42000 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:00am Subject: Re: The future is not important --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > > Dear all, > > What sometimes surprises me, is that ethic behavior (sila) is so > based by many people on the effect in the future. > The most important effect in many Theravada-texts (when one thinks > getting enlightened in this life) A typo; I wanted to write When one thinks NOT getting enlightened in this life Joop 42001 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG TGrand458@a... wrote: >One more follow up. I've decided to go ahead and call concepts and thoughts >as aspects of perception. Therefore...thoughts are mind objects because >perceptions are mind objects. They are also Nama based on this classification. >And they are also "real" based on this classification. > >Nyanatiloka's dictionary has 'sanna' defined as perception. He ties sanna >into "distinctive marks, memory, ideas, wrong notions," among some other things. > >Conceptualization would therefore be linking together various perceptions in >complex patterns. > >Of course I'll be interested in reading your responses to this. > > I'm not clear on the basis for your decision to call concepts and thoughts 'aspects of perception'. Is it the reference to 'ideas' in the Nyanatiloka definition? But I believe he also explains that perception is a mental factor (cetasika). Mental factors are factors that accompany cittas and experience the same object as the citta. So 'sanna' is not by definition a mind-object. Jon 42002 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG TGrand458@a... wrote: >Jon, haven't you ever heard of consciousness taking a past consciousness as >object? How would you classify the object in that case? > >TG > >Hi Jon > >This question came out terribly poorly. I didn't mean it to be demeaning. >Sorry about that. I think the question doesn't matter in light of my previous >post to you and Howard regarding thoughts as aspects of perception. That >would trump anything this question has to offer. > > No, your question was fine. In fact, I think it is a more meaningful comment than your post about perception! In the case you give, the object would of course be a nama. But as you say, it had just experienced an object before itself becoming the object of a succeeding citta (this would not be the case with thoughts). Jon 42003 From: Philip Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:38am Subject: Re: The future is not important Hi Joop, and all Joop: >In my understanding Buddhism that is not important at all: who is it that get that effect? Not me, anatta, you know! I was thinking about this very topic, Joop. Why is there concern for the results of rebirth when "I" won't be there? Of course, thinking that there are no results of our deeds is taught to be one of the most dangerous forms of wrong view, but why? And then I began to think of the beings who will bear the results of my bad kamma. And thought that the motivation to avoid an unhappy destination in the future could be similar to harmlessness. I thought of the sutta that says "by protecting ourselves, we protect others." So I will continue to try to cultivate a concern about the results of my bad kamma, if not for *my* sake for the sake of the countless beings who will carry on "my" citta continuum for countless lives. The Buddha says that the tears of the beings that have shared our citta continuum (if that's the right word) over countless lives would make a sea, or something like that. "We" won't be there, but other beings will and we should be just as concerned for their well-being as we are for ours. That's what I was thinking yesterday... Metta, Phil 42004 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ A. Mun's Biography --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Tep, James, Sukin and RobertK > > I forgot to tell you something more. > > I read "the sequel" of this book called "Patipada or the mode of > practice of Venerable Acharn Mun": > > http://www.luangta.or.th/english/site/book6_patipada.html > > Unfortunately it is not yet on-line, I got a copy from the monastery. > > It is about many of the disciples of Ajahn Mun. When I read it I was > also shocked about some of the descriptions that the disciples told to > Maha Boowa (the author of the book). > > In one of them the disciple said that he saw the arahant descend from > the skies and touch the ground (or something like that). > > I immediately raised the red flag and decided to ask my teacher. > > So, at the monastery I asked him, and when he saw that book he said > "oh, that book", then he said that book was not recommended for lay > people as they might get confused (don't remember the exact words), > then I proceed to ask him exactly why and what was about that > description as if he was indeed seeing the arahant in front of him or > not. > > My teacher said "no, the arahant didn't came flying, what he "saw" was > created by the disciple's mind out of the energy from the arahant" > (something like that). Then he continued, the Thai monks visualize > Thai people, the western monks visualize western people. > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Friend Hugo - Your teacher is an exeptional person and he left some hidden puzzles in his replies. For example, "the Thai monks visualize Thai people, the western monks visualize western people". Is this teacher of yours a Thai monk? What do Thai monks visualize about Thais that are different than non-Thais? Please ignore my questions, if you don't like them. But I did not ask insincerely. Best wishes, Tep ========= 42005 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Hello Sukinder, Tep and Sarah (are you there?), On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:05:12 -0000, Sukinder wrote: > Remember, I am one of those who don't believe > in deliberate practice? Actually I think that you DO believe in a "deliberate practice". Why? Consider the following: I invite you to meditate at least one hour daily (two sessions of 30 mins. each or one session of 1 hour). Now, you have only two options, either you accept or you don't accept the invitation (you can't "ignore" it, because if you are reading this, you already read the invitation). Now, if you don't accept it saying "I don't believe in deliberate practice", why are you not accepting it? Because you consider that doing the meditation will not help you attain Nibbana, thus, you don't do it. Isn't that deliberate practice? It seems to me that it is, because you are deliberately not doing meditation. There are not two groups, both, those who meditate and chant and all that, and those who just "observe with wisdom" are both doing deliberate practice. It is just our minds playing the game it knows how to play, that of making things out of nothing, in other words, our minds are creating these two "self" entities. If you reply back to me tearing to pieces the above argument and I get angry because of what you say, then I would be creating a self out of the argument and making Hugo that argument, thus, when you tore it to pieces, I experienced the pain of being torn to pieces. But, if I "observe with wisdom" your reply and not create a self out of the argument, then I won't feel pain and I won't be angry. So, I do daily meditations, but when I read your reply what I should do is observe with wisdom. > On the question of parami, haven't you heard that if these are > lacking, then enlightenment is not possible? Do you think that > without sacca, khanti, metta, nekhamma, panna, viriya and other > qualities being developed to a high degree, it would be possible for > sati and panna to develop far enough? We are all bound to conditions (actually we are conditioned ourselves), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it. Otherwise getting to Nibbana is like winning the lottery, but even without buying a ticket. > I think that viewing the Teachings as prescriptive creates a big > problem, one becomes `goal oriented' and ignores conditions which > are causes, namely one's accumulations as expressed from moment to > moment. If that was the case, I really don't understand why does the Vinaya exist at all? What's the Vinaya?, it is only a set of rules of behavior. Why does an order of monks exist at all? Hey, why does the 5 precepts exist at all? Why did the Buddha said: "Thus you should train yourselves?" I agree, there is people that no matter what they do, they won't get to Nibbana anytime soon. And there is people that can't be "trained" not even by The Buddha himself, as the chant says: Anuttaro purisa-damma-saarathi satthaa deva-manussaana"m buddho bhagavaa; unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings; awakened; blessed; So, the first thing is to find out if you are one of those who can be taught, and if you are go ahead and train yourself. Just the fact that one is interested in Buddhism, is probably a good indication that one is trainable. > And if one does not see the prime importance of developing > understanding in daily life, then these conditions which make up the > cause will not become apparent. I agree. Now, how do you tell an alcoholic to do that? Shouldn't you first working on getting him out of the alcohol and late-night parties by any means possible, and then you work on getting him on the right path, and then you can proceed with developing understanding? Or what about little kids? When they are little, they don't have a defined concept of self, they think their mother is part of them (at least that's what the experts on that are say). It is only as they grow up when they develop their own self-confidence. Now, what happens when a kid grows without a good self-steem? Do you think they are trainable? No, they are not sure of themselves, they are not sure of anything, they can't make decisions because they think they are wrong. If we want those kids to attain Nibbana, first we would need to build them a good self-steem, so they know they are capable of doing something. So, don't be so scared about the "self" it is not the boogeyman, if you get to know it will be a tool, if you treat it with aversion it will always be there to haunt you. The reverse is also true, don't get too friendly with the "self" or you will start believing it is you, and it won't let you "go" to Nibbana. The Middle Way. Again, I am not an expert, I am not an authority in anything, I haven't reached any Jhanas, nor having seen any special nimittas, I still have a lot of defilements, so please go ahead and tear to pieces those arguments, that's how I learn. Greetings, -- Hugo 42006 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hello Tep, On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:43:15 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > Is it fair to say that the conclusion to your message is " don't worry > about whether or not you understand the Dhamma (D.O., or whatever), > just simply try using it in real situations"? That isn't exactly what I was trying to say. What I meant is that in order to understand it you have to see it in action. Now, because I can't see deeper than the grossest examples I described above, that's what I use in order to try to understand the D.O. But of course the D.O. is present all over the place, so if I understand it in the grossest examples, it gives me a picture on what it could look like when and if I ever get to see more deeper things. > Isn't there a risk of "sinking to > the bottom"? Yes!! That's why I don't "write in stone" anything, but if I am actively trying to train myself, I have to stand on something, so I look for the more stable rock I find to step on it. I keep an eye on it, if I see it tremble, then I go and re-check it and if I find problems, then I stop stepping on it. And I always are on the look for stepping stones because I know that the ones I am stepping on right now are only as good as my current understanding, and how good or bad is my understanding, I don't know, how could I know?, how could I judge if mine, your or anybody elses understanding is good?, I just try to step on them and if they are stable I use them, if they shake and tremble, I don't. Greetings, -- Hugo 42007 From: nina Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:17am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Text Vis. (vi) 'Energy' (viriya) is the state of one who is vigorous (viraa). Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). N: The Tiika explains, as to the words, the state of one who is vigorous, that a vigorous person, someone who is so called, actually is: a dhamma (so dhammoti attho). The Tiika continues: ŒIt is energy, it should stir or cause to occur, with the appropriate method; it is effort, it undertakes each task, or it is endeavour.¹ Text Vis: Its function is to consolidate conascent states. Tiika: It supports conascent dhammas in not giving them opportunity for idleness, in giving them sustenance and stimulation, or in exerting them. Text Vis: It is manifested as non-collapse. N: The Tiika explains that it is: Œa dhamma opposed to collapse¹ (sa.msiidanapa.tipakkho dhammo). Energy will not succumb, but continue with the task it has to perform. Text Vis.: Because of the words 'Bestirred, he strives wisely' (A.ii,115), its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; N: The Vis refers here to the Sutta about the goad. A horse may be stirred at the mere sight of the shadow of a goad, whereas another horse needs to be pricked, or have his flesh pierced by it, or be pierced to his very bone. Evenso a man may be agitated when he hears that in another village someone died. Thereupon he develops insight and penetrates the supreme truth. Whereas someone else needs to see someone who is afflicted or dead with his own eyes, or, he has to see a family member afflicted or dead, or he himself has to be grievously afflicted, before he has a sense of urgency (sa.mvega) and develops wisdom. Vis. text: or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When rightly initiated, it should be regarded as the root of all attainments. N: We read in the Vis. IV, 63, about eight grounds of urgency. The Tiika refers to the eight bases of energy for wholesome action as explained in the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Eights, Ch VIII, ŒThe Bases of Indolence and of Energy¹. A monk who is lazy has numerous excuses for not developing right understanding to attain the unattained. He thinks that he will be tired or is tired because of work that had to be done, because of a journey that had to be made, because of not receiving enough almsfood, or because when he has received enough food his body is heavy, or because he has a slight illness, or he has just recovered from it. The energetic monk does not delay developing wisdom to attain the unattained in such cases. When he has a slight illness he realizes that this may grow worse, or when he has recently recovered, he is heedful: he foresees that he may become ill again, and that then the development of wisdom may become more difficult. The Tiika adds that these are the eight bases for the inception of energy (viiriyaarambhavatthuuni), conditioned by these suitable contemplations. **** Remarks: The Tiika reminds us first of all that energy does not belong to a person, that it is a dhamma. One may cling to an idea of Œmy energy or effort¹. The texts remind us of the conditions for right energy and this is energy to develop right understanding of the eightfold Path leading to attaining the unattained. One may be neglectful of developing understanding, one may collapse, but we can be reminded by sickness and death of dear people or of the fact that we ourselves are subject to sickness and death. This can be like the goad that stirs horses. We can be reminded by the eight grounds for a sense of urgency which is the dukkha inherent in the cycle of birth and death. Or by the eight bases of energy, the contemplations of the energetic monk who foresees that he may be in difficult circumstances and therefore does not delay developing understanding of the reality appearing at this moment. It may become harder when one is old and sick, and thus, understanding is to be accumulated from this moment on. The suttas have many different ways of instilling a sense of urgency and confidence in the Dhamma, and thus it is most beneficial to read and consider them. **** Nina. 42008 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. Hi Howard, op 09-02-2005 17:50 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Understood, though even the active side is conditioned as well. N: Right. I can always use a reminder of this fact. It is helpful to also know more what these conditioning factors are. Otherwise people will say: I accumulated this bad tendency, and they see it as an excuse for not developing understanding at this moment. I am so impressed by Vis. and Tiika about energy, referring to the grounds for a sense of urgency. I see more and more that Sutta reading is a great help for not being neglectful. Neglectful of developing understanding of seeing, hearing, all kinds of nama and rupa. H quotes: >> Akusala citta rooted in lobha can be accompanied by happy feeling or by >> indifferent feeling. Akusala citta rooted in dosa is accompanied by unhappy >> feeling. > ----------------------------- > Howard: > The first of these makes complete sense to me as well, but I have a > slight questioning about the latter. It seems to me that some truly evil > people get pleasure from their hatred and from acting on it, and that many people get > pleasure from what they call mistakenly call "righteous anger". > --------------------------------- N: I know what you mean. Sadistic people have pleasure at torturing others. They hate their victims but also have conceit, thinking themselves a superman. Cittas are so fast, there are many different moments, even during acts of violence. Conceit arises with citta rooted in lobha. Righteous anger: it may also be anger alternated with conceit: I know everything very well, or these people should behave in such or such way. -------------------- H quotes: Akusala citta rooted in ignorance is accompanied by indifferent feeling. >> --------------------------------- > Howard: > That makes good sense to me. (I presume that when you say "rooted in > ignorance" you mean rooted *solely* in ignorance.) N: Yes, quite right. I meant solely. Each akusala citta is also rooted in moha. This reminds me: we have to go to the root of ignorance and develop understanding to overcome ignorance. Understanding counteracts akusala. Nina. 42009 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Opinion about: Samsara Divided by Zero/ Panna Dear Tep, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:53:57 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > H: > > > I think the goal is not to avoid or cease mental fabrications, but to > > not attach to anything. > > The cessation of the mental fabrications is a byproduct of not > > attaching to anything. > > > > T: What would you respond, if i say : I think the goal is not to attach to > anything, but to eradicate ignorance (avijja), because the non- > attachment to anything is the by product of panna (zero avijja)? Ah!, master! I would not respond anything, I would prostrate three times. :-) -- Hugo 42010 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice:/ Tep's Practice Dear Tep, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:27:48 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > You have asked me how I practice. My One Teacher has been the > Buddha. The Assitant Teachers are those great Arahants like > Moggalana, Sariputta, Ananda, Maha-Kaccana, Maha-Kassapa, > Bhikkhuni Dhammadinna, etc. I stay close to the suttas as my > compass and steering wheel in the practice. I also try hard (against > those defilements) to consistently learn and develop sila-samadhi- > panna, and compare my results with those in the suttas. > > I hope this answer makes sense to you. Yes, it makes sense to me. Thanks for your reply. -- Hugo 42011 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Tep, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:25:16 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > A quick question if you don't mind. You wrote: > > > Then I play with the mind trying to "deattach it" from that object > > that it got and attach it to some other object, or the breath or > > something. In other words, try to make it "move" in a certain > > way so I can "feel" it so I can detect later when > > it "moves" and attaches to something and thus being able > > to break the attachment to avoid dukkha. > > > > How can it possibly "break the attachment to avoid dukkha"? > The "moves" of mind are sankhara khandha. Read this : I don't know exactly what is happening, I am experimenting. It is sankhara khandha, good, so what?, I never thought I was "directing the cittas", or "manipulating the cetasikas" or anything like that. I am experimenting, getting to know how all this works, the idea is that once I know enough of it by reading, I can relate the reading with the experiences I feel. In engineering we call it "black box testing". We have a black box, there are inputs and outputs, but we don't know what is inside, so we provide some inputs, and see what we get as outputs. We can do a lot of things using this approach, of course if we ever get to know what's inside we will be able to do other things, or perhaps we will stop doing some of the things, once we realize that we are damaging the box by doing it. That's why I say I am a beginner, I have this black box, I am reading about it, I am playing with it to find out how it works. The problem is that different people claim that the black box is like this or like that, or even if they coincide on how it is, they claim that you should interact with it in different ways, so who should I trust? Greetings, -- Hugo 42012 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hello Ken, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:17:22 -0000, kenhowardau wrote: > I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I like your daily practice. > But it is not a uniquely Buddhist practice, is it? I don't know. > When Htoo > suggested some inconsistencies with the Dhamma you seemed to take > offence, No, I didn't take offence by what it is said about my practices or my arguments, I took offence by his approach, and by the fact that it was not the first time. > but I'm sure it was meant in a non-disparaging way. I see > your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as distinct > from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." I didn't claim anything, and specially I couldn't claim anything related to the Abhidhamma as I haven't read it at all. My only knowledge of the Abhidhamma is from some posts here. > Strictly speaking, Dhamma practice is satipatthana, Agree. >which is an > extremely rare and precious phenomenon. I am not sure, it sounds as if I would need superpowers in order to be able to do it. If that's the case why did The Buddha taught anything at all? > Less strictly speaking, it > is any wholesome volitional activity that is connected with the > Dhamma. Unwholesome activity - of any kind - can never qualify as > Dhamma practice. Agree. > A big problem arises whenever we start thinking about MY > satipatthana, MY Dhamma-study and MY wholesome activity. It doesn't > work that way. Why would we have those concerns if not out of > desire for personal gain? In other words, the idea of intentional > Dhamma-practice comes under the heading of "akusala activity," and > so it should be understood as the opposite of Dhamma practice. Agree to a certain point, but can you really don't do any intentional Dhamma-practice? How do you do that? If you sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma-practice? If you decide to not sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma-practice? You either choose to do it or not, and by making the choosing you are making a decision and by making a decision it is intentional. So, the intention is to either sit, or the intention is to not sit, but either way both are intentions....or not? Greetings, -- Hugo 42013 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hello Jon, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:28:04 +0800, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think the weeds in your simile represent our accumulated akusala > tendencies, and you see these as choking off the growth of > panna/insight, hence the gradual loss of 'progress' achieved during the > retreat. But there's another simile you will be familiar with that puts > things in a different light, the simile of the (beautiful) lotus flower > that grows clear of the (muddy) pond that is its natural environment. I > think sati/panna can grow in the most akusala-laden surroundings. And > the cittanupassana section of the Satipatthana Sutta seems to confirm > that aksuala mental states can be object of sati in just the same way > that kusala mental states can. Does this mean that I should stop worrying about keeping the 5 precepts, meditation, keeping a calm mind and go and party all-night on weekends as long as I don't think that it is "me" who is partying? and as long as I see all those ladies dancing around as just a stream of cittas (nice and curvy cittas by the way)? > so as long as right view is being > developed there is progress towards the path regardless of the amount of > akusala of other kinds. How is this right view developed? If I do something in order to develop it, isn't it deliberate practice, am I not doing something with the specific intention of developing right view? Greetings, -- Hugo 42014 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Tep and Ken, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:02:12 -0500, Hugo wrote: > Dear Tep, > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:23:15 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > > Today MY full confidence in MY dhamma practice and gradually > > improved understanding over the span of 20+ years was diminished > > because of the following strong statement of yours ("Opposite of > > Dhamma practice"? It sounds like a judge's sentence that the > > defendant is wrong and must be put in jail for life). BTW, I think that is EXACTLY one example on why making it MY practice is a danger. The danger is that because you think it is your practice you won't stop doing it even if you know it is wrong. So don't feed them, we have them surrounded ;-) :-) -- Hugo 42015 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ A. Mun's Biography Dear Tep, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:32:40 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > Your teacher is an exeptional person and he left some hidden puzzles > in his replies. For example, "the Thai monks visualize Thai people, the > western monks visualize western people". Is this teacher of yours a > Thai monk? He is an American (white, blue eyes, just typical), but he lived for 30 something years in Thailand, he says that at the temples when westerners came, he felt them as foreigners indeed after so many years of living there, he speaks Thai and Lao besides English. Sometimes at the monastery I am the only one with a blank stare as everybody is speaking either Thai or Lao, so he translates some of the stuff, specially when they are laughing (I guess so I don't think they are laughing at me). > What do Thai monks visualize about Thais that are > different than non-Thais? Please ignore my questions, if you don't like > them. But I did not ask insincerely. He meant that they visualize that kind of body, face, eyes. So if you are an American it is most probably that you will visualize people with round eyes and white skin. He didn't imply any other thing. Greetings, -- Hugo 42016 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:07am Subject: Re: The future is not important Hi Joop, I wanted to ask: what drives you to practice sila or any practice? Is it merely not being driven by hate and desire as you mentioned? Do you find that it makes you happier at the present moment or what is your motiviation? I'm just curious, thanks. - Kel 42017 From: nina Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:32am Subject: Pilgrimage India 5 e Pilgrimage India 5 e Visible object, a physical element, impinges on eyesense, another physical element, and this conditions seeing, which only knows what is visible, nothing else. Seeing is a mental element. Because of wrong remembrance of self or person we wrongly believe that we see persons and the whole world, and they seem to be lasting. We cannot yet directly understand the impermanence of realities, we only think of the world and persons as subject to decay and death. Through the development of insight the arising and falling away of nåma-elements and rúpa-elements can be realized. Then the truth of impermanence can be penetrated. The Buddha spoke about seeing, hearing and all the experiences through the different doorways. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Salåyatanavagga, First Fifty, Ch 3, on the all, § 25 abandoning) that the Buddha said: I will teach you a teaching, brethren, for the abandoning of the all by fully knowing, by comprehending it. Do you listen to it. And what, brethren is that teaching? The eye, brethren, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by comprehending it. Objects... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that weal or woe or neutral state... that also must be abandoned by fully knowing, by comprehending it. The tongue... savours and the rest... that weal or woe... which arises owing to mind-contact,- that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it. **** Nina 42018 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:34am Subject: Dhamma Thread (265) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the human realm or manussa bhumi there are 45 cittas or 45 states of mind or 45 states of consciousness or 45 mental states that arise and fall away most of the time. The maximal number of cittas that can arise in this human realms as human beings are 80 cittas. Because out of 89 total cittas 9 cittas can never arise in human realm. These 9 cittas are 5 patisandhi cittas or linking consciousness for rupa brahma or fine material beings and 4 patisandhi cittas or linking consciousness for arupa brahma or non-material beings. Again out of 80 cittas that CAN arise in human beings, 8 cittas are hard to arise. They are 8 lokuttara cittas or 8 suprumundane consciousness. So there will be 80 - 8 = 72 cittas left. Among them there are 10 material absorptive consciousness and 8 non-material absorptive consciousness. So these 18 cittas or consciousness are also hard thing to arise. 72 - 18 = 54 cittas left. These 54 cittas are called sensuous-sphere consciousness or kamavacara cittas. Again there are 8 rooted consciousness that arise only in arahats and there is 1 rootless consciousness that arises in arahats. So these 9 cittas are not possible to arise in ordinary people. So 54 - 9 = 45 cittas or 45 consciousness left to arise in human beings in general. They are a) 12 akusala cittas or 12 unwholesome consciousness b) 15 ahetuka-vipaka cittas or 15 rootless-resultant consciousness c) 2 ahetuka-kiriya cittas or 2 rootless-functional consciousness d) 8 mahakusala cittas or 8 great-wholesome consciousness e) 8 mahavipaka cittas or 8 great-resultant consciousness ------ 45 cittas 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. 42019 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Ken, > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 02:17:22 -0000, kenhowardau > wrote: > > I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I like your daily practice. > > But it is not a uniquely Buddhist practice, is it? > > I don't know. > > > When Htoo > > suggested some inconsistencies with the Dhamma you seemed to take > > offence, > > No, I didn't take offence by what it is said about my practices or my > arguments, I took offence by his approach, and by the fact that it was > not the first time. > > > > but I'm sure it was meant in a non-disparaging way. I see > > your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as distinct > > from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." > > I didn't claim anything, and specially I couldn't claim anything > related to the Abhidhamma as I haven't read it at all. > > My only knowledge of the Abhidhamma is from some posts here. > > > > Strictly speaking, Dhamma practice is satipatthana, > > Agree. > > >which is an > > extremely rare and precious phenomenon. > > I am not sure, it sounds as if I would need superpowers in order to be > able to do it. > > If that's the case why did The Buddha taught anything at all? > > > Less strictly speaking, it > > is any wholesome volitional activity that is connected with the > > Dhamma. Unwholesome activity - of any kind - can never qualify as > > Dhamma practice. > > Agree. > > > > A big problem arises whenever we start thinking about MY > > satipatthana, MY Dhamma-study and MY wholesome activity. It doesn't > > work that way. Why would we have those concerns if not out of > > desire for personal gain? In other words, the idea of intentional > > Dhamma-practice comes under the heading of "akusala activity," and > > so it should be understood as the opposite of Dhamma practice. > > Agree to a certain point, but can you really don't do any intentional > Dhamma-practice? > > How do you do that? > > If you sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma-practice? > If you decide to not sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma- practice? > > You either choose to do it or not, and by making the choosing you are > making a decision and by making a decision it is intentional. > > So, the intention is to either sit, or the intention is to not sit, > but either way both are intentions....or not? > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Hi Hugo and Ken H. , Thanks to Hugo for giving Ken H. the rightful answer that is better I can say it myself. Yes, decisions are intertwined with intentions, and nobody can deny that. So how could a kusala cetana to practice the Dhamma with Right effort, in order to gain wisdom, be labelled as "the opposite of Dhamma practice" and , as such, is an "akusala activity", Ken? Thank you much, Hugo, for your good reply. Sincerely, Tep ======== 42020 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Hugo, Just curious if you're an engineer? This post kinda suggests you are. We seem to think alike. I know exactly what you mean here. We get empirical results with our practice then it's natural conclusion that there's no self involve. Just a few laws and once you know how they work, you can manipulate. Due to imperfection of applying inputs, outputs maybe skewed but that's only the fault of inputs not the system. The suffering is when you blame the system :) - kel > In engineering we call it "black box testing". 42021 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Tep, Ken and everyone, At another mailing list I posted the following which is directly related to this thread, I jumped in between a discussion between Howard and somebody else, I forgot who, so Howard is talking to that other person: On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:05:10 -0800 (PST), upasaka@a... wrote: > You ask "But what is meant with 'in reference to what is seen, there > would be only what is seen'?" There seems to be more than one way to understand > this. Some take it to mean that there is the seen but no seer. I do think > that is part of the meaning. But I also think that an aspect of the meaning is > that one should train in not presuming some underlying thing-in-itself > underlying the mere experiential object. So, I see this sutta as teaching the training > to reify neither subject nor object. Those phrases were my "guiding light" for some weeks months ago, and the way I interpreted was to not build anything else when some object made contact with any sense. So, if I see a woman, I don't build a sexual fantasy, if I see a chocolate cake, I don't build a remembrance of the pleasure it gives when I eat it, if I hear an insult, don't make it a weapon against myself, and so on. It worked very good for me, and the way I did it was repeating it frequently every time I could, at least for one of the senses: .....in seen, what is seen.....in seen what is seen.....in seen what is seen.... I found that it also helps you avoiding misunderstanding, because you don't build fake stories on why certain person told you something or why that person behaved like that...... and together with another of my "guiding lights": don't fabricate. that person said "this and this"......then that is ....."this and this".....in heard what is heard....no need to go and fabricate a story about it. that person didn't greet me when he entered the room.......in seen what is seen.....in seen what is seen......no need to fabricate a story about it. After a while I got it shortened to: don't fabricate, in seen what is seen. Later I shortened to just "don't fabricate", my mind still fabricates, but much, much, much less than before, because it knows that if it starts fabricating like crazy again, I will go and repeat everything again. Greetings, -- Hugo 42022 From: Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:36:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: I'm not clear on the basis for your decision to call concepts and thoughts 'aspects of perception'. Is it the reference to 'ideas' in the Nyanatiloka definition? But I believe he also explains that perception is a mental factor (cetasika). Mental factors are factors that accompany cittas and experience the same object as the citta. So 'sanna' is not by definition a mind-object. Jon Hi Jon You're making me think about this. First of all I have to ask... if mental factors are not mind-objects, and concepts are not mind-objects, what is it that you think are mind-objects? From: Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma -- "The 52 cetasikas can also become objects of a mind door process, as for example, when one becomes aware of one's feelings, volitions, and emotions." Also, how can a mind-object not be a nama unless the brain is considered as a rupa and memories and ideas stored and being scanned from the brain are considered mind-objects. Now I might go along with this suggestion; but it seems like a pretty radical idea for Abhidhamma does it not? At any rate, I haven't a clue right now as to what you think a mind-object is. If we examine the Satipatthana Sutta and see what it is calling "mind-objects"... a majority of the mind-objects can be pulled straight from the list of 52 mental cetasikas. However, some of those mind-objects look to be based on conceptual analysis. Concepts in terms of principles I believe would need to take part in this passage... "Here a Bhikkhu understands the eye, he understands forms, he understands the fetter that arises dependent on both; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of the unarisen fetter, and how there comes to be the abandoning of the arisen fetter, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of the abandoned fetter." TG 42023 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 0:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hello Kelvin, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:37:22 -0000, kelvin_lwin wrote: > Just curious if you're an engineer? This post kinda suggests you > are. Yes I am. And had to deal a lot of times with "black box" scenarios. Actually we had a joke where instead of reading the manual of anything first, we would say: "read the manual only if you can't figure out how to use it". > We seem to think alike. I know exactly what you mean here. > We get empirical results with our practice then it's natural > conclusion that there's no self involve. Just a few laws and once > you know how they work, you can manipulate. Yes something like that, but the no-self purists will still tell you that the last three words above (i.e. "you can manipulate") aren't true. I neither agree, nor disagree, maybe once I get (if ever) deeper insight I will be able to see what they see (I am assuming that they say what they say because they have seen it). So far if I press here, I get this output, if I pinch there I get this other output and so far the outputs look similar to what The Buddha said in the Suttas that they would be