bala, viriyindriya, viriyasambojjhanga, and samma- vayama as one of the 8 parts of Noble Eightfold Path. Viriya is one of important dhammas. If conditions are right, viriya may bring one to become a Sammasambuddha. It is said that to become a Sammasambuddha is like climbing over very high razorous mountains and then swimming across firy oceans. But viriya helps passing all these obstacles. 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. 37378 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, op 07-10-2004 14:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even > lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But > the > experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" > carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will > find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. It is unpredictable when there is sati sampajañña and when there is not, but it is essential to learn the difference between such moments. We can learn from all our experiences. An example: when in the kitchen and grabbing a cup or glass, we usually do this thoughtlessly, but we should not mind. We can learn the difference between moments without sati and with sati. If we mind, it shows our clinging. Sati can arise unforeseeably, and be aware of hardness, dosa, lobha, or seeing. The anattaness of sati should be understood, this is foremost. It is a good thing that sati is unpredictable, otherwise we take it for self or for controllable. If we think of preparing by trying to have a clear, calm mind, we should be truthful and find out whether we are clinging to sati. Moreover, when trying to prepare for sati we delay, we obstruct its arising. Sometimes there can be awareness of sound, just sound, also when playing music, even when talking to someone else. When sati is very daily there are less conditions for clinging to it. A person may be nervous when there are so many things to do before a journey. But there are nama and rupa, and a beginning of understanding, and there may be awareness of them, even though this is still imperfect. All kinds of realities should be known, kusala, akusala, pleasant, unpleasant. Nina. 37379 From: Dan D. Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 10:21am Subject: More on "Conventional right view" [Sarah] Dear Sarah, It's great to hear from you! It's fine for you to support the notion of 'conceptual right view', but isn't it necessary to stray from the Dhamma to do so? We've looked at two very prominent discussions of 'right view' in the suttas (viz. the Great Forty (MN 117) and the Sammaditthi sutta (MN 9). In both suttas, what may look like "conceptual right view" to some on first glance turn out to really be mundane right view, which is a direct view of reality rather than some correct conceptual formulation. My take on it is that there is a clear distinction between ditthi (views, opinions, conceptual formulations) and sammaditthi (viewing rightly, direct understanding) in the suttas. The term 'conceptual right view' is a great tool for justifying a clinging to ditti as somehow "right". How so? People have a strong tendency to like their predilections and attachments and habits. When people study Dhamma, they naturally do it under the influence of their predilections, habits, and attachments. People who delight in intellectualizing and forming theories may tend to use Dhamma study as a vehicle for intellectualizing and forming theories. Because we -- yes, I count myself among those who like intellectualizing -- like cogitation and believe so strongly in its value, it somehow feels "right". We may even be tempted to call the theories we come up with "right view." Of course, I think you'd agree that sammaditthi doesn't mean 'correct theory', so, then, how can we reconcile our perception of a theory as "right" with the recognition that it really is not sammaditthi? Coin a new term! 'Conceptual right view'-- a wonderful term which neatly makes the distinction between the sammaditthi that the Buddha taught and the theories that we so love, yet it also retains that element of "right" that makes us feel more comfortable with our attachments to intellectualizing and less apt to challenge them. 'Conceptual right view' is a tidy solution, but does it have any support in Theravada? I've run across 'mundane right view' in the suttas, but we are in agreement that this refers to direct understanding of mundane realities rather than to a proper conceptual framework for thinking about reality. There may still be some support for 'conceptual right view' in the texts, but I can't find it -- perhaps because it just isn't there, or perhaps because my knowledge of the texts is too weak to find it. Intellectualizer: "So what's wrong with the idea of 'conceptual right view'?" Dan: "You must mean what's wrong with it other than that: i. it confuses 'sammaditthi' with 'ditthi', and ii. it reinforces our attachment to intellectualizing rather than challenges that attachment?" I see two obvious dangers. One is that one who mouths the right syllables is regarded as "right" or "inside the dispensation", while those who mouth the wrong syllables is regarded as "wrong" or "outside the dispensation." If inside/outside the dispensation is to be determined according to whether one has "conceptual right view" or not, the notion of "conceptual right view" becomes a vehicle for bigotry in addition to serving as a damper to development of sammaditthi. For example, I know many Christians who know nothing about the syllables or conceptual formulations of the Buddha but have a much more refined and developed sammaditthi than many Buddhists who can spin wonderful conceptual yarns about their "views" but have precious little direct understanding. It is the real understanding that counts; not the intellectualizing or tossing around of concepts. Wouldn't you agree? You wrote: "Pausing here, I think there can be `conceptual right view' about kamma which is a pre-cursor for mundane right view above..." Where the heck did you come up with that? Would you agree that with the statement: "'Conventional right effort' is a pre-cursor for 'right effort', so we should sit on our butts in a corner, eyes closed, etc. to develop understanding"? I don't think you would, because you would rightly see silabbataparamasa as inherently wrapped up in the very notion of 'conventional right effort'. Likewise, ditthi is inherently wrapped up in the very notion of 'conceptual right view'. Another way to put it: taking 'conventional right effort' as a form of 'right effort' is silabbataparamasa; and taking 'conceptual right view' as a form of 'right view' is ditthi. Let's eradicate both. Metta, Dan 37380 From: Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Nina - In a message dated 10/8/04 1:07:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > op 07-10-2004 14:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even > >lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But > >the > >experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car > traffic" > >carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we > will > >find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". > N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe > that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have > understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through > the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas > and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. It is unpredictable > when there is sati sampajañña and when there is not, but it is essential to > learn the difference between such moments. We can learn from all our > experiences. > An example: when in the kitchen and grabbing a cup or glass, we usually do > this thoughtlessly, but we should not mind. We can learn the difference > between moments without sati and with sati. If we mind, it shows our > clinging. Sati can arise unforeseeably, and be aware of hardness, dosa, > lobha, or seeing. > The anattaness of sati should be understood, this is foremost. It is a good > thing that sati is unpredictable, otherwise we take it for self or for > controllable. If we think of preparing by trying to have a clear, calm mind, > we should be truthful and find out whether we are clinging to sati. > Moreover, when trying to prepare for sati we delay, we obstruct its arising. > Sometimes there can be awareness of sound, just sound, also when playing > music, even when talking to someone else. When sati is very daily there are > less conditions for clinging to it. A person may be nervous when there are > so many things to do before a journey. But there are nama and rupa, and a > beginning of understanding, and there may be awareness of them, even though > this is still imperfect. All kinds of realities should be known, kusala, > akusala, pleasant, unpleasant. > Nina. > > > ============================ Preparing in the moment, as you describe above, I agree is of little benefit and may in fact be quite harmful. The preparation I believe that Buddha taught was a background preparation, by various means, and part of what was cultivated was a state of beckground calm and the kusala *habit* of being attentive. Such "background preparation" I do believe is quite necessary. At the moment of the arising of a dhamma, it is already too late to "prepare". 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) 37381 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] metta and karuna Dear Joop, Thank you for your good wishes. See below. op 08-10-2004 15:59 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > I have one problem with your explanation. When you state: "Thus, when > we notice someone who needs help", I feel a kind of jumping. What > is 'noticing'? What faculty in us does noticing? In my opinion it is > the result of a property we have as human beings (potential or > factual): the ability to recognize suffering in human beings, a kind > of intuition. But I think that not a Abhidhamma way of reasoning? N: I think we see and then recognize with sañña: he needs some help. We do not need to think much, as you say, intuition. Anything daily is Abhidhamma, it is about the way cittas and cetasikas travel. Nina. 37382 From: Andrew Levin Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 4:03pm Subject: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi guys, I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here that would lead to entirely different courses of action and expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very lifetime, Yours sincerely, Andrew C. Levin 37383 From: Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 10/8/04 7:06:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andrewlevin@e... writes: > > Hi guys, > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, > > Yours sincerely, > Andrew C. Levin > ========================== I may be in error, but I get the impression that you are generalizing with regard to the views of the members of this list. Just so you know, I believe the following: 1) Becoming an ariyan, even attaining complete enlightenment and liberation, is possible within this very lifetime, and if that is not "in the cards" as determined by kamma and other conditions, there is still no reason at all why proper practice on one's part, volitional action, shouldn't result in significant progress here and now, 2) perfections are to be intentionally cultivated, and they do not develop by chance, and 3) meditation lies at the core of the practice taught by the Buddha and is indispensable. 