like. If I don't apply any inputs, the output is noisy and painful, although it is not constant, it seems to change pain/nopain/pain/nopain, so there is something that keeps providing inputs to the system. > Due to imperfection of > applying inputs, outputs maybe skewed but that's only the fault of > inputs not the system. The suffering is when you blame the system :) :-) Hey, let's create a new branch (isn't it the fashion, to change/remove/add stuff to what the Buddha said?) called: Engineering Buddhism. :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 42024 From: connie Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:34pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/Hugo Hi, Hugo, I don't think it's a matter of having two options - do or don't "meditate". There is meditation whether we think we choose to do anything or not... that is, throughout the whole day, not just a chosen hour, something is always accumulating or developing, be it more ignorance or the rare bit of understanding. As for the reasons we tell ourselves, I guess that's the self-esteem thing and good or bad, it's in the way. It's just more sticking a self-image into a picture where it's out of place. I agree with you that self-esteem, -image, -concept, -identity, -view, -etc isn't the boogey-man; it's the reason there are boogie men. peace, connie 42025 From: Hugo Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Tep, On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:23:15 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > Today MY full confidence in MY dhamma practice and gradually > improved understanding over the span of 20+ years was diminished > because of the following strong statement of yours ("Opposite of > Dhamma practice"? It sounds like a judge's sentence that the > defendant is wrong and must be put in jail for life). Ah!, interesting......why are you blaming Ken? It is you who took his words and made it into a weapon against yourself. Also, it is you who made Ken the authority and gave him the power to blast away your own experience. (Note: Maybe Ken is really an authority and he really knows what he is talking about, I don't know, but the point is not to judge Ken, but to help Tep see how it was himself who inflicted the pain and suffering and not Ken). Tep, I sincerely thank Ken for telling me what he told me, I had the feeling that he really wants to help, and that's what I am thankful for. Tep, look at Ken's words as a strong wind that will test if the stones you are stepping on are really stable, if they shake and tremble then move to other stones, if they don't then keep standing on top of them. Just be careful, if you make a self out of those stones (saying "I put those stones myself, they are good") then you will not want them to be fragile and you will cover yourself with a veil that won't allow you to see that you were indeed at fault. I think that's what making a "self" is really about (at least at my gross level of understanding). Which makes me think that the real risk is to "put stones", we have to "find stones", not "put them", because if we put them we will tend to be protective of them.....mmmmm....actually this sounds very much like: put stones = (so-called) intentional practice find stones = observe with wisdom Anyway, I still think that you can't do any practice that it is not intentional. Thanks both of you, and let's keep walking..... -- Hugo 42026 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Andrew T, I agree that this discussion could benefit from some streamlining, but I don't know if it's a simple matter. Breakdowns in communication occur, as you indicate, when one party is talking about absolute reality (the namas and rupas of a moment of consciousness) and another party is talking about conventional reality (the concept of continued existence over a period of time). I tend to dot my posts quite regularly with, "There is only the present moment," but breakdowns still occur. Perhaps I should begin every sentence that way. :-) ---------------- AT: > 1. a mind-moment of formalised vipassana practice(?); or 2. "moments" in the sense of, say, ten minutes of sitting-following- the-breath meditation; or 3. some other period? I think you should make this clear because, in the case of (1), you might be able to use the Abhidhamma to suggest what citta and cetasikas are or could be at work. > -------------- I was talking about case 1 - "a mind moment of formalised vipassana practice." Before that, I had been talking to Hugo about a mind moment of "being interested in one's own personal practice," which might be a sign of attachment and desire for personal gain. In that instance, the relevant citta might be one of those described in the texts as (for example) "karmically unwholesome, rooted in greed, joyful, without wrong view and prompted." Then, I was talking to Tep about the idea of actually doing something in an attempt to bring about samatha or vipassana development. That's where I suggested wrong view might be added to the citta description. ------------- AT: > If you are referring to (2), I think you will have to explain how you can understand the workings of conditionality for that period of time to be able to say what is arising and what isn't (compared to, say, ten minutes of reading a Dhamma book). > ------------- The relevant proviso is; we don't know when wrong view is going to appear. It might appear while we are reading a Dhamma book or it might appear when we are formally meditating. Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. If we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? I should add that any period of time contains a diversity of cittas. So, even while we are sitting cross-legged on a cushion or concentrating on walking, there are much more than "moments of formalised vipassana practice." There are moments of hearing, touching, thinking and so on. There can even be moments of right understanding. But I wouldn't bet on it. The person who, at one moment, believes he can control dhammas is unlikely to, at another moment, directly understand reality as just conditioned nama and rupa. That's the way I see it, anyway - corrections and streamlining welcome. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Ken H > > I have just had a look at this thread and think I might be able to > streamline one aspect of it. > > Ken H, when you write: > > let's ask whether > > there is, or is not, wrong view at moments of formalised vipassana > > practice. > > what is the time period you are referring to? Are you referring to: > > 42027 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:42pm Subject: Apologies - slower than usual.. Hi Hugo, AndrewA, Kel, Tep, Joop & all, Thx for asking, Hugo. I'm just about here! I sprained my ankle on the first day of the Chinese N.Y. hol (not serious at all this time, but it happened a few hours away from public transport on a remote beach), so I've been hobbling on sticks, taking pain-killers and anti-inflams and lots of rest with leg up, so I've been unable to sit at the computer. Much better today, so will slowly be catching up. Meanwhile Jon's been printing out and reading all the great posts to me. Metta, Sarah ====== 42028 From: Philip Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:45pm Subject: Re: The future is not important > Hi Joop, and all > > Joop: >In my understanding Buddhism that is not important at all: > who is it > that get that effect? Not me, anatta, you know! > > > I was thinking about this very topic, Joop. Why is there concern > for the results of rebirth when "I" won't be there? Still thinking about it, and feeling grateful for the question because it's pointed out to me how deeply rooted my ignorance is. (I won't use my usual all-inclusive "we" on this one!) Until I have begun to achieve any kind of detachment from clinging to the khandas, how can I claim to have a concern about the future? The clinging is so all-consuming, the delight in the khandas so pervasive that to say I am concerned about the results of kamma will only be repeating what I've read or heard without any real understanding. Maybe it's better to acknowledge my ignorance (in the Dhamma sense) the way Joop has here rather than simply repeating the phrases related with right view, if you know what I mean. Better to appreciate the rare moments that I have insight into the truth, rare moments when there is a kind of detachment, albeit intellectual. Again and again will I ask myself what is happening through the six doors here and now? Will I know if there is seeing, or not? A few moments of insight into realities in this lifetime, a few moments of true sati, will be the only way there will be the beginning of shifting the huge mass of ignorance, the beginning of penetrating the black curtain. For now, if I'm honest, I have to say that most of the time I am without concern for the future, except if it's concern for the better things in the future in *this* lifetime, which is rooted in yet more wrong view, this time related to self and the eight worldly concerns. Seeing this doesn't discourage me. It's better to know how much ignorance there is than be oblivious of it. Seeing things clearly in this way might help to condition the beginning small steps in cultivating panna and sati. Metta, Phil 42029 From: Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nonduality Hi Christine, Here's something that might be of interest: http://turtlehill.org/uttara/vasu.html There's a good commentary below the text. It might be an interesting exercise to determine how this differs from abhidhamma. Larry 42030 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1. Dear Nina, [Reply to # 41831] Thank you greatly for your kindness and for your time to help me see (with clearer understanding). Forgive me if my attitude in this message is more stubborn than ever before. The first issue we discussed was walking meditation. I think I should have defined the what and why of "walking meditation" first. Walking meditation is a small part of kayanupassana in DN 22 (Maha- satipatthana Sutta): "And again, bhikkus, a bhikkhu while walking knows 'I am walking'; while standing, he knows, 'I am standing'; while sitting, he knows, 'I am sitting'; while lying down he knows, 'I am lying down'. To summarize, a bhikkhu should know whatever way his body is moving or placed." [Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Translated by U Jotika & U Dhamminda] Another instruction that touches on awareness training using "body movements" as the object of sati is seen in MN 39 Mahaassapurasuttam: "Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be mindful and fully aware. In going forward and returning, we will act with clear awarness. In looking ahead and looking aside, we will act with clear awarness. In bending and stretching our limbs, we will act with clear awarness. In wearing our robes and cloak and using our almsbowls, we will act with clear awarness. In eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting, we will act with clear awarness. In defecating and urinating, we will act with clear awarness. In walking, standing, sitting, lying down, waking up, speaking, and remaining silent, we will act with clear awarness. [MN 39 Mahaassapurasuttam: The Longer Discourse in Assapura ] http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6774/mn39.htm The words like "we will act with clear awareness" and "we will be mindful" might make the purists jump to conclusion that the Buddha taught His monks to use intention/determination to direct sati and sampajanna to arise. Is it the translator's fault? The key idea for training as I understand from the two suttas is that the meditator routinely maintains sati and sampajanna (awareness) on each of the four body postures (Iriyapatha), walking is just one of them - - there is nothing special about walking, and on other small body movements too. That's why I made some comment in the previous message: "Many times when we walk we may not be mindful of the walking -- i.e. a sati with the walking (leg movements) as its object does not arise. Now, suppose that suddenly while walking with no sati, we realize that we should be mindful of the walking. That realization is a sati (recollection), but it is not the kind of sati we would want in walking meditation.". But your concern is more into the detail of the body- mind "oscillation" process, kusala citta and the "danger of the idea of self directing" that are not easy to implement for training/developing kayagata-sati. It is the macro view versus the micro view; the macro one is easier to adopt. > N: Walking is not a characteristic of reality. That is why I have a question mark as to walking meditation. It depends on what a person means by this. The satipatthana sutta and Co (Soma Thera) clarify this. N: Sati arises with kusala citta and there are many kinds and levels. It depends on conditions what level of sati arises, but anyway, sati arises with all types of kusala citta. ------------------- >T: To condition the right kind of sati to arise, I would take my > awareness from any outside preoccupations (wandering thoughts) > and 'place' a focused attention on the walking. > N: I see a danger here. When one thinks in terms of should not or should (no wandering thoughts, but should be mindful of this or that) is here not a danger of the idea of self directing? I admit that this can arise at any time, also when not walking, but studying texts, etc. . You said that you have thick layers of wrong view, but surely, all who are not ariyans have wrong view. There is the latent tendency of wrong view accumulated. T: Isn't there another kind of danger when we try not to "think in terms of should or should not" and to subconsciously avoid the "danger of self directing" in every moment? All these precautions surely will complicate the simple awareness training scheme as stated in one the above suttas < a bhikkhu while walking knows 'I am walking'> so much that it does not make sense anymore. I think maintaining awareness in each body posture is very much like keeping attention on the book's content while we're reading it from page to page. Sometimes there are wandering thoughts for sure, and we'd simply let go of them and bring back the attention/awareness to the reading again. I do not see any complicated issue of self directing or "wrong view" here. This macro- view approach is straightforward too. ----------------- > N: I heard on my MP3 some good reminders... T: I never wait for sati to arise or try to direct it, given that awareness is already present. For example, I am typing now and I am aware of it without trying to keep sati with the typing. My awareness, or sati, at this level continues because my attention is staying with the typing. Whenever I lose my attention on the typing, the mind wanders somewhere else and a typing error will result. Seeing the error, I realize that I have lost sati and by refocusing on the typing, again a stream of awareness arises and continues as long as the mind is alert and attention is not lost. The "directing sati" to the object after it is lost occurs only when it is necessary. [Forgive my unsophisticated use of the terms that may be misleading.] However, knowing the concept that "sati arises because of conditions" does not help me regain awareness quickly or develop a stronger awareness that stays with the object longer. So far I have been told that such intention to develop sati is wrong because it implies a 'self' that is directing sati, and it is not free from lobha. But doesn't that warning advice mean "do nothing"? How can "do nothing special" produce something very special like lukuttara samma-sati? Or, is the lokuttara samma-sati conditioned only by the following vipassana bhavana (which is, in a way, "doing something special")? "He dwells perceiving again and again the cause and the actual appearing of the body or he dwells perceiving again and again the cause and the actual dissolution of the body; or he dwells perceiving again and again the actual appearing and dissolution of the body with their causes. To summarize, he is firmly mindful of the fact that only the body exists (not a soul, a self or I). That mindfulness is just for gaining insight (vipassana) and mindfulness progressively. Being detached from craving and wrong views he dwells without clinging to anything in the world." [Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Translated by U Jotika & U Dhamminda] The next reply to your mail will start with "comprehending" the rupa (materiality) during walking in the Visuddhimagga. Thank you very much again, Nina, for your unlimited patience. Kindest regards, Tep ========= -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep, > Thank you for your kind words. 42031 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:12pm Subject: Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner 120 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (d) Hello Sarah, Hope your ankle is getting better. Sprained ankles can be very painful, and esp so if you had to hobble a distance to get to a bus or whatever :-( Both namajivitindriya and rupajiv. arise with the patisandhi citta and whatever rupa arises at that time - yes? Patience, courage and good cheer Azita --- 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd] > ***** > The cetasika jívitindriya which vitalizes the accompanying nåmadhammas > is nåma. > .....snip.... > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 42032 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Dear Tep, > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 03:23:15 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > > Today MY full confidence in MY dhamma practice and gradually > > improved understanding over the span of 20+ years was diminished > > because of the following strong statement of yours ("Opposite of > > Dhamma practice"? It sounds like a judge's sentence that the > > defendant is wrong and must be put in jail for life). > > Ah!, interesting......why are you blaming Ken? > > It is you who took his words and made it into a weapon against yourself. > > Also, it is you who made Ken the authority and gave him the power to > blast away your own experience. > > (Note: Maybe Ken is really an authority and he really knows what he is > talking about, I don't know, but the point is not to judge Ken, but to > help Tep see how it was himself who inflicted the pain and suffering > and not Ken). > > Tep, I sincerely thank Ken for telling me what he told me, I had the > feeling that he really wants to help, and that's what I am thankful > for. > > Tep, look at Ken's words as a strong wind that will test if the stones > you are stepping on are really stable, if they shake and tremble then > move to other stones, if they don't then keep standing on top of them. > Just be careful, if you make a self out of those stones (saying "I > put those stones myself, they are good") then you will not want them > to be fragile and you will cover yourself with a veil that won't allow > you to see that you were indeed at fault. > > I think that's what making a "self" is really about (at least at my > gross level of understanding). > > Which makes me think that the real risk is to "put stones", we have to > "find stones", not "put them", because if we put them we will tend to > be protective of them.....mmmmm....actually this sounds very much > like: > > put stones = (so-called) intentional practice > find stones = observe with wisdom > > Anyway, I still think that you can't do any practice that it is not intentional. > > > Thanks both of you, and let's keep walking..... > -- > Hugo ======== Dear Hugo- I knew that Ken wrote that message for you, not for me. But Ken had thrown similar 'stony' words at me before. The words are strong and judgemental. I have never agreed with his judgement. I was sarcastic, but my sarcasm was not so evident because the cutting edge was turned toward myself. (I did not want to hurt anyone with words.) So my response sounded to you as if I "took his words and made it into a weapon" against myself. But I think Ken knows. Kind regards, Tep ========== 42034 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:01pm Subject: Re: walking, what is sati,Tep. no 2. Dear Nina, [Reply to # 