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) 37384 From: Suravira Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop, Suan Lu Zaw & et al Suan Lu Zaw wrote > > So the five aggregates are morally charged. > Joop wrote > > In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates > > are therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, > as opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to > > which the theory of dependent origination belongs. Ken wrote > k: One thing, if there is no moral charge to the five aggregates > then why would we bother to practise kusala behaviours. [Suravira] Here is some food for thought: The five aggregates model serves a very practical purpose - to facilitate the analysis of suffering (to work with such questions as: what is suffering? how is it caused? and, what can be done to end the causes of suffering?) When we first encounter this model, it is important to avoid common misunderstandings of the five aggregates. Please realize that: - An aggregate is not a substantial entity - instead it is merely an imaginary object (a mental phenomena); - An aggregate is merely a label for a category of experience within which is a grouped multiplicity (or amalgam) of ever-changing phenomena; - The "five aggregates" is nothing other than an abstract model, in other words a schema - a complex imagined object; - The "five aggregates" is not a non-corporeal realm that mysteriously contains a permanent essence, or soul; - The "five aggregates" is not the ultimate basis of being in space-time, and - The "five aggregates" do not define what a person is. The five (5) aggregates are: - Form (rupa-kkhandha); - Sensation/Feeling (vedana-kkhandha); - Consciousness (vinnana-kkhandha); - Perception (sanna-kkhandha), and - Karmic Formation (sankhara-kkhandha): which is predominantly, and for all practical purposes, a critical matter of intention (cetana). The phrase, "the five aggregates of attachment", embodies a schema of categories that the Buddha uses to model, as well as analyze, our intimate experience of life as senscient beings in space-time. When you study the Khandhasamyutta sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya, you will encounter at a number of places where the Buddha reveals the profound importance of the aggregates, for example: "So long as I did not directly know as they really are the five aggregates subject to clinging, I did not claim to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world. But when I directly knew all this as it really is, then I claimed to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world." What did the Buddha eventually come to know about the five aggregates? He realized that the five (5) aggregates casually support each other and thereby are the generative cause of an image of a single whole that arises naturally in our minds. This image is what we naturally interpret as "self." We naturally, and legitimately, identify with this image. This image provides a sense of being an individual. Without this image at our disposal, we would be completely disoriented and therefore unable to begin or maintain the path of the bodhisattva. It is very important to acknowledge that the Buddha did not negate this image, that he did not negate our conventional sense of self. The Buddha taught that this image is like an illusion, not that it is an illusion. This image is like an illusion in that we hold it to be real in a way that it is not. The Buddha was able to see through this image and recognize that what we perceive is not really a single whole (i.e., is not an entity), but merely a particular state of these five (5) phenomena, in close proximity to one another, in a given moment. Moreover, the Buddha acknowledged that, like all phenomena, this particular state was continually changing and ceasing; that it was therefore impermanent and not permanent or eternal in any regard. In addition, the Buddha understood that our clinging to and grasping at this image is the cause of all mental suffering in our lives. To our good fortune, the Buddha was able to see the way to end this mental suffering and manifest the compassion and joy of enlightened existence for the benefit of all living beings. This image is not morally charged. Nor is its generative cause, i.e., the five aggregates, morally charged. We practice dana (generosity, charity & almsgiving) and sila (virtue, morality and ethics) for many (perhaps innumerable) reasons. The least reason among these being right understanding of karma and its effects. All active processes of the mind (excluding the mental factors of sensation/feeling and perception) are termed mental fabrications. Intention is the fundamental basis underlying all mental fabrications. As such, intention organizes and coordinates all other mental factors, as well as directing our physical organism. Intention's primary activity is to take the potential for the experience of our physical organism (rupa), sensation/feeling, consciousness, and perception , originating from past actions, and turn that potential into the actual experience of those things in the present moment. Whenever an intentional action ceases, the intentional action imprints (or infuses) a potency, a predisposition, within the layer of latent tendency consciousness, and the life-continuum function of the consciousness carries this potency through to the time of its fruition. Karma is both the intentional action as well as the infused potency that conditions the functioning of the life- continuum within consciousness - this conditioning of the functioning of the life-continuum is the primary effect of karma. Clearly, intention strongly leads and informs our future moments. Thus, intention is an integral part of our individual experience of being in time-space - past, present and future. This is a critically important point fact, for this means that there is an element of individual intention in all human suffering. Therefore, there is both an aspect of personal responsibility within all of our experiences of suffering, as well as the opportunity of choice that leads to liberation from suffering and the joy and compassion of enlightened existence. This opens to us the possibility that suffering can be ended by changing our intentions, or abandoning them entirely, which is precisely the point of the Buddha's teachings on karma and its effects - our lives are subject to revision. 37385 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 11:36pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner31-Feeling/Vedana (d) Dear Friends, Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] ***** All feelings have the function of experiencing the taste, the flavour of an object (Atthasåliní, I, Part IV, Chapter I, 109). The Atthasåliní uses a simile in order to illustrate that feeling experiences the taste of an object and that citta and the other cetasikas which arise together with feeling experience the taste only partially. A cook who has prepared a meal for the king merely tests the food and then offers it to the king who enjoys the taste of it: ** -…and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, even so the mere testing of the food by the cook is like the partial enjoyment of the object by the remaining dhammas (the citta and the other cetasikas), and as the cook tests a portion of the food, so the remaining dhammas enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure, so feeling, being lord, expert and master, enjoys the taste of the object, and therefore it is said that enjoyment or experience is its function.- ** Thus, all feelings have in common that they experience the 'taste' of an object. Citta and the other accompanying cetasikas also experience the object, but feeling experiences it in its own characteristic way. ***** [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 37386 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 0:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi Howard, You were saying: ---------------------------------- > Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. > ---------------------------------- I wonder if this is an example of a point raised in Phil's thread. No offence is meant by either of us, but we do accuse each other of speaking in `dispraise of the Buddha.' You accuse me of saying the Buddha played a trick. I accuse you saying the Buddha taught an ordinary, unremarkable, conventional practice. I don't think anyone here has ever said the Buddha played tricks: we all agree he genuinely taught guarding the senses. However, some of us believe guarding the senses means satipatthana, while others believe it means concentrating on concepts (breath, posture, sounds of traffic, physical and mental activities). ------------------- H: > My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, not "traffic". ------------------- I will engage `auto-parrot' (cut and paste from Nina's reply): > N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is important to have understanding of the different objects as they present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of different processes of cittas. > Reverting to manual parroting; I would say that `guarding the senses' is not an activity that we engage in: it is a conditioned phenomenon. If the Dhamma has been heard, studied, and wisely reflected upon (`Listening [to traffic] with a calm clear mind' was not one of the preconditions taught by the Buddha.), then panna (satipatthana) may be conditioned to arise and guard the senses, here and now. If those conditions have not been put in place, then the present moment will be something other than guarding of the senses. In either case, the Dhamma teaches us to know the present moment, not to change it. -------------------------------------------------------- H: > Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. > ---------------------------------------------------------- I don't follow. You set out to describe an alternative to `attending to concepts' but what you wrote seems to be another description of `attending to concepts.' I will snip the next part of the discussion, in which I suggested that any attempt at mindfulness necessarily involves self (my sati, my object of sati): (Sati arises purely by conditions and the intention to control sati is not one of those conditions.) ---------------------------- H: > The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the mind. The Buddha DID teach this. ---------------------------- You are referring to a practice of sustained concentration (other than jhana) that is taught somewhere in the Pali Canon. In all of DSG's discussions on this point, has anyone ever directly quoted such a teaching? --------------------- H: > His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, clear, and capable. > ---------------------- I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I would adamantly deny that the term, Middle Way, means a moderate form of the two extremes. When the Buddha said "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood," (see Andrew T's post) he did not mean he proceeded 'slowly,' without 'too much' halting and straining. He meant the Middle Way is a profoundly unworldly way, travelled by conditioned dhammas, not by concepts [of self]. I will put "Read Anupada Sutta" on my `To do' list. Kind regards, Ken H 37387 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Suravira" wrote: > Dear Ken O, Nina, Robert K, Joop, Suan Lu Zaw & et al Here is some food for thought: > The five aggregates model serves a very practical purpose - to > facilitate the analysis of suffering (to work with such questions > as: what is suffering? how is it caused? and, what can be done to > end the causes of suffering?) When we first encounter this model, (...(snip) Dear Suravira and all Thanks for your reaction, with information and wisdom I will take some days to think about it before getting (perhaps) an opinion about it. In the meantime I have another (combined) question to you (and other DSG-members) This thread started with the topic of the relation Nagarjuna - Abhidhamma. One of the central themes in that relation is the 'theory of the two truths'; sometimes it's called 'the two realities' and I suppose that means the same. Now my question is: 1 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the same as they appear in the Abhidhamma ? 2 Is this the same way as they appear in the texts of Buddhaghosa ? 3 Is the way the 'two truths' appear in de Sutta's, the same as they appear in the Madhyamakakarika ? 