41931] I was delighted in reading your wonderful interpretation of Venerable Buddhaghosa's great piece of work that has both literary and dhamma values. N: Buddhaghosa explains step by step impermanence. Beginning at XX, 47: from birth to death he allots hundred years for taking up at rebirth and putting down at death. He divides the period of life into ten decads, and shows disappearance of what grows old in each stage. He then makes the periods of time shorter and shorter: seasons, night and day, one day, and shows impermanence in a very clever way. T: His unusual ability to penetrate the three characteristics is inspirational to me, beside his cleverness in giving meaningful examples. VM XX, 65: T: Reading through the above quote, I have no trouble understanding clearly that the 'derived materialities' indeed are impermanent and not self because they are conditioned dhamma. Being conditioned dhamma, the materialities only lead to disappointments and discontentment at the end, hence they are painful (causing suffering). But so far, it is just a kind of understanding that is gained from my reasoning and logical deduction . -------------------- N: Thus, all this is a way of teaching and, as is always the case when listening and considering, it sinks in. It is a condition for more understanding so that sati can arise and be aware. It is not a method we have to follow. If we think of lifting, or concentrate on a step, all the rupas have gone already. They flash in and out as lightning in the sky. T: The first part of this paragraph is encouraging because of the assurance that through listening and considering the Dhamma more understanding results, and it supports sati-sampajanna. But the sentences after that are discouraging because there is no real-time reality as object of satipatthana (N: but we have to distinguish thinking from direct awareness). But, are real-time realities strictly necessary? If your reasoning is right, then why did the Venerable divide leg movement into six steps and show in detail how to take each movement (of the six steps) as an object of the vipassana bhavana (i.e. contemplate its rising and passing away which implies impermanence)? Nowadays walking meditation, based on the six-step leg movements like this, is still being used for training concentration at several vipassana retreat centers. ------------- N: Whatever nama or rupa appears, there is no master, no posessor. Only conditioned phenomena. Every one should find out for himself whether it is helpful to condition sati by a certain method, by thinking or by concentrating on each step. One should ask oneself whether this helps one to understand sati as a dhamma arising whenever there are conditions for it, a dhamma that is devoid of self. T: I like your flexible statements, Nina: everyone should find out for himself/herself ... The most important consideration is, of course, the end result : whether it helps improve one's understanding and reduce mental defilements or not. ------------- N: When walking, there is thinking, there is seeing and hearing, different kinds of nama. They can be objects of awareness too, otherwise we take these for self. They arise because there are conditions for their arising, they have no core, no possessor. T: Because there are so many varieties of reality arising and passing away rapidly at each cross section in time, how can anyone take them all as objects of awareness? It is like we are trying to act as a magical juggler who can keep a thousand different objects in the air at the same time. Shouldn't it be easier for us to focus on an object, or a class of objects (like vedana khandha), one at a time until we can see its characteristics clearly? Kindest regards, Tep ============== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina wrote: > Dear Tep, > Continuing with the Visuddhimagga XX. 42035 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Dear Hugo and Tep. In a message to Hugo I said that satipatthana was an extremely rare and precious phenomenon. Hugo replied: ----------------------- > I am not sure, it sounds as if I would need superpowers in order to be > able to do it. ---------------------- You almost do! Satipatthana is the mundane version of the Ariyan Eightfold Path, for which you really do need superpowers. By comparison, satipatthana is less demanding (at least in its early stages), but it is still the most difficult path a worldling can follow. ------------------------ > If that's the case why did The Buddha taught anything at all? ------------------------- Before the Buddha began to teach, he asked himself (as all Buddhas do), "Is this truth too deep and difficult to teach? Wouldn't it be burdensome and a waste of time to even try?" ---------------------- < the idea "MY Dhamma practice" indicates akusala thinking> H: > Agree to a certain point, but can you really don't do any intentional > Dhamma-practice? ---------------------- The true Dhamma practice is never intentional (deliberate conventional activity). It only occurs in a moment when the mental factors sati and panna arise to know reality the way the Buddha taught it. So it is these conditioned dhammas that practise, not people. ------------------------------- > If you sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma-practice? -------------------------------- If you meditate (develop insight) while sitting that is Dhamma practice, but if you sit to develop insight, that is not. Sitting is not one of the three factors that lead to insight. They are; hearing the true Dhamma, wise consideration of the true Dhamma and association with good friends. -------------------- > If you decide to not sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma- practice? -------------------- No (Sorry if that was a rhetorical question.) :-) -------------------------------------------------- H: > You either choose to do it or not, and by making the choosing you are > making a decision and by making a decision it is intentional. > So, the intention is to either sit, or the intention is to not sit, > but either way both are intentions....or not? ---------------- Is that necessarily the case? I haven't recited the alphabet today, but have I deliberately chosen not to? No. (Well, not until now that I've thought about it!) :-) Tep wrote: -------------------- > Thanks to Hugo for giving Ken H. the rightful answer that is better I can say it myself. Yes, decisions are intertwined with intentions, and nobody can deny that. -------------------------------------- We make decisions all the time - look out the window, pick up the coffee cup, type a letter to DSG - but these decisions are not indicators of wrong view. However, I am suggesting the decision to practise formal Buddhist meditation is an indicator of wrong view. When we deliberately look out the window, pick up a cup or type a letter, we may not be aware that there are only conditioned dhammas (so we may not have right view), but nor are we *denying* there are only conditioned dhammas (so we don't have wrong view). However, when we deliberately try to practise the Buddha's teaching (deliberately try to have right view), we are denying his teaching that there are only conditioned dhammas - no self in control. ------------------------------------- T: > So how could a kusala cetana to practice the Dhamma with Right effort, in order to gain wisdom, be labelled as "the opposite of Dhamma practice" and, as such, is an "akusala activity", Ken? ------------------------------------- Here you are assuming the cetana is kusala. When that is the case there will be no problem. But kusala is not a conventional reality we can control like a rite or ritual. For example, giving money to the poor is conventionally a wholesome thing to do, but it can be done for the wrong reasons. If it is done for the wrong reasons, it is purely a ritual, and belief in its efficacy would be wrong view. I doubt the decision to deliberately practice satipatthana can ever be kusala. Satipatthana involves direct knowledge of paramattha dhammas, which come and go in less than a billionth of a second. How could we ever expect to deliberately know paramattha dhammas? Regards, Ken H 42036 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Hi, Nina I appreciate all your posts in this series, but this one seems especially full of good bits. Among the things that particularly struck me were the following passages (I have marked your text with *asterisks* to emphasise the key terms/phrases): 1/. The Tiika explains, as to the words, the state of one who is vigorous, that *a vigorous person, someone who is so called*, actually is: *a dhamma* (so dhammoti attho). 2/. Text Vis: It is manifested as non-collapse. N: The Tiika explains that it is: 'a dhamma *opposed to collapse*' (sa.msiidanapa.tipakkho dhammo). Energy will *not succumb*, but continue with the task it has to perform. [J: This seems relevant to khanti (patience) being an aspect of viriya] 3/. Text Vis.: Because of the words 'Bestirred, he strives wisely' (A.ii,115), its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; Evenso a man may be agitated when he hears that in another village someone died. Thereupon he develops insight and penetrates the supreme truth. Whereas someone else needs to see someone who is afflicted or dead with his own eyes, or, he has to see a family member afflicted or dead, or he himself has to be grievously afflicted, before he has a sense of urgency (sa.mvega) and develops wisdom. [J: If we are completely honest with ourselves, how frequent are moments of a true sense of urgency (as best we are capable)? Not very frequent at all, in my case.] 4/. Vis. text: or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. When *rightly* initiated, it should be regarded as the *root of all attainments*. [J: Hence its featuring so prominently in the 37 bodhi-pakkaya-dhamma] 5/. N: We read in the Vis. IV, 63, about *eight grounds of urgency*. - birth, - ageing, - sickness, - death, - suffering of the States of Loss - the suffering in the past rooted in the round [of rebirths], - the suffering in the future rooted in the round [of rebirths], - the suffering in the present rooted in the search for nutriment. [J: When any of these grounds of urgency is properly appreciated, the necessary motivation for the development of insight is present and no conscious effort, choice or action is required] Nina, many thanks for these (and all the other) great reminders. Jon nina wrote: >Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. > >Text Vis. (vi) 'Energy' (viriya) is the state of one who is vigorous >(viraa). >Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). > >... > > 42037 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20pm Subject: 'Cetasikas' study corner 121 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (e) 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.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd] ***** We used to take life for something which lasts. We cling to life and we take it for 'mine' and 'self'. However, there is no physical life nor mental life which lasts. Life-faculty is sa'nkhåra dhamma, conditioned dhamma, which does not stay and which is not self. The study of the reality of jívitindriya can remind us that life lasts only for a moment and then falls away to be succeeded by a next moment. ***** [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 42038 From: Sukinder Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hi Hugo, I just read Ken H's reply to your post in which he said: "I see your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as distinct from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life."" I had come to more or less the same conclusion after reading this and some other posts of yours. But I like the spirit with which you try to apply what you have learnt to daily life. I think it will be a major asset if you are converted to the non-doing perspective ;-). I think you realize that it is easy to project any `theory' onto experiences and everyone does it, Buddhists or non-Buddhists. I agree that the Buddha's teachings are very different from other teachings even when understood incorrectly. The teachings about conditionality, particularly the Tilakkhana allows for greater fluidity. However this can also be like a double-edged sword, because as we think we understand deeper and better, the path may have been miccha due to wrong view and attachment to the illusion of result at each level. A couple or so years ago I started to wonder if this was not happening with me, was I projection the Abhidhamma theory on to experiences? Sarah helped me by pointing out to the effect, that whatever we `think', there is still only what arises at the moment. From then on I didn't think about this problem. Because, truly there is a `reality' which appears at any given moment and these can be known with increasing familiarity. Abhidhamma is simple and straight to the point in this regard. On the basic level of nama-rupa distinction and the classification of citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana, one is less inclined to complicate matters. We learn that the object of satipatthana are these ultimate realities and so learn to differentiate `thinking' of concepts (self, people and situations) from `mindfulness' of dhammas. Yet panna can arise and motivated by chanda, to study more deep and intricate aspects of the teachings, but all this with the object of knowing in order to become detached. I think this is one important distinguishing factor between right and wrong practice. The former will always be accompanied by detachment, while the latter will more and more attach to a practice and ritual. The reason I don't "try hard" to understand D.O. or think about seeing it in daily life is because I realize that if I don't understand the characteristic of dhammas, then I would invariably be projecting an idea onto the world. I have seen people go so far as to suggest that D.O. operates in the physical world as well!! On the other hand, I am waiting for the day that I might have the time to study Rob M's chart in which he has shown in terms of the 24 conditions, what is operating at each link in the D.O. This appeals to me more, because individual conditions are easier to understand intellectually and they don't tempt one into trying to see phenomena in a linear and sequential way as D.O. often does. I think it is important to know what one *can* understand and go slowly, instead of trying hard to understand everything. Other people may have the accumulations to jump straight into D.O. without creating this gap between what one really understands and what one thinks one understands. I would want to be more careful and take baby steps if that is all I am capable of. ;-) But of course this does not happen very often. Too great accumulations of greed and ignorance here. :-( Metta, Sukin. ps: Please invite me to Google mail. Thanks in advance. 42039 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Cetasikas' study corner 120 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (d) Hi Azita, --- gazita2002 wrote: > > > Hello Sarah, > Hope your ankle is getting better. Sprained ankles can be > very painful, and esp so if you had to hobble a distance to get to a > bus or whatever :-( .... S: Thanks and yes, doing much better. You were right, it was to a bus, but the worst pain came on later, so that was OK. Am now walking short distances again, so very minor. Just a little tiring. No restriction to presently arising dhammas to be known, even when flopped out and pretty ga-ga!! .... > Both namajivitindriya and rupajiv. arise with the patisandhi > citta and whatever rupa arises at that time - yes? ... S: Yes. Namajiv. arises with every citta starting with patisandhi citta and rupajiv. arises with every group of kamma produced rupas (like masculinity/femininity and the sense-bases). So it is produced by kamma from the moment of patisandhi and throughout life in living beings (with rupas),maintaining and suppoting the other rupas. No rupajiv. in plants or other inanimate objects of course. Metta, Sarah ====== 42040 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Revulsion, Nibbindati, viraga, these are a few of my favorite things. Hi Frank (& Phil), --- frank wrote: > > Since this is one of my favorite words and favorite aspects of Buddhist > lifestyle, I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents. I don't remember which > pali > dictionary I got this from: > Nibbindati - to get wearied of (c. loc.); to have enough of, be > satiated, > turn away from, to be disgusted with. .... S: It was quite a masterpiece, Frank and I found it very helpful in terms of clarifying 'revulsion' as a translation term here. Somehwere, BB does discuss his use of the translation too, probably in an intro. > In the Majjhima Nikaya, B.Bodhi translates Nibbindati as "disenchanted". > In the Samyutta, he translates that word as "revulsion". <...> > "Revulsion" expresses that fundamental shift in perception of what is > TRUE > happiness, recognizing that what we formerly believed to be pleasant > feeling > leading to happiness is actually a booby trap that baits us with a short > pleasant burst of stimuli, which then binds us and tricks us into > nourishing > the seeds for immense future suffering. How could one not feel a sense > of > disgust and revulsion when we realize what we thought was worthwhile to > pursue was actually a scam, a swindle, a trick to rob us of our wealth, > our > energy, our wisdom? .... S: Stirring stuff!! Yes, the tricks, swindles and scams played by lobha;-). I hope Phil and others manage to press the right buttons to trigger off a few more of your favourite words and aspects. (You could always drop a few clues....). Metta, Sarah ======= 42041 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi AndrewL, Good points. --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Yeah, glad you have patience with me. I always want to post and get > to the nitty gritty but I just as often, or even more often, > procrastinate, especially since this is sort of new territory for > me. I look to this group to clear things up, and if I haven't been > active in threads, my practise suffers for it, like I feel empty of > where I could know nama and rupa otherwise. …. S: not easy, I know….. …. > So how much indeed of this awareness arises naturally? I can (or > have been able to in this past) go from sitting at my computer on IRC > to thinking I should cultivate awareness or mindfulness, I guess > without idea of 'me' doing it, but sitting on my pillow or meditation > cushion and practising mindfulness. …. S: I think we can only say that our lives, everthing we find important are merely these conditioned dhammas - namas and rupas, regardless of whether there is a lot or a little awareness arising, whether we're siting at the computer, thinking about awareness or sitting on a meditation cushion. In other words, there's no need to work out the 'best' time or situation, because this is just thinking and our interest is with the 'study of dhammas', rather than the 'study of situations'. ….. > Right, well, until we eradicte deeper views of self, can't there be > some right practise, while superficial views of self are still there? …. S: Different moments. When there is 'right practise' (i.e moments of satipatthana), there's no idea of self. Of course the lurking tendency is always there. …. > > As for `Sarah's book'. Of course I often think of `Sarah's book'. > This can > > be with or without wrong view of self however;-) > > So do you ever acquire any goodness when you open "Sarah's book'? …. S: Good and bad states arise rapidly in succession. None of them are acquired by any self. Just conditioned dhammas. No need to attach to the good and mind about the bad… …. > Would you be willing to accept that after reading the Dhamma which > specifically instructed one to do so, 'Andrew' has intentionally > tried to be mindful of his body and thought procecesses and > succeeded, and at the end of the day felt a huge burden lifted off of > him, sort of the opposite of that ever-present hole that most people > try to fill with a person, a goal, or possessions? And that when > answering the telephone, there was more attention