4 Is this the same way as they appear in Mahayana texts ? I think the answer to question 1, 2 and 4 is: no. Kalupahana states (as I understand him well) the answer to question 3 is yes, but most disagree with him 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used the analogy: the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? Metta Joop 37388 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, Dear Andrew That you didn't know that, surprised me a little bit You must know that there are more buddhist traditions and Theravada is one of them. What you state is, I think, more or less a Mahayana opinion. So it's very good you partiocipate on a (mainly) Theravada Forum Metta Joop 37389 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > Hallo Robertk > > The Buddhist Dictionary in on the Internet: > www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > After I did send my message, I realised my quote was not complete. > Now I have the problem how to combine what Nyanatiloka writes in the > entry "Paramattha" and what he writes in the entry "Khanda" > My quote came from "Khandha", but from "Paramattha" one can read > something else. > The question is if the distinction between the "two truths" in > Theravada has the same meaning as in Mahayana. As far as I understand > this is not the case, in Theravada it has more the meaning > of: "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional lanhuage but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. > But perhaps I'm wrong. > > Metta > Joop Dear Joop, Thanks for the section from the dictionary. I still couldn't see this part: ""In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox Mahathera) > remarked that these five aggregates 'merely form an abstract > claasification by the Buddha, but that they as such have no > existence. It is due to a lack of understanding that the five > Khandhas are often conceived as too compact, too substantial, so to > speak, as more or less permanent entities.' These five aggregates are > therefore classified under the heading of conventional truth, as > opposed to the truth in the highest sense (paramatthasacca) to which > the theory of dependent origination belongs"" ============= I don't understand what you mean by "philosophical-soteriological language" that the buddha used? Robertk 37390 From: dighanakha Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 2:53am Subject: Re: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hello Robert. > Thanks for the section from the dictionary. I still couldn't see > this part: ""In his 'Buddhist Dictionary' Nyanatiloka (the orthodox > Mahathera) The quote is not from the dictionary but from chapter III of U Kyaw Min's _Introducing Buddhist Abhidhamma_ http://www.palikanon.com/english/intro-abhidhamma/chapter_iii.htm Sincerely, Dighanakha Nutcracker _____________________________ Truly, Master Gotama, I am of this persuasion, of this view: 'everything is not pleasing to me.' (Dighanakha Sutta) 37391 From: plnao Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew Fair enough! The abhidhamma approach is certainly not for everyone. There are many right traditions within Dhamma - everyone can find the one that suits his or her accumulations. It's been a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you. Your ambition energizes me. I hope you'll stick around. As Howard said, there are various points of view here and Nina is not the only person who can help you with any questions you have, or give you supportive feedback. It'd be hard to find an online sangha as solid as this one. Metta, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Levin" To: Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 8:03 AM Subject: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) > > > Hi guys, > > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues here > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more I > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and when > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush with > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > lifetime, > > Yours sincerely, > Andrew C. Levin 37392 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner -KenH Dear KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Azita, > > Thanks for your commiserations. I think I fit Sukin's description of > himself: > "My own accumulations are such that moha arises very, very > often, interspersed with other akusala. I am very easily distracted > and while others sitting with me may remember much of what is heard, > I recall very little." > A: oh dear, this could easily be a description of me. Sometimes after a whole day of dhamma, I may try to recall, that very evening, what was said and......blank!!! I have found that listening to the few tapes I have of various discussions over the past 3 years or so, have been most helpful. You know Ken, I can listen again and again and still find something I did not hear or at least don't remember hearing, before. > :-) > All the best to you and your fellow travellers to India. Have a > great trip. > > Ken H A: thanx, I'm looking forward to visiting the Holy Places, have never been to India before, at least not this lifetime and I don't remember any others!!!!! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 37393 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner31-Feeling/Vedana (d) Dear Sarah and others, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom. > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch.2 Feeling (Vedana) contd] > ***** > All feelings have the function of experiencing the taste, the flavour > of an object (Atthasåliní, I, Part IV, Chapter I, 109). The Atthasåliní > uses a simile in order to illustrate that feeling experiences the > taste of an object and that citta and the other cetasikas which > arise together with feeling experience the taste only partially. A > cook who has prepared a meal for the king merely tests the food > and then offers it to the king who enjoys the taste of it: > ** > -…and the king, being lord, expert, and master, eats whatever he likes, > even so the mere testing of the food by the cook is like the partial > enjoyment of the object by the remaining dhammas (the citta and the other > cetasikas), and as the cook tests a portion of the food, so the remaining > dhammas enjoy a portion of the object, and as the king, being lord, expert > and master, eats the meal according to his pleasure, so feeling, being > lord, expert and master, enjoys the taste of the object, and therefore it > is said that enjoyment or experience is its function.- > ** > Thus, all feelings have in common that they experience the `taste' > of an object. Citta and the other accompanying cetasikas also > experience the object, but feeling experiences it in its own > characteristic way. > ***** > [Feeling(Vedana) to be contd] > > Metta, > > Sarah A: It's hard for me to think of feeling in this way. We all seem to place so much importance on 'feeling'. For example, as I write this, there is a big, fat mozzie trying to suck all my blood and it is causing some very unpleasant bodily, and mental, feelings. She gets fatter ea time I catch a glimpse of her and I sustain more itchy bites. The tropics do have a down side!!!! This unpleasant sensation is obviously many, many moments of different kinds of feeling arising and falling away, but I seem to only focus on the unpleasant ones - maybe that's why feeling is a khandha all on its own. Patience, courage and good cheer. Azita. Ps. I'll take this opportunity to remind you to bring CMA with you to Bkk next week. Will you be staying at the same place, might try and catch up on Fri next. Safe trip, see you soon. Az. 37394 From: Egbert Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 4:51am Subject: Games People Play Hi all, Some quotes from Eric Berne's book. "A game is an ongoing series of complimentary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. Games are clearly differentiated from procedures, rituals, and pastimes by two chief characteristics: (1) their ulterior quality and (2) the pay-off. Procedures may be succesful, rituals effective, and pastimes profitable, but all of them are by definition candid; they may involve contest, but not conflict, and the ending may be sensational, but it is not dramatic. Every game, on the other hand, is basically dishonest, and the outcome has a dramatic, as distinct from merely exciting, quality." Berne goes on to describe, amongst others, the game of "Wooden Leg". The basic premise of the game is "What do you expect from someone subject to these conditions, could I possibly refrain from doing XYZ; or be expected to ABC" to which the anticipated reply from the jury is "No, because of those conditions we could hardly have expectations from you". I think there is room at dsg to recognise the following games. 'Only namas and rupas', 'accumulations' and 'defilements'. The Buddha teaches, to those who want that, the end of suffering and the way to the end of suffering. No more and no less. For those not interested, there is no need to apologise for the desire for an eternal self. But there is no room to pretend that the Buddha preaches the necessity or promotes the benefits of your wandering on. For the game player who asks the therapist "what do you expect of a neurotic, only nama/rupa, accumalations, defilements type person" the answer is "I don't expect anything, but what do you expect of yourself?" Kind Regards Herman 37395 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) Hi Andrew L and Howard, op 09-10-2004 01:03 schreef Andrew Levin op andrewlevin@e...: > I think I am going to have to abandon this thread and this line of > discussion with you guys, since, after reading some of Nina's work, I > have realized that we are on entirely different pages here. N: Andrew, I appreciate it that you say this straight. I find the thread worth while because it touches on what is essential. A: The most > stark differences are that you all seem to believe seeking the noble > truths and realizing enlightenment is something to be acheived over > countless lifetimes, ie aeons, and the perfections as something that > we are more or less passive about, and similarly with mindfulness, > whereas I am of the persuasion that these paramis can be accumulated > and reach their pinnacle within this dispensation of Gotama Buddha. > Similarly with mindfulness, which, through my experience, can be > cultivated quite intentionally, and the seeing of the noble truths, > which I believe to be possible within even one lifetime. N: I think it not beneficial to have expectations about realizing the noble truths. This distracts us from cultivating the rigtht conditions at this very moment. What are we doing now, sitting at the computer? Discussing Dhamma and this is bhavana, the perfection of pañña is being developed. More understanding. But many conditions of the past were necessary to bring us to this moment. We would not be interested in the Dhamma now if we had not listened in past lives. We associate with Dhamma friends, good friendship is an important condition. We consider what we hear and apply the Dhamma in our life. Seeing how many conditions are necessary for one moment of kusala citta helps us to see that they are all anatta. I appreciate your interest in the Abhidhamma and questions are always welcome. The Abhidhamma helps us to see our countless moments of akusala, the vast amount of ignorance, the conditions for all the cittas that arise. We learn about the latent tendencies of lobha, dosa, moha, and so on, which quite suddenly condition the arising of akusala citta. It surely must take a long time before defilements are eradicated. This is not distressing, because each moment of a little more understanding in itself is beneficial. It makes confidence in the Dhamma grow. We should be grateful to the Buddha for each moment of understanding. The past lives of each one of us were so different, and since we do not know past lives how could we predict the future, predict when we shall attain enlightenment? One life is gone like a flash, I can assure you. I realize this more and more, becoming older. You said, that I consider No, no passivity. I agree that the perfections should be cultivated all the time. I agree with Howard: be vigilant. The more we see the benefit, the more there will be conditions for cultivating the perfections and mindfulness. We should pay attention to this moment instead of thinking of future realization, after all that is only thinking. This moment is decisive for the future. If there can be a slight moment of understanding of seeing as nama, visible object as rupa, clinging as nama, this is in itself of benefit, because each moment of understanding is accumulated and leads to future moments. But we should not cling to having more understanding. Before we realize it, it is *my understanding*. Howard, I see this as the preparation you spoke about. You wrote: N: Agreed, if we are slack now there are no conditions for satipatthana. The best way is being aware right now, and then also the perfections are being accumulated. As I said, a perfection is a perfection if we do not think of my gain, my benefit, *I do it*. I