to be put on the > receiver or what words were going to be said? …. S: This is difficult. Let me put it this way, I think there can be all sorts of great benefits from following all sorts of instructions to focus on breathing, sensations in the body and so on. So there may be all the results you mention. Indeed, I have interests myself in yoga, breathing methods,Chinese healing systems etc etc , but I don't see any intentional mindfulness as you describe in my reading of Dhamma which simply helps us to understand conditioned dhammas as anicca, dukkha and ANATTA. So the kind of attention or mindfulness you are referring to here is different from the development of satipatthana, as I understand it. …. > And that all this was done just as scripture instructed one to do so, > and this mindfulness lasted into a formal meditation session? > > Sort of similar to knowing less 'ultimate' and more 'conventional' > realities such as mindfulness of posture, after only reading "Be > mindful, thoroughly know, your posture, and small deportments" and > similar text? …. S: I understand that the idea of posture (if taken as a reality or object of mindfulness) is a hindrance to the understanding of dhammas. Again, the understanding of 'situations' or 'positions' can never break down the idea of self. I'm happy to discuss any texts or scriptures in more detail. …. > > Also, I am somewhat skeptical that just reading Dhamma conditions > mindfulness, it seems that just reading an instruction to 'be > mindful' is enough, and that one's own thoughts to 'be mindful' > should work just as well. …. S: If there is sufficient understanding of what dhammas really are and if there is no misunderstanding of what it means to be mindful. In truth, even the ariyans needed to continue to hear, consider and discuss the Dhamma. There is a sutta which talks about the path for ignorant worldlings and continues to say it is the same for sotapannas and so on up to arahants. We need the right kind of reminders over and over again. …. > So you're saying metta just has to be read about or conditioned to > come rather than my "I must read meditations on loving-kindness to > cultivate good amounts of metta"? Could anything else just happen to > condition metta to arise, like realizing the need for it, or wanting > to promote the welfare of living beings [even one's own]? …. S: I think the main condition is the arising of metta when there is an opportunity (with other people around) and the gradual understanding of the characteristic of metta at such times, so that other states like attachment are less likely to be mistaken for it. When we wish to promote our own welfare, this is not metta, for example. I've had a bit of trouble with my ankle and I realized as I was hobbling around how much time was being spent on my welfare. But then, we were giving out our Chinese New Year red packets to building and restarurant staff and there was some genuine good will to others and forgetting about *me*. We can read a lot about metta, but I think the friendliness and helpfulness when we have a chance is most useful. …. > OK. Also have another question. I haven't been able to get that > good 'study' mode going to get into CMA but I do recall that there is > a citta or cetasika that arises when the object is 'extremely' > desirable and I think I have experienced this recently, and, since I > have gotten Bhikku Bodhi's "The Noble Eightfold Path" I think that my > intention should be on renunciation instead of strong liking, greed, > or attachment, to that. As it is, it sort of sucks me in into a > downward spiral. …. S: I'm not sure I follow exactly, but whatever it is, it's gone. We don't know what will arise:anytime by conditions and unexpectedly, but it doesn't matter at all. Just develop more awareness, understanding and detachment, but not by trying to do anything. They really are just very fleeting dhammas - pleasant, unpleasant, good, bad or whatever. If we attach importance to what's gone already, the present dhamma is the attachment. …./ > So now, with a different perspective, do you think it would be good > to start doing a citta study thread again? I can see I missed out on > the large part of the cetasika study thread, but nonetheless maybe it > would be beneficial to start one. …. S: I'd be glad if you'd like to start one and will certainly follow. What do you suggest? The cetasika thread will be going on for ages, so please join in this at any time too. It's never too late for comments or questions. Anyway or sort you like would be fine. > Ideas? …. S: Would you like to join in an ongoing study corner or start a new one? Or just join in different threads? Metta, Sarah ======= 42042 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:47am Subject: Re: The future is not important --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > I wanted to ask: what drives you to practice sila or any > practice? Is it merely not being driven by hate and desire as you > mentioned? Do you find that it makes you happier at the present > moment or what is your motiviation? I'm just curious, thanks. > > - Kel Hallo Kel and Philip and all Not so easy to answer, because it seduces to play a role: of a wise man, a noble man, etc. And because I really don't reflect so much on my ethical behavior: I think ethics is something I had to do and not to talk about; especially not to tell other people how to behave ethically. But after some reflection I had to say: the motives are mixed. Many times because I feel bad afterwards when I do 'wrong' like gossip, shout, look at erotic movies; some times because I feel 'happy' when doing or afterwards; some times because I remembered the promises I made to myself (or, when I stopped smoking, to my wife). Does what happens after my death play a role? That is more or less what Philip was talking about. Only light: if (I'm agnostic on rebirth) my kamma influences the opportunities with what a newborn sentient being starts her/his/its life, then I think also altruistic to behave in a ethic way. Metta Joop 42043 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Andrew L, A little more on your earlier post #41743- sorry for the delay. --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Can't "we" or "you" do anything to put in place the conditions to > cultivate sati, even if you do it without a lower level self belief > (consciousness with wrong view), or even with consciousness without > wrong view? In other words, can't we practise sati still with the > higher self-view, to say nothing of the lower self-view. …. S: In truth, it's never any kind of self that practices. Only ever cittas, cetasikas and rupas at any moment. When there's any kind of idea of 'we' who can practice or a whole situation such as 'sitting cross-legged and focusing on posture', it's not the development of satipatthana. …. > But what about ultimate realities? Can't these be legitimately known, > too? Also, which type of wrong view do you assert for this occasion? > I'd be really interested to know. … S: Yes, ultimate realities can be known at any moment without any restrictions if there has been wise reflection about what they are. For example, seeing consciousness or visible object now. There can be joy when there is a beginning of understanding that life is just made up of these present dhammas and that all those stories and 'situations' are mere figments of the imagination. … > >S: Let me know if you want me to say more. I can give lots of > examples, like > > anytime there is an idea of following a practice….!! > > Yes, please. In particular this bit came to my attention: > > SN 22-01 > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- > who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined > in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well- > versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to > be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, > or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' > or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes > & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & > despair over its change & alteration. …. S: Thanks for this. In truth, the body we find so important consists of mere changing rupas - none of which are self or belong to the self. When we cling to an idea of my body or posture or breathing meditation, there's no way that dhammas (namas and rupas) can be seen for what they are as impermanent elements without any owner and not in anyone's control. … > Now I know there is a sutta out there, or in somewhere,, that > discusses knowing the three types of feeling, and abandoning the > underlying tendency to lust, aversion, and ignorance respectively in > pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful > feeling. This to me seems a direct way to practise that is in accord > with the satipatthana method of practice <….> S: In SN, there's a whole section on feelings (Vedaba Samyutta) because of the importance we attribute to feelings. We hanker after the pleasant ones and have aversion to the unpleasant all day long. Again, the descriptions are reminders that these feelings are conditioned and anatta and to be understood as they are, when they appear. Again, if there's a focusing on feelings as you (and perhaps other teachers describe), it's not with detachment and understanding as I read you. …. > And you are saying this institutes wrong practise? If this can > logically be expected to work (that is, it is sound instruction), I > see nothing wrong with it. I have had at least awareness, and > possilby calm grow from doing precisely that (concentrating on breath > while sitting). …. S: It always comes back to our goals and what kind of awareness we're talking about. In my yoga centre, my friends are very adept at sitting calmly and concentrating on breath. One doesn't need to hear a teaching about elements and anatta for this. …. > So youre saying self-view can't lead to eradication of self-view. But > perhaps it can? Can we bring out some more examples here of how this > might or might not work? …. S: Would you say that anger leads to the eradication of anger or attachment leads to the eradication of attachment or delusion leads to the eradication of delusion? No, similarly, self view just leads to more self-view. So while you're sitting on your cushion or speaking on the telephone, there may well be moments of awareness and wise reflection, but these moments of awareness or understanding will have been conditioned by precious moments of wise reflection or awareness, rather than using the telephone or sitting on the cushion. …. > Perhaps you have it right that one shouldn't try to control one's own > life but if one 'goes with the flow' and tries to develop > understanding of ultimate realities which he will later experience > this can lead to benefits of practise. … S: If one does try to control anything, there are also conditioned dhammas at such a time and they can be known for what they are - a kind of thinking, often with self-view, that dhammas really are within some kind of control. <…> > I know understand what vinnana is. > > Is the latter similar to contemplating on the six external and > internal sense bases? … S: The six external bases are the sense door objects (visible object etc) and the 6th consists of cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. The six internal bases are the sense bases (eye-base etc) and the 6th consists of all cittas. So vinnana here would refer to the cittas included in the 6th internal sense base. [Sometimes, in context, the meaning can be a little different, such as vinnana just referring to vipaka cittas in D.O etc] …. > The Buddha talks about how a monk possesses mindfulness and full > awareness in all postures whether talking or remaining silent, going > forward or backwards, even attending to calls of nature. How are we > supposed to acheive this if we can't cultivate sati or awareness? > It's fleeting otherwise. …. S: It means, ideally, mindfulness can arise at any time, such as during any of these daily life activities. The commentary notes make it clearer that it is the namas and rupas that are the objects of satipatthana. Satipatthana has to be developed gradually and there's never a 'we' to achieve it. If it was so simple, why would the Buddha have hesitated when it came to teaching the Dhamma? Why is it considered so very profound? …. <…> >If only I could have it in > all postures at all the time. One of my friends suggests taht it > appears when I am not wrapped up in something.. it can come in at > some very odd times. > > Anyway, your take on this would be appreciated. … S: On our recent trip, we were reminded often that 'lobha is the teacher'. 'If only….' Lobha again. …. > Just of one nama & rupa at a time, or can knowing more nama and rupa > condition even more mindfulness and awareness? It seems to me that > the Buddha meant mindfulness and awareness for the monk to be present > with every step he takes. …. S: So awareness has to begin with just a very little 'taste' and gradually get used to the flavour of namas and rupas so that it can develop with the assistance of panna which understands what this awareness is and isn't. Ideally, yes, we'd all be arahants, but there's no point wishing or dreaming. Even just a little understanding can make a huge impact in our lives though, I think. Metta, Sarah p.s Apologies for my delays too ======== 42044 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard Thanks for these thoughts. >>I believe it is correct to say that consciousness must have an object, >>but I am not sure whether that must necessarily be an "actual object", >>whatever that may mean, since as far as I understand things there is >>nothing 'actual' about thoughts, only about the consciousness >>concerned. Sorry I'm not able to explain it any better than this, of >>course I'm not speaking from direct experience here ;-)). >> >> >> >====================== > Two thoughts, Jon: > > 1) A non-actual (i.e. imagined) object is not an object at all. In >fact it is nothing. There may be the imagining tht there is an object, but that >does not create some thing that is an "imagined object". > > This is correct. An 'imagined object' cannot be 'an object'. But I'm not sure we are being consistent in our use of 'object' here. The term 'object' is used to mean both 'thing' and, especially in this context, 'what is experienced by ' [consciousness]. What I am trying to say is that the latter meaning does not necessarily encompass the former. But I admit I am not sure of my ground here ;-)) > 2) As far as thoughts not being actual, are not mental pictures, >recognitions, and recollections of tastes, sights, and sounds thoughts that are >"actual"? Why is a recalled sound any less "actual" than, say, anger? > > This is an important issue. As I understand the teachings, 'presently experienced sound' and 'presently arisen anger' are 'actual', as is the *consciousness* that contrives mental pictures, that recognises sense-door experiences and that recollects tastes, sights and sounds. But there is no 'level of actuality' for [so-called] mental pictures, recognitions and recollections of tastes, sights and sounds, that is to say, these are not to be found among the 'actualities'. There *is* mental imaging etc., but there *is no thing* called a mental image etc. This of course may or may not be the way things seem to us to be, but I see no need to take a personal position on the matter -- what would be the point of that? Jon 42045 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Hugo, Thx for joining in this thread and for all your threads for that matter;-) --- Hugo wrote: > > Hello Sarah and Andrew, > > Sara wrote: > > So I'd say that any moments of attempting to cultivate sati 'while > using > > it' (notion of self) will not be helpful at all. > > I would be careful about categorical statements like that. I guess it > will be helpful or not depending on the level of wisdom and > development of each person. > > Like with little kids, you have to keep asking them if they want to go > to the potty, until they develop the awareness of the body by > themselves. And in order to have them cultivate this awareness there > should be some kind of reward (candies, stickers, etc.). ... S: I relate to all your kiddie examples. I've worked A LOT with kids - all ages - and am strong on discipline and rewards. I'm not sure how far we can take these analogies, though. .... > My own experience is that now I am more aware (or aware of more > things, events, feelings, etc.) than before, and that's because I > resolved in doing it, but also I set up some experiments to find out > what it really means to be aware of something and how I could know > that I was indeed aware or not. I still have long way to go, but at > least I feel that awareness arises more frequently now. .... S: Would you say this kind of awareness is satipatthana? Do you understand sati (awareness) of this kind can be aware of things and events? When you use 'I' here, is there any idea that you really are aware? In other words, as someone else was suggesting, I think, it may be a different, more conventional idea of awareness. ..... > Sara wrote: > > but > > always just to be aware of present dhammas by understanding more and > more > > about their characteristics. > > And don't you think that is "doing something"? > > You are resolving to "be aware". ... S: Hmmm ;-) Actually not. Understanding the value is not the same as 'doing something'. Now of course, only this same understanding can know again at any time whether or not there's any right or wrong resloving at any moment. Moments of wrong resloving or doing with an idea of self may seem to provide the short-term candies and stickers, but actually make the path longer. [When we were kids, our dentist used to hand us out candies after each visit, but now they hand out tooth-brushes and little toys instead, I notice - that kind of thing]. ... > I know, being aware is subtle, as I said before, sometimes I confuse > awareness with thinking and inferring, but still making the resolution > to not do anything but just be aware is "doing something". ... S: Well, I think that knowing how easy it is to confuse awareness with thinking is actually progress. I do see your point on the doing/not doing. Whether there's any idea to do or not to do, such moments of thinking can be known for what they are. So whether you let the kids be or intervene to stop a fight, whether you go to a quiet room or watch TV, it's just conditioned that way at that instant and the dhammas involved can be known for what they are. .... > So there you go, specific physical practices like eating only once a > day, sleeping on the floor, etc. and "just being aware" are the same, > both are ways of practice. Both require an intention and an action. > I think we are dividing something that can't be divided. ... S: ;-) ... > As I wrote in another post about free will. Free will is also > conditioned (I guess), so how "free" it really is? ... S: Not free at all;-). (See useful posts under 'free will'). ... > > This sounds like everything is "written". > > But then we have options......right now I have the option to stop > writing and unsubscribe from DSG and not learn from all of you. Why I > am not doing it? ... S: No conditions for it. .... > I have the option to say, ok, I am still young for this Dhamma thing, > let me enjoy a little bit more of the senses and then I will go and > once I am in a wheel chair or hospital bed, I will sit down and > "observe with wisdom". > > I am not stating that I am in favor of one approach or another, I > don't know if everything "is written", I don't know if there is real > "free will", so I am eagerly waiting for your reply, to add more to > the convoluted soup of thoughts that assault my mind. ... S: No need to 'decide' on any approach. Just thinking about which you are in favour of is conditioned already. One minute there are conditions to enjoy the senses, the next to study dhamma. Developing wisdom, doesn't mean less training of your kids or anything different from normal. ... > BTW, if we follow the line of thought that I said earlier in this > message, the one that says that both, "just being aware" and > performing certain specific tasks in order to "train ourselves" are > essentially the same, then we can conclude that the very same wrong > view of a self can be present in "just being aware". > > What do you think? ... S: Agreed. Wrong view of self can and does arise at any time at all. Only wisdom and more awareness can tell. Good points, Hugo. > Sabbe satta sabba dukkha pamuccantu. > (may all beings be free from suffering) ... ..and also your Pali lines. Metta, Sarah ======== 42046 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG TGrand458@a... wrote: >I don't think any analysis is going to break down the components completely: >other than as principles. The more a component is attempted to be isolated, >the more it is "taken out of" its conditional matrix." In that sense it >becomes less known for what it really is. On the other hand, without any attempt at identifying states, one cannot become aware of conditionality. So it seems >to me that we need not go overboard in thinking that we are discovering >"realities" by isolating states. Nor should we fall short in isolating them. They >need to be made aware of with the idea that it is merely to understand the >principles of the way things are functioning. A "middle way" of analysis if you >will. > > One further thing to consider, though: It is ignorance *of these states/realities* that is identified by the Buddha as being at the root of our problems (samsara). If that is the case, then it is these states/realities that need to be seen/known as they truly are. That does not preclude knowledge also of their context (i.e., the conditioning factors at play) -- this aspect is also very important. But what comes firsts: knowledge of the individual states as individual states, or knowledge of their 'context' (the conditioning factors, DO etc.)? >We need to realize that any formation that can come under scrutiny only >'appears' as a separate thing, in reality it is not. (And this applies every bit >as much to the so called paramattha dhammas.) The value of this process lies >not in discovering so called "realities," but in discovering conditionality >principles of impermanence, suffering, and no-self in order to eliminate >craving/suffering. > > Yes, I agree that discovering 'realities' is not enough, there needs to be the further 'discovery' of the 3 characteristics and of conditions (but note that these are characteristics and conditions *of dhammas* and not of anything else). Whether states/dhammas are 'separate' or not depends on how you define that term. Each dhamma of its particular kind is unique and constantly so, that is what makes it a dhamma/reality. >To use your term ... whatever states are analyzed are "fuzzy." They are >fuzzy when not analyzed, they become clearer when analyzed, the become fuzzy again >when "overanalyzed." > > But keener/more developed panna can never bring fuzziness! >The Buddha's teachings point out the states and conditions we need to be >aware of to succeed in the task of overcoming suffering. He uses a variety of >methods analysis including conceptual tasks, without reservation. Where does the >Buddha ever say... "It is realities I want to teach you, and you must know >realities to overcome suffering?" > > I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. These are different ways by which dhammas are classified. >Much of contemporary Abhidhamma thinking would have you believe just that, >however. In fact, many will even claim that's what the Buddha taught without >batting an eye. But from my limited perspective, that notion will; in and of >itself, prevent the goal of the Buddha's teaching from coming about. That's why >I argue against it. Its not Abhidhamma I'm against, its the overestimation >of thinking these states are "realities" that I am against. I see it as a >subtle fostering of self view. > > Nevertheless, there are states and then there are people, places and things. We just need to be sure we correctly understand what it is that needs to be understood. When it comes to the practice, there's no room for fuzziness of view ;-)) >One might say concepts are complex conglomerates of perceptions, etc., and >not a separate thing...but that applies to all the "realities." Is it not >likely that perceptions are formed from "strings of feelings?" Feelings from >strings of contacts? But if the totality of conditional factors generating these >states were to be calculated, the number would be astronomical. > > This is crucial. Feelings and other dhammas are not 'formed from' anything. They may be 'conditioned by' strings of contacts, but that is another matter altogether. If it is 'formed from' something, it's not a dhamma. >... >Concepts can only be every bit as real as feelings and perceptions because >they are formulated from them. Sure they are aspects of delusion in an >unenlightened mind, but so are perceptions. One reason we want to be mindful and stop >conceptualization is to get rid of a complex delusional network that obscures >our vision and insight into impermanence, suffering, no-self. > > Concepts are not universally the same, whereas dhammas are. >Concepts are mental phenomena that arise, alter, and cease in accordance with >conditions. They should be viewed as empty of self or substatiality like any >other condition. They are supports for suffering if a mind has craving or >attachment regarding them. For human beings, attachment to concepts, thoughts, >ideas, probably generates more suffering than any other type of attachment. > > Yes, attachment to concepts generates suffering. But if it is the attachment that is real and not the concept, then it is the attachment that needs to be known. Do you have difficulty accepting that that knowledge, sufficiently developed, leads to the eradication of the attachment? Jon 42047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Hi Jon, Thanks for your kind words. I add something. op 11-02-2005 07:22 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@n...:> > 2/. Text Vis: It is manifested as non-collapse. > N: The Tiika explains that it is: 'a dhamma *opposed to collapse*' > (sa.msiidanapa.tipakkho dhammo). Energy will *not succumb*, but continue > with the task it has to perform. > [J: This seems relevant to khanti (patience) being an aspect of viriya] N: Yes, also to perseverance and courage. > 3/. Text Vis.: Because of the words 'Bestirred, he strives wisely' > (A.ii,115),... or, he has to see a family member afflicted or > dead, or he himself has to be grievously afflicted, before he has a > sense of urgency (sa.mvega) and develops wisdom. > [J: If we are completely honest with ourselves, how frequent are > moments of a true sense of urgency (as best we are capable)? Not very > frequent at all, in my case.] N: This applies to our situation now. My father is dying slowly. To see him like that, so emaciated, not able to speak, or hardly being able to react, not eating, hardly drinking. In no time I shall be like that, time goes so incredibly fast. When getting older time goes faster and faster, it may become more difficult to develop insight. Sitting at his bed site is a good reminder of the truth. Above his head is a Buddha statue we once gave to him. .... 5/. N: We read in the Vis. IV, 63, about *eight grounds of urgency*. > - birth, > - ageing, > - sickness, > - death, > - suffering of the States of Loss > - the suffering in the past rooted in the round [of rebirths], > - the suffering in the future rooted in the round [of rebirths], > - the suffering in the present rooted in the search for nutriment. > [J: When any of these grounds of urgency is properly appreciated, the > necessary motivation for the development of insight is present and no > conscious effort, choice or action is required] N: There are always many debates about effort, but there is no dilemma if we keep in mind the beginning of this post: effort is a dhamma. And, what is more: apply this understanding. Nina. 42048 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kel, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: >>S: The real test is when one > leaves > > the centre and goes back to work with a difficult boss or > students, is > > surrounded by household chores, family and so on, I think. > kel: Did I not already conced that this is not the real or full- > proof test? It still doesn't change the fact it's a nicer > environment to cultivate and practice in. ... S: I'm sorry, I didn't have your post in front of me. Yes, I'm sure you did say this. A nicer environment? I have no problem with that - it's why we go off for walks or to the beach if we have a chance too. .... > >S: Remember, Kel, the example of the maid-servant who got up later > and later > > to test her calm, patient, even-tempered mistress until the latter > > snapped? Is the answer to get a better maid-servant or to really > > understand one's tendencies when they arise with detachment? > Kel: The answer is to find even the most subtlest tendencies and > get rid of them. When your mind is already at certain level of > calm, the subtler tendencies will be more obvious. And my > contention is you aren't going to get very far is you're trying to > in the midst of domanassa all the time. .... S: I'm not sure about this. Having just had a good whack of dosa and domanassa with regard to an injury, I think that dhammas can be known just as well at these times as when there is less kilesa (defilements) arising or more supposed calm (so often subtle attachment in my case, such as whilst walking or doing yoga or tai chi, for example). So much of our life seems to be spent trying to have the pleasant or calm and avoiding the unpleasant. Even if it is wholesome calm we're talking about, I think all kinds of dhammas have to be known when they appear. If we try to avoid dosa, for example, it merely indicates more lobha, doesn't it? Even for those who had attained the highest jhanas, awareness of all dhammas still had to be developed. Otherwise, how can they be known for what they are? I appreciate your input, Kel and look forward to any more you have to offer. Metta, Sarah p.s Mike, thanks also for including your nice pic w/Rose (Significant Others). hope others follow you and Kel. =================================== 42049 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi James, Leaving aside all the parts of our discussion that have a 'silly' label on them....(most);-) --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Sarah: Ok, you begin to explain a little here. How does `one' `build > the seven path factors led by right view'? What exactly do you mean > by the `one' here? > > James: By `one' I mean a living entity. This would include: humans, > devas, brahmas, nagas, etc. ... S: Ok, back to 'one'. How is this living entity that builds the seven path factors ever experienced if it exists? Is it seen? Is it heard? Is it smelt? Is it tasted? is it touched? Or, is it merely thought about? Metta, Sarah ======= 42050 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Butting in on Right Concentration/ sobering reminder Dear Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > I think because the Dhamma is timeless, so your message on Right > concentration should not be the exception. … S: Uh-oh! … > > 1. The first comment of Bhikkhu Bodhi (a.) states : "All noble disciples > > acquire the right concentration of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is > defined as the four jhanas. This need not be understood to mean that > stream-enterers and once-returners already possess jhaana before > they reach stream-entry." The first sentence confirms my > understanding that the Right concentration "is defined as the four > jhanas"; and since all noble disciples acquire the Right concentration, > it should directly follow that they all acquire the four jhanas. …. S: I think we need to be careful with such an interpretation as this. This is the point BB was making in his article. http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha267.htm If we read the texts carefully, including the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries, it's clear that prior mastery of the 4 jhanas is not a pre-requisite or even obtained by the majority of ariyans as I understand. Lots I can fish out from U.P., but I won't burden you now;-). Often the Buddha is addressing the way of the most eminent disciples. …. >But > then the > second comment (b.) just contradicts the first (a.) by his saying that > he "would not take it as a rigid pronouncement that all noble disciples > actually possess all four jhaanas, or even one of them". > > Why did he (BB) contradict himself? Or was I confused? (or both) …. S: I don't read it as a contradiction, but I think you need to read his article for BB's own views. I would take them further, by giving more reliance to the Abhidhamma and commentaries still. ….. > 2. You commented : `one-pointednes is fivefold….' I take to mean is > equivalent in the strength to one of the jhanas depending on whether > which --if any-- is used as a base for liberation. For sukkha vipassakas > > (dry insight attainers), the right concentration is equivalent in > strength to > that of first jhana (appana samadhi). > > I am not clear about the point you have made, Sarah. What are the five > things that make the "fivefold" characteristic of "one-pointedness"? > Why did you relate the fivefold-ness to "strength" of the jhanas (4 or 5 > > jhanas?) and "liberation"? …. S: My point was (in the context of BB's notes on Abhid. Sangaha -right concentration) just to add the commentary note here to the text as there was some controversy about BB's note, which didn't seem wrong, depending on how it's read. Usually this will be as you read it. I was merely indicating that BB himself doesn't necessarily read it as a categorical statements about the need for prior attainment of jhanas. Five-fold refers to the 5 jhanas (fivefold system) and I understand that the right concentration at the moment of magga (path consciousness) is of an equivalence in strength (because of the object, nibbana) to the concentration of 1st jhana (even for dry-insight attainers) or to the higher jhanas if these are used as the basis for attainment (i.e arising just prior to these magga javana cittas). Htoo gives good detail on this point. Maybe he can repeat his relevant section if necessary. ….. Please let me know if you have any disagreement or wish me to say more. Metta, Sarah ======= 42051 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Hugo Thanks for coming in here. I've been enjoying your recent posts, very thought-provoking. I can see you've been giving a lot of thought to the teachings since your break from the list; most commendable. >Does this mean that I should stop worrying about keeping the 5 >precepts, meditation, keeping a calm mind and go and party all-night >on weekends as long as I don't think that it is "me" who is partying? >and as long as I see all those ladies dancing around as just a stream >of cittas (nice and curvy cittas by the way)? > > What I was trying to say is that if and when aksuala arises, as it must surely do much more than we would like it to, we should not see that as precluding the (contemporaneous) arising of useful reflection or even awareness. As I think you yourself were suggesting in another post, whatever is going on can be an occasion for the development of some level of kusala or another. >>so as long as right view is being >>developed there is progress towards the path regardless of the amount of >>akusala of other kinds. >> >> > >How is this right view developed? > >If I do something in order to develop it, isn't it deliberate >practice, am I not doing something with the specific intention of >developing right view? > > Right view is developed by the occurrence of a combination of factors: hearing the dhamma explained in a way that is suitable for our level of understanding, reflecting on what we have heard, and considering the application of what has thus been realised intellectually to the present moment. It is a subtle and invisible process, but one that can be verified over a period of time, if we have the necessary confidence in the teachings and patience. How do these factors come about? Well one of the ways they can occur is by participating in useful discussion with others who also have some knowledge of the teachings and are likewise trying to understand them, such as we are fortunate to find on this list. I think you'd agree that your recent positing is proving to be a condition for a lot of reflection on what you have heard and read previously (and continue to read here). Yet would you call your participation here 'doing something in order to develop right view? -- I don't think so. I think for the most part we all participate here out of interest in the subject-matter, and out of an appreciation of the value of this kind of discussion, and not with the specific intention of developing right view, and certainly not as a deliberate practice. Those are my thoughts. I'd be interested to hear your comments. Jon 42052 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:26pm Subject: Walking Meditation in Praxis ... !!! Friends: Walking Meditation in Praxis: General: Walking is suitable for insight meditations (vipassana), but not optimal for calmness mediations (samatha), because of the inherent active bodily unrest. Development of deeper states of tranquillity & attainment of the absorptions (jhana) is difficult while walking. Suitable Walking Meditation Objects: Remembrance & recollection of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, Morality, Generosity, Devas, Impermanence, Suffering, Impersonality, Peace, Body Organs, Decaying Corpse, Skeleton & Disgust with all Worldly are suitable for walking meditation. The 4 Infinite States: Friendliness, Pity, Sympathy & Equanimity, defining of the 4 Primary Elements: Solid Extension, Fluid Cohesion, Vibrating Heat & Energetic Motion are suitable for walking meditation. The four Foundations of Awareness: Body as mere forms, feeling as mere responses, mind as mere moods, phenomena as mere mental states. Awareness & clear comprehension of current activity and perception of repulsiveness in food are also quite suitable for walking meditation. Personal Characters suited for walking meditation: The passionate, greedy & desirous nature and the speculative character are both well suited for walking meditation. The angry, aversive & easily irritated person should not walk, but do mainly the 4 good-will meditations either sitting or lying. Hop to Practice: Calm forward walking, clearly aware, conscious, collected & comprehending, on an unobstructed, simple, flat surface, either in rounds or back & forth. The mind should be firmly fixed & anchored on the meditation object. Whenever it strays into a distraction, it should be hauled back & re-established on the current object, which not should be left or given up before completed. The gaze should be 1-2 m. downward in front of the feet. Ultra-slow or other Monty-Python-John-Gleese like modes of walking should be avoided. The body should be relaxed & at ease, since it is the enhanced focus of the mind, which is important here, and not the movements of the frame. Duration: Beginner = 45 min. Advanced: ~ 1-3 hours.. When to do walking meditation? 1: When the mind is lax, lethargic or lazy. Slow & Low 2: When the mind is overly agitated & restless. High & Tense. 3: When the mind is overcome by profuse worry & recurring regrets. Tricks of the Trade: One should 'Carry' the meditation object as if closely followed by a tall, strong man with a sharp sword, drawn & raised, ready to chop of one's head right at the moment one 'Loose' awareness of the meditation object & strays into distraction...! Whenever that happens, then one should note it..., go back to where it happened & 'Pick Up' the meditation object exactly where & whenever it is lost. Keep on keeping on: The blessed Buddha repeatedly said: 'Friends, here are plenty of tree-roots, caves, forests, parks, open spaces, empty places and remote lonely huts. Meditate right now or else you may regret it later...' Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. 42053 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:42am Subject: Amoeba / Citta Dear Dhamma Friends, This whole message appeared at Universalanswer. As the message composer, Tep allowed to forward to DSG, I forward this message for the interest of others. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tep and All, Tep wrote: Friend Htoo and Everyone (who reads and writes): Htoo answered my question about uniqueness of the citta: > > There is no other thing that know apart from citta. Because it is the characteristic of citta. What is the characteristic (or what are the characteristics) of the citta that explains (or explain) its ability to know? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Q1. What is the characteristic of the citta that explains its ability to know? Q1a. What are the characteristics of the citta that explain its ability to know? These 2 questions are too complicated to answer. I may answer the question 'what is the characteristic of citta?'. But I do not know what you meant by 'citta that explains its ability to know'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tep asked: Q2. Why is nothing else like the citta in the whole limitless universe? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Because it is unique to citta. That is the ability to know. Materials and matters cannot know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tep asked: Q3. Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases to exist) after Nibbana? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nibbana is timeless phenomena. So nibbana does not have before or after. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tep continued: You may cite a few references (including your own on-line files) instead of answering me, if you cannot give clear reply in one post. Thanks. Warm regards, Tep P.S. you may be interested in posting this thread at DSG. ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your allowance. I will forward this message to DSG. With Metta, Htoo Naing 42054 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/11/05 12:31:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > The true Dhamma practice is never intentional (deliberate > conventional activity). It only occurs in a moment when the mental > factors sati and panna arise to know reality the way the Buddha > taught it. So it is these conditioned dhammas that practise, not > people. > ==================== Thay reminds me of a book title (which book I never read), namely "The Accidental Buddhist"! ;-)) BTW, Ken, it is of course true that there are no people (actually) to do anything, but only conditions occuring. What is important, as I see it, is what one concludes from that. A "devout" subatomic physicist might point out to his Newtonian brother that he cannot sit down at the table to eat, as there are only pi-muons etc interacting with other such elusive event-things, and suggest that he simply not worry about being hungry! ;-)) 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) 42055 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Hi Nina and Hugo Nina, the reference in Hugo's post to 'unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught' (I'm guessing 'Anuttaro purisa-damma-saarathi' from the Pali text quoted by Hugo) in the recollection on the Buddha caught my eye, and I wondered if it was the same as the reference to 'taming' that we came across the other day in the sutta from AN: > The wise prescribe giving, > Harmlessness, self-control and taming, which you explained as follows: >>>> N: Taming, in Pali dama,... taming, subduing. The Co adds: uposatha sila, and also in the Punnovaadasutta: khanti, patience, and also pannaa in the Alavakasutta. Thus, taming includes several qualities, patience and wisdom. Harmlessness, self-control and taming are virtues of the recluse. He lives a life of non-violence. Also laypeople can develop those virtues. >>>> >Anuttaro purisa-damma-saarathi satthaa deva-manussaana"m buddho bhagavaa; > unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & >divine beings; awakened; blessed; > > >So, the first thing is to find out if you are one of those who can be >taught, and if you are go ahead and train yourself. Just the fact >that one is interested in Buddhism, is probably a good indication that >one is trainable. > > Hugo, thanks for the quote. I'd be interested to know what indication you find in the suttas as to *how* this 'training oneself' is to occur, what it means exactly. Jon 42056 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hi, Sukin - Sukin, I'm adding no further comments below. I'm including all of your post, as I just don't know what parts to snip. ;-) I'm writing just to say that I think that this yours an impressive presentation: moderate, clear, calm, useful, and given with humility. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/11/05 2:37:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Hugo, > > I just read Ken H's reply to your post in which he said: > > "I see your method as, "Practical Psychology in Daily Life", as > distinct from, "Abhidhamma in Daily Life."" > > I had come to more or less the same conclusion after reading this > and some other posts of yours. But I like the spirit with which you > try to apply what you have learnt to daily life. I think it will be > a major asset if you are converted to the non-doing perspective ;-). > > I think you realize that it is easy to project any `theory' onto > experiences and everyone does it, Buddhists or non-Buddhists. I > agree that the Buddha's teachings are very different from other > teachings even when understood incorrectly. The teachings about > conditionality, particularly the Tilakkhana allows for greater > fluidity. However this can also be like a double-edged sword, > because as we think we understand deeper and better, the path may > have been miccha due to wrong view and attachment to the illusion of > result at each level. > > A couple or so years ago I started to wonder if this was not > happening with me, was I projection the Abhidhamma theory on to > experiences? Sarah helped me by pointing out to the effect, that > whatever we `think', there is still only what arises at the moment. > From then on I didn't think about this problem. Because, truly there > is a `reality' which appears at any given moment and these can be > known with increasing familiarity. > > Abhidhamma is simple and straight to the point in this regard. On > the basic level of nama-rupa distinction and the classification of > citta, cetasika, rupa and Nibbana, one is less inclined to > complicate matters. We learn that the object of satipatthana are > these ultimate realities and so learn to differentiate `thinking' of > concepts (self, people and situations) from `mindfulness' of > dhammas. Yet panna can arise and motivated by chanda, to study more > deep and intricate aspects of the teachings, but all this with the > object of knowing in order to become detached. > > I think this is one important distinguishing factor between right > and wrong practice. The former will always be accompanied by > detachment, while the latter will more and more attach to a practice > and ritual. > > The reason I don't "try hard" to understand D.O. or think about > seeing it in daily life is because I realize that if I don't > understand the characteristic of dhammas, then I would invariably be > projecting an idea onto the world. I have seen people go so far as > to suggest that D.O. operates in the physical world as well!! On the > other hand, I am waiting for the day that I might have the time to > study Rob M's chart in which he has shown in terms of the 24 > conditions, what is operating at each link in the D.O. This appeals > to me more, because individual conditions are easier to understand > intellectually and they don't tempt one into trying to see phenomena > in a linear and sequential way as D.O. often does. > > I think it is important to know what one *can* understand and go > slowly, instead of trying hard to understand everything. Other > people may have the accumulations to jump straight into D.O. without > creating this gap between what one really understands and what one > thinks one understands. I would want to be more careful and take > baby steps if that is all I am capable of. ;-) But of course this > does not happen very often. Too great accumulations of greed and > ignorance here. :-( > > Metta, > > Sukin. > > ps: Please invite me to Google mail. Thanks in advance. > /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) 42057 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/11/05 4:48:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > Hi, Howard > > Thanks for these thoughts. > > >>I believe it is correct to say that consciousness must have an object, > >>but I am not sure whether that must necessarily be an "actual object", > >>whatever that may mean, since as far as I understand things there is > >>nothing 'actual' about thoughts, only about the consciousness > >>concerned. Sorry I'm not able to explain it any better than this, of > >>course I'm not speaking from direct experience here ;-)). > >> > >> > >> > >====================== > > Two thoughts, Jon: > > > > 1) A non-actual (i.e. imagined) object is not an object at all. In > >fact it is nothing. There may be the imagining tht there is an object, but > that > >does not create some thing that is an "imagined object". > > > > > > This is correct. An 'imagined object' cannot be 'an object'. But I'm > not sure we are being consistent in our use of 'object' here. The term > 'object' is used to mean both 'thing' and, especially in this context, > 'what is experienced by ' [consciousness]. What I am trying to say is > that the latter meaning does not necessarily encompass the former. But > I admit I am not sure of my ground here ;-)) > ---------------------------------------- Howard: That is part of why I enjoy speaking with you, Jon. You are straightforward and reality-oriented, not "faking it". --------------------------------------- > > > 2) As far as thoughts not being actual, are not mental pictures, > >recognitions, and recollections of tastes, sights, and sounds thoughts that > are > >"actual"? Why is a recalled sound any less "actual" than, say, anger? > > > > > > This is an important issue. As I understand the teachings, 'presently > experienced sound' and 'presently arisen anger' are 'actual', as is the > *consciousness* that contrives mental pictures, that recognises > sense-door experiences and that recollects tastes, sights and sounds. > But there is no 'level of actuality' for [so-called] mental pictures, > recognitions and recollections of tastes, sights and sounds, that is to > say, these are not to be found among the 'actualities'. There *is* > mental imaging etc., but there *is no thing* called a mental image etc. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: This position actually has great appeal to me, but I'm afraid I'm not fully persuaded of its correctness, and were I so persuaded, then I would dismiss the notion that every moment of consciousness involves an object, because, to me, an "imagined object" is no object at all. ---------------------------------------- > > This of course may or may not be the way things seem to us to be, but I > see no need to take a personal position on the matter -- what would be > the point of that? > ------------------------------------- Howard: No point in either taking a personal position or in adopting that of an "expert" (a.k.a., "ancient commentator"), but to just look and see, guided by the Buddha - the reliable expert. ------------------------------------- > > Jon > =================== 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) 42058 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread (266) Dear Dhamma Friends, If human beings are still not an arahat and they do not have any jhana the cittas that are arising and falling away in them will be one of 45 cittas or one of 45 state of mind. a) 12 states of mind, which are unwholesome 8 states of mind led by attachment as main root. 1. happy-minded, illuded, and unprompted state of mind 2. happy-minded, illuded, and prompted state of mind 3. happy-minded, non-illuded, and unprompted state of mind 4. happy-minded, non-illuded, and prompted state of mind 5. indifferent-minded, illuded, and unprompted state of mind 6. indifferent-minded, illuded, and prompted state of mind 7. indifferent-minded, non-illuded, and unprompted state of mind 8. indifferent-minded, non-illuded, and prompted state of mind These 8 states of mind are unwholesome states of mind. All these 8 states have the power that create 'future potentials', which can give rise to their direct results. As soon as these 8 states have happened, there have arisen 'potentials' and these potentials are there all the time as long as there are states of consciousness. It is potentials and it is not existences. Example in Physics can be seen in 'potentils' or 'static energy' in a hugh stone which has arisen on the top of a mountain. If there are conditions that favour implementation of potentials into existences, then that potentials energy in that hugh stone will come into existence as 'kinetic energy' that is falling down the cliff and crushing things lying below the mountain. Above 8 states of mind are known as 'lobha cittas'. There are 2 states of mind, which are also unwholesome. They are 1. angry-minded, destructive, and unprompted state of mind 2. angry-minded, destructive, and prompted state of mind These 2 states can also give rise to potentials that can give rise to results. These 2 states of mind are known as 'dosa cittas'. There are further 2 states of mind, which are unwholesome. 1. indifferent-minded, doubted state of mind 2. indifferent-minded, wandering state of mind These 2 states can also give rise to potentials that can give rise to results. These 2 states of mind are known as 'moha cittas'. Lobha cittas, dosa cittas, moha cittas altogether 12 states of mind are also known as unwholesome states of mind or '12 akusala cittas'. b) 15 states of mind, which are resulted from past conviction. 7 states of mind are resulted from unwholesome actions stated above 8 states of mind are resulted from wholesome action, coming soon. b)I. 7 states of mind resulted from unwholesome actions in the past 1. indifferent-minded eye-conscious state of mind,which knows sight 2. indifferent-minded ear-conscious state of mind,which knows sound 3. indifferent-minded nose-conscious state of mind,e knows smell 4. indifferent-minded tongue-conscious state of mind, e knows taste 5. indifferent-minded body-conscious state of mind, e knows touch 6. indifferent-minded state of mind, which receives the object 1/5 7. indifferent-minded state of mind,e investigate the object 1/5 b)II. 8 states of mind resulted from wholesome actions in the past 1. indifferent-minded eye-conscious state of mind,e knows sight 2. indifferent-minded ear-conscious state of mind,e knows sound 3. indifferent-minded nose-conscious state of mind,e knows smell 4. indifferent-minded tongue-conscious state of mind, e knows taste 5. indifferent-minded body-conscious state of mind, e knows touch 6. indifferent-minded state of mind, which receives the object 1/5 7. happy-mined state of mind, which investigates the object 1/5 8. indifferent-minded state of mind,e investigates the object 1/5 e = which There are 2 functional states of mind, consciousness of which do not have any future potentials to give rise further results. So these 2 states of mind are known as inoperational consciousness or functional consciousness or kiriya cittas. In ordinary people these 2 states can happen. For arahats there is another functional consciousness which can be serving as mental impulsive consciousness. It is 'smiling mind of arahats' called 'hasituppada citta'. In ordinary human beings c)2 functional consciousness are 1. indifferent-minded 5-door-adverting state of mind 2. indifferent-minded mind-door-adverting state of mind d) 8 states of mind, which are resulted from past actions 1. happy-minded, wisdom-loaded, and unprompted state of mind 2. happy-minded, wisdom-loaded, and prompted state of mind 3. happy-minded, wisdom-less, and unprompted state of mind 4. happy-minded, wisdom-less, and prompted state of mind 5. indifferent-minded, wisdom-loaded, and unprompted state of mind 6. indifferent-minded, wisdom-loaded, and prompted state of mind 7. indifferent-minded, wisdom-less, and unprompted state of mind 8. indifferent-minded, wisdom-less, and prompted state of mind These 8 states of mind are the states when human mind is not at a particular object in this current world that is 'sight/light' 'sound' 'smell' 'taste' 'touch' and 'though-related to these senses at the current moment'. These 8 states of mind are called as 'life-continuing states of mind' or 'bhavanga cittas'. The same state happens at each moment when human mind is not at the current-world's object. This is also right for the very first moment of a life and it is called 'linking consciousness' or 'rebirth-consciousness' or 'patisandhi citta'. The same state happen at the very last moment of a life and that state of mind is called 'dying consciousness' or 'life-leaving consciousness' or 'cuti citta'. All these 8 states of mind are resultant consciousness and they do not produce any potentials for future effect. These 8 states of mind can arise as retaining consciousness, while they are retaining the object in the procession of consciousness when the current-world-object is being taken. They are called retaining consciousness or 'tadarammana cittas'. e) 8 states of mind, which are wholesome 1. happy-minded, wisdom-loaded, and unprompted state of mind 2. happy-minded, wisdom-loaded, and prompted state of mind 3. happy-minded, wisdom-less, and unprompted state of mind 4. happy-minded, wisdom-less, and prompted state of mind 5. indifferent-minded, wisdom-loaded, unprompted state of mind 6. indifferent-minded, wisdom-loaded, prompted state of mind 7. indifferent-minded, wisdom-less, and unprompted state of mind 8. indifferent-minded, wisdom-less, and prompted state of mind These 8 states are known as 'wholesome consciousness' or 'kusala cittas'. When human beings are doing good things or profitable things these 8 states of mind develop. Because of these 8 states of mind their corresponding resultant consciousness have to arise when there are conditions that favour their arising. These 8 states are seed- producers or they are kamma-producers. 12 unwholesome states of mind are also seed-producers or kamma-producers. As long as human beings do not have jhana [absorption-consciousness] or magga [path-consciousness] or phala [fruition-consciousness], there will be continuous arising of states of mind as describe above. So human being [as we designated] will be at any given moment one of these 45 states of mind. These 45 states of mind are not arising in random fashion but they are arising in exactly sequenced manners. There are 2 different sequences. 1. procession-free sequence of mind 2. states of mind in procession Procession-free sequencing can be seen when human beings are in deep sleep. This is the exact sample for 'procession-free sequence of mind'. But these procession-free sequence of mind can also occur when human beings are awake and active. This is a natural phenomena and this seems for avoidance of tiredness or worn-out. So even in a wakeful state, there happen procession-free sequence of mind and procession of states of mind in exact sequence alternatively. There are 6 different sequences. 1. sequence of states of mind while human being sees something 2. sequence of states of mind while human being hears something 3. sequence of states of mind while human being smells something 4. sequence of states of mind while human being tastes something 5. sequence of states of mind while human being touches something These 5 sequences are called '5-door sequenced states of mind'. 