just have doubts about the word background calm, but this we can discuss later. Actually I know what you mean, you see it as an accumulated condition. But let us say, there is calm (a cetasika, not self) with each kind of kusala. And each kusala can be the perfection of renunciation. A Co states: all kusala are renunciation. You renounce your own comfort, your own pleasure. You do not think of yourself. How very true, I have confidence in renunciation. When we are determined to develop understanding of nama and rupa now, the perfection of determination is accumulated. There are also the other perfections such as courage and perseverance, a form of energy, patience (the highest ascetism!), sila (guarding the sense-doors), etc. When there are opportunities for dana and metta, let us cultivate these. We can give material help, but also spiritual help. A: I may stick around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and mental > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. N: Very good, but we do not need to think especially of the third foundation of mindfulness, the Buddha taught all four, and this includes mindfulness of whatever nama or rupa appears now. We should not think of this first, than that, because it entirely depends on conditions what reality presents itself now. I have to take leave now. When I am back we can continue this thread. When I quote from the India discussions, I should attach some words like Htoo's: remarks and criticism always welcome. I feel it is good to consider all these subjects, it is also bhavana for myself. Take care. Nina. 37396 Fro?: Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] dukkha as "trouble" Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/9/04 3:29:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You were saying: > ---------------------------------- > >Guarding the senses is possible. It can be done, and the Buddha > didn't play a trick on us in recommending the practice. > > ---------------------------------- > > I wonder if this is an example of a point raised in Phil's thread. > No offence is meant by either of us, but we do accuse each other of > speaking in `dispraise of the Buddha.' You accuse me of saying the > Buddha played a trick. I accuse you saying the Buddha taught an > ordinary, unremarkable, conventional practice. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: My intention was to make a point. It was not personal. ----------------------------------------------- > > I don't think anyone here has ever said the Buddha played tricks: we > all agree he genuinely taught guarding the senses. However, some of > us believe guarding the senses means satipatthana, while others > believe it means concentrating on concepts (breath, posture, sounds > of traffic, physical and mental activities). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Evidently you have missed my point. I do not recommend "listening" to traffic sounds, but seeing through what we call "traffic sounds" to the actual phenomena that are there. -------------------------------------------- > > ------------------- > H: >My point about concepts was the following: In worldlings or > even lesser ariyans, the world of dhammas is obscured by a > conceptual layer. But the experiential realities are there > nonetheless. When we "listen to car traffic" carefully, and > especially if our mind is calm and clear, that is where we will > find sounds, because it is the sounds that we actually hear, > not "traffic". > ------------------- > > I will engage `auto-parrot' (cut and paste from Nina's reply): > >N: I completely agree that there can be mindfulness of sound, but > I believe that we do not need to prepare. I think that it is > important to have understanding of the different objects as they > present themselves through the six doors one at a time, and to have > some basic understanding of dhammas and concepts, and also of > different processes of cittas. > > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I also think we need to prepare. And preparation is multifaceted. ----------------------------------------- > > Reverting to manual parroting; I would say that `guarding the > senses' is not an activity that we engage in: it is a conditioned > phenomenon. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ho, hum. That's not what I read in the suttas. You are suggesting reading, talking, thinking over, and waiting for conditions to arise. The Buddha taught a practice, to actually be adopted, actually carried out. To me this is crystal clear. With no practice, no useful conditions developing. Nothing comes from nothing. But I don't think we should continue with this, because it is just the same old conversational ping-pong game being constantly replayed. I think we should just agree that we disagree on this ------------------------------------------- If the Dhamma has been heard, studied, and wisely > > reflected upon (`Listening [to traffic] with a calm clear mind' was > not one of the preconditions taught by the Buddha.), then panna > (satipatthana) may be conditioned to arise and guard the senses, > here and now. If those conditions have not been put in place, then > the present moment will be something other than guarding of the > senses. In either case, the Dhamma teaches us to know the present > moment, not to change it. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > H: >Attending to concepts/ideas may be useful at times, but it is > not primary Buddhist practice. However, looking through the aspects > of our concept-overlayed "world" to the underlying, direct > experiential elements is Buddhist practice. Being mindful of > whatever arises, whether sitting calmly and restricting primary > attention to the breath or whether walking about and opening up to > all that arises, is the gist of the Satipatthana and Anapanasati > Suttas. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't follow. You set out to describe an alternative to `attending > to concepts' but what you wrote seems to be another description > of `attending to concepts.' > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: You should go argue with the Buddha. It was he who taught meditation on the breath! --------------------------------------------- > > I will snip the next part of the discussion, in which I suggested > that any attempt at mindfulness necessarily involves self (my sati, > my object of sati): (Sati arises purely by conditions and the > intention to control sati is not one of those conditions.) > > ---------------------------- > H: >The Buddha did recommend, in formal practice, reducing the > field of *primary* attention, for example on the breath (wherein > lies earth, air, fire, and water; and body-door experience). This > partial restricting, not a teeth-gritting, utterly one-pointed > focus, results in increased calm and clarity, and cultivates the > mind. The Buddha DID teach this. > ---------------------------- > > You are referring to a practice of sustained concentration (other > than jhana) that is taught somewhere in the Pali Canon. In all of > DSG's discussions on this point, has anyone ever directly quoted > such a teaching? > > --------------------- > H: >His approach to meditation, like all of his teaching, was a > middle way approach, avoiding the extremes of totally focussed > absorption, on the one hand, and of our ordinary uncalm and > unclear state, on the other, in both of which investigation of > dhammas is very limited. Look, for example, at the description of > the meditative stages described in the Anupada Sutta. The Buddha's > middle-way meditative training cultivated a mind that is calm, > clear, and capable. > > ---------------------- > > I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I would adamantly > deny that the term, Middle Way, means a moderate form of the two > extremes. When the Buddha said "By not halting, friend, and by not > straining I crossed the flood," (see Andrew T's post) he did not > mean he proceeded 'slowly,' without 'too much' halting and > straining. He meant the Middle Way is a profoundly unworldly way, > travelled by conditioned dhammas, not by concepts [of self]. > > I will put "Read Anupada Sutta" on my `To do' list. > > Kind regards, > ========================== With metta, Howard P.S. I find that I am tiring of disputation, views, and opinions. Not just on this list, with folks at one end of the positional spectrum, but also with other folks on other lists who also hold fixed, restricted views of other sorts. I intend to be cutting way back on these "viewpoint discussions" and devoting much more of my time to reading the suttas and meditating. /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) 37397 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Five Aggregates As Being Morally Charged: (Was: From Nagarjuna to Abhidhamma Hi Joops > 5 An related question. Yesterday (in a message to Robertk) I used > the analogy: > the distinction between the "two truths" in Theravada is that > of "conventional language" versus "philosophical-soteriological > language"; like in physics we can use conventional language but > better describe phenomena in mathematical language. Do you think > this is a useful analogy (for people who don't hate science) ? k: Yup it is something like that :). That is why I love Abdhidhamma, clear and concise, the scientific approach to Buddhism in my believe :). Ken O 37398 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: To Nina and Phil (Was: OK, Abhidharma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" > wrote: > > So, when I started out here asking how I should proceed, I did not > > know that there was such fundamental discord over the root issues > here > > that would lead to entirely different courses of action and > > expectations of an entirely different set of results. I may stick > > around for other issues, especially to learn Abhidharma, but I would > > do so tentatively and only seeing it as mindfulness of mind and > mental > > states for the third foundation of mindfulness. Other than that, I > > will continue to attempt to study and if I can, cultivate what more > I > > can of the paramis in this very lifetime, to ready myself for > > establishment in all four of the foundations of mindfulness, and > when > > the occasion is right as it has been a time or two, have a brush > with > > the noble truths themselves. Hoping to acheive nibbana in this very > > lifetime, > > > Dear Andrew > > That you didn't know that, surprised me a little bit > You must know that there are more buddhist traditions and Theravada > is one of them. > What you state is, I think, more or less a Mahayana opinion. > So it's very good you partiocipate on a (mainly) Theravada Forum > > Metta > > Joop Joop, What I believe to be possible is based on my own experience, certainly to some degree fueled by my hopes and fears too, but not lacking in backing from Theravada texts I have read. I have not to this date developed a very thorough understanding of the Dharma, (maybe I am not the only one), but my position remains that enlightenment within this dispensation is entirely possible, and, more than likely our best shot at it altogether. If I didn't think it possible, I might or might not force myself to believe it were, but I do think stages of enlightenment can be atained in a matter of lifetimes (or even one), and my experience, texts I have read, and people I have talked to all tell me it really is, so, on I will go. As far as Mahayana, I would think that they would be seeking to attain Buddhahood which is really a long-term goal not to be acheived in this dispensation, so it is somewhat odd that you would say that. Yours in mischief, A.L. 37399 From: Ken O Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:28am Subject: Re: Neutral Feeling Re: [dsg] â€ËÅ"Cetasikas' study corner28-Feeling/Vedana... Hi Howard Your point is correct that the point is not so well made, in fact it can bring a lot of confusion. In certain mental formations, they arise exclusively, for eg we cannot have ignorance arise together with wisdom. And again, here I say, the invaluable material from Abdhidhamma, it brings a clearer picture of what arise with what in cittas and all the other mental factors. And again, that is why the need to read the commentary, to have a clearer picture of what it is meant in the sutta. Here I go again promoting Abdhidhamma and commentary again :). Cheers Ken O