6. sequence of states of mind while human being is thinking on one of 5 senses or its related matters. This last sequence is called 'mind-door sequenced states of mind'. So we will be at some point here when analysed. A) sequenced states of mind in procession B) procession-free sequence of states of mind So we will be in either of these 2 states at a moment. If we are at a moment in A) that is in a sequenced states of mind in procession then we will be somewhere in the 6 sequences of procession-states of mind. 6 sequences are 1. seeing sequence 2. hearing sequence 3. smelling sequence 4. tasting sequence 5. touching sequence 6. thinking sequence The example for the first 5 sequences is here. As soon as procession-free sequnece stops there arise in procession 1. a functional consciousness called 5-door-adverting consciousness 2. a resultant state of mind seeing/hearing/smelling/tasting/touching 3. a resultant state of mind, receiving one of the objects of 5 4. a resultant state of mind, investigating the above object 5. a functional consciousness called mind-door-adverting consciousness doing the job of determination how to apperceive the whole object 6. a state of mind which is one of 12 states of unwholesome conscious. or one of 8 states of wholesome consciousness 7. the same state of mind as in 6 8. 3rd time arising of the same state of mind as in 6 9. 4th time 10.5th time 11.6th time 12.7th time arising of the same state of mind as in 6 13. a resultant state of mind, which is one of 8 states of mind resulted from the past action or one of 3 resultant states which can also investigate the object while doing the job of retaining the current object that was taken by 7th mental impulsive consciousness in 12. 14. the same state of mind as in 13. At the end of this 14 state of mind the object disappears, the supporting material also disappears and as there is no more object [arammana] and no more door [dvara] there is no way to arise a state of mind in procession. So just for continuation as a life there has to arise life-continuing state of mind called bhavanga citta. And this is switching over to another sequence called 'procession-free state of mind'. At each state of mind there are many many factors that involve in their specific state of mind. When these sequences are investigated there is no being, no person, and no atta at all. Some may argue whether the knowledge this helps clearing anger or other defilements. This will depend on individuals. All these are just description and this is not path-walking but path-preparing stage. Path-walking needs more energy and needs right recipe to formulate. I believe this whole message is described in full English. Currently Dhamma Thread is discussing about 31 realms and this is about the first realm discussing on cittas or consciousness that can arise in human realm. There are 45 states of mind. These 45 states which also include thier associated mental factors and along with materials are almost always illuded by human beings and this illusion cause them believing 'this is human, this is a man, this is a woman, this is an enemy, this is a loved one, and so on'. As long as there is identity of self there will be illusion. As long as there are illusion there is no light and if there is no light there will be a complete darkness. This darkness causes everything what we think as good or bad and their implications. Illusion is false interpretation of real existences. Example a rope is falsely interpreted as a snake and this is illusion. This illusion happen when there is not enough light. Or when there is not enough judgement or wisdom as when human being is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. In the same manner, the real existence citta, cetasikas, and rupas are falsely interpreted [ditthi] into 'this is a man, this is a woman, this is an enemy, this is a loved one'. If there is no illusion [ditthi] then there will not be self-identity view and this absence of self-identity will not make any 'jealousy' 'stinginess'. If this stage is reached, there will not be any doubt on 3 refuges called The Buddha, The Dhamma, and The Sangha. This is stage that happens when a stream is entered. That stream is flowing into ocean. Oceans are places where water never overspills. When housands, millions, billions of beings enter nibbana there is no overspillage. This is always right and nibbana will never be filled because of entering of new and new nibbana-achievers. When it is the first step joining the flow into the stream, it is called stream-enterer or stream-entrant. In summary, in our current world there are human beings and these are in realities cittas in different sequences. Human beings are nothing but illusion of different states of these 45 consciousness. And this is always right as long as human beings have not attained any jhana or magga or phala, after which there will be modification of states of mind in human realm. These 45 states of mind are a) 12 states of mind, which are unwholesome b) 7 states of mind, which are resultant states derived from bad acts c) 8 states of mind, which are resultant states derived from good d) 2 states of mind, which are functional e) 8 states of mind, which are resultant states from good actions but with good roots f) 8 states of mind, which are wholesome consciousness ------- 45 states of mind, which arise in human beings May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42059 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Dear Tep, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:12:52 -0000, Tep Sastri wrote: > I knew that Ken wrote that message for you, not for me. But Ken had > thrown similar 'stony' words at me before. The words are strong and > judgemental. I have never agreed with his judgement. > > I was sarcastic, but my sarcasm was not so evident because the > cutting edge was turned toward myself. (I did not want to hurt anyone > with words.) So my response sounded to you as if I "took his words > and made it into a weapon" against myself. Ah!, ok. -- Hugo 42060 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:44am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > ========= > > [Reply to #41900 above] > > Dear RobertK, > > I am glad that finally, after some eye-opening helps from James, you > have a clearer understanding of Acharn Mun as is shown in your own > message (#41973) below: > > Dear Sukinder, > The World Fellowship of Buddhists were distributing A. Muns > biography and they serialized it. I met one of the editors in 1985 > (when they were at the other end of Sukumvit road), he was a strong > supporter of A. Boowa and recommended I should stay at A. Boowa's > temple. > They were not at all happy with Venerable Nyanaponika's criticisim > of A. Mun. THis is some of the published reply: > > "To Ven. Nyanaponika, Forest Hermitage, Kandy > I have received your letter dated decemeber 1975 strongly > criticising the biography of the venerable meditation master phra > acharn Mun Bhuridatto. It did not come as surprise that the English > version should be no less controversial than its Thai counterpart.. > [it was]strongly criticised by a number or readers who could not > tolerate what was contradictory to their former belief. Some of them > I dare say did so out of sheer jealousy and to flatter their own > egotisn and vanity rather than out of genuine doubt. To such people > no amount of ect." > <....>Nibbana, unlike the materialists death, does not end all. If > acceptance of this fact should bring the Theravdins a bit closer to > the Mahayanists then it is to be willingly accepted. After all it is > better than a concept that brings us closer to the materialists isnt > it."endquote WFB > >----------------------- Dear Tep, Actually I didn't give an opinion on the debate, I was only reporting both sides. As it happens I agree with (the late) Venerable Nyanaponika Mahathera. I don't think that after arahants pass away they still exist somehow. Nor do I believe that it is possible for anyone to see or converse with past Buddhas. Robertk 42061 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi, Robert (and Tep) - In a message dated 2/11/05 11:56:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Tep, > Actually I didn't give an opinion on the debate, I was only > reporting both sides. > As it happens I agree with (the late) Venerable Nyanaponika > Mahathera. I don't think that after arahants pass away they still > exist somehow. Nor do I believe that it is possible for anyone to > see or converse with past Buddhas. > Robertk > ====================== What I think is the important question is whether an arahant existed in any way *more* while alive than after death. What is your take on that? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 42062 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:16am Subject: Dhamma Thread (267) Dear Dhamma Friends, We are nothing but sequencing of states of mind. There are 45 states of mind that can arise in human being. This is just in ordinary state. If a human being attains 1st rupa jhana then there is midification. That is there will be 46 possible alternatives in sequencing. 45 states have well been described in the previous post. This new extra state of mind is an absorptive state of mind. It is absorptive consciousness. It is 1st jhana citta or it is 1st rupa jhana citta. This jhana is called material absorptive state of mind. Because there is relationship with material matter. There are 5 absorptive states of mind. They are numbered in reverse order depending on components of absorptive state of mind. Reverse order means when there are 5 components that absorptive state of mind is called 1st jhana. 4 components will make 2nd jhana, 3 components will make 3rd jhana, and 2 components will make 4th jhana. In 5th jhana there are also 2 components as in case of 4th jhana. But there is a modification in a component. That component is 'feeling' part of mind. In the 4th jhana there is a feeling which is assoicated with happiness. But as soon as that happiness is replaced by equanimity in the setting of absorption, it becomes 5th jhana absorptive state of mind. For the first absorptive state of mind to arise there have to be many many preparations. This state of mind is not an ordinary state even though the state is still not a supramundane it is higher than sensuous-sphere consciousness. As this absorptive state is in between sensuous-sphere consciousness and supramundane consciousness it is called as middle-consciousness or majjhima citta. As soon as the absorptive state has been achieved there will be a change in lineage. This is from sensuous-sphere to non-sensuous- sphere. In this example it is fine-material-sphere consciousness of wholesome origin. This is that the arisen consciousness is a state of mind, which is an wholesome action and called kusala citta. As the sphere is fine-material-sphere it is called rupakusala citta or 'fine- material-wholesome-consciousness. For such a change, all kama related things have to be dropped. So people who want to achieve jhana in real term MUST stop practising sex. This also include all minor sensuous-sphere matters like looking at sensuous matters and beings, listening to their voice with erotic thinking, following smell, taste, touch related to these matters. The practitioner has to practise 8-parted moral conduct called ajivatthamaka siila. This means they have to practise 8 abstinences. 1. abstinence from killing any life 2. abstinence from stealing 3. abstinence from any sex and sex related matters 4. abstinence from telling lies 5. abstinence from telling harsh speech 6. abstinence from telling divisive speech 7. abstinence from telling non-sense speech 8. abstinence from taking intoxicants like alcohol, drugs, addictives These are crucial and without these 8, there will not be progress. As lineage is not the same as human realm thing all these 8 must be practised by prospective practitioner of absorptive states of mind. This new sphere is free of ill will, free of anger, free of fury and free of sex. The result of these wholesome states of mind are rebirth as brahmas. Brahmas are deva or celestial beings who do not have any sex. So they are not man and they are not woman. They all are sex- less beings. After construction of these 8 moral conducts the prospective practitioner has to choose a method of cultivating mind called kammatthana or absorptive meditation. There are 40 kinds of samatha meditation or tranquility-meditation. But not all 40 can give rise to absorptive states. There are 30 absorptive meditations that can give rise to total absorption. They are a) 10 kasina kammatthana or 'whole-circle' absorptive meditation b) 10 asubha kammatthana or 'foul-corpse' absorptive meditation c) 4 brahmavihara kammatthana or '4 unlimitables meditation' d) 1 anapanasati or breathing meditation e) 1 kayagatasati or 'recollection of 32 body parts' f) 4 aruppa kammatthana or 'non-material absorptive meditation'. -------- 30 kinds of tranquility meditation that give rise to absorptive state of mind Not all 30 are suitable for 1st jhana or 1st material absorptive state of mind. a) 10 b) 10 c) 3 ( upekkha brahmavihara or equanimous unlimitable is eliminated) d) 1 e) 1 ( all 4 of f) excluded because they can only be practise after ----- 5th material absorptive state) 25 meditations May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42063 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hello Ken, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:35:58 -0000, kenhowardau wrote: > I was talking about case 1 - "a mind moment of formalised vipassana > practice." Before that, I had been talking to Hugo about a mind > moment of "being interested in one's own personal practice," which > might be a sign of attachment and desire for personal gain. I agree, and actually it is, I am attached to the Path, I have the desire to be Enlightened, and I am actively searching on what is the best way to do it. If you are subscribed to DSG, if you are reading Dhamma books, if you are having Dhamma discussions, if you are observing with wisdom, aren't those your own personal practice? Aren't those intentional practices? Aren't you also interested in them? Isn't it the fact that you don't do certain other practices a sign of aversion towards those practices because you think they won't lead you to Enlightenment, but instead you do certain other things because you think they will lead you to Enlightenement (which means that the things you do are also rooted on greed)? > Then, I was talking to Tep about the idea of actually doing > something in an attempt to bring about samatha or vipassana > development. That's where I suggested wrong view might be added to > the citta description. So, Ken, please explain me how you "do nothing" ? The way I see it, you always "do something", you always "choose". I invite you to meditate one hour daily, your only options are: a) do it. b) don't do it. Either one you do is because you choose to do it. So, meditating is an intentional practice, not meditating is also an intentional practice. If I am wrong, please, really please, point the failure in the argument. > Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear in "a > mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same be said for "a > mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha described Dhamma > study as one of the factors leading to enlightenment, but he > described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. If > we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not > contradicting the Buddha? I think you are mixing things here. If I do chanting, and I believe that just because I am chanting I will become enlightened, then that is rite and rituals and thus it is a fetter. But, if I do chanting and when I am chanting I am reflecting on what the chant says, and try to implement that in my life, then the chant is effective, not per se, but as a tool that will make "me" less prone to perform unwholesome behaviors. The same for meditation, if you think that just by sitting to meditate and getting high on Jhanas will lead you to enlightenment, well, as the other Ken has pointed it many times, that's not true, the Jhanas won't lead you to Enlightenment. I agree. But if you sit to meditate and you try to do what The Buddha taught and see what he described, then I think that is good. Also, some people might be able to do that without sitting to meditated, cool!, excellent, but some other people can't do that, so they need a calm place with a specific time, cool too. To illustrate it, let's go to the extreme, if you are alcoholic and drug user, how do you become enlightened?, you need to first work on the gross and obvious faults and keep working on them until they becomer subtle and subtle, then dissappear then you move to the next level of faults, and so on. Actually it is the same way you go through the Jhanas (per the descriptions I have read, I haven't got to even the first) you go to subtle and subtle levels. > I should add that any period of time contains a diversity of cittas. > So, even while we are sitting cross-legged on a cushion or > concentrating on walking, there are much more than "moments of > formalised vipassana practice." There are moments of hearing, > touching, thinking and so on. Yes, of course, what do you think you are "observing"? Do you think that we sit to meditate to watch the supramundane, or to see the flow of cittas appear in front of us? You need to work with what you have, if all you can "see" is your breath, then that's what you observe, if a thought appears, then you just notice it appeared and try to not follow it, if pain appears, you note it and try to not follow it. Whatever it appears you try to do something (which might be to ignore it). Again, I am not an expert in the matter, I am not advising people to do anything, I am describing what I do, go and search a meditation teacher for advise, I am far, far from being qualified. The way I wrote might sound like an advice for some, but it is not, it is just the way "it flew out" from my hands. :-) > There can even be moments of right > understanding. But I wouldn't bet on it. The person who, at one > moment, believes he can control dhammas is unlikely to, at another > moment, directly understand reality as just conditioned nama and > rupa. Is there control of anything?, who controls what?, how is it being controlled?, I don't know. All I can say is the experiments I have done and the results I have gotten. I know that if I do something I get certain output. For example, in the past I used to have aversion toward certain people, whenever they were mentioned, or the name of their company or they appeared on T.V. or whatever, I felt anger arise. So, I worked on Metta meditation, and now whenever I see their photos, hear their names, anger doesn't arise. So, did the Metta meditation helped?, I guess so, because for years I had those angry feeling arise, now they don't. I had to work in levels, first I had to restrain myself saying "next time they appear on T.V. you won't utter an insult", "next time you read something on the news, you won't utter an insult", then I didn't need to apply the restraint because the anger didn't even arise. Same thing with a lot of other things in my life. Greetings, -- Hugo 42064 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/Hugo Hello Connie, I am not sure if I follow you, as you didn't quote to what you were replying, it seems you summarized a lot of my points, so I will try. On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:34:53 -0800, connie wrote: > I don't think it's a matter of having two options - do or don't > "meditate". There is meditation whether we think we choose to do anything > or not... that is, throughout the whole day, not just a chosen hour, > something is always accumulating or developing, be it more ignorance or > the rare bit of understanding. Yes!!, I agree 100% And actually I think we should aim to be mindful 100% of the time, which is really tricky, once we are mindful, then wisdom will arise (I think). > As for the reasons we tell ourselves, I > guess that's the self-esteem thing and good or bad, it's in the way. It's > just more sticking a self-image into a picture where it's out of place. I got lost here, sorry. > I > agree with you that self-esteem, -image, -concept, -identity, -view, -etc > isn't the boogey-man; it's the reason there are boogie men. Nice!, I like that phrase!!! -- Hugo 42065 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:49am Subject: Dhamma Thread (268) Dear Dhamma Friends, Even though there are only 30 tranquility meditations that can give rise to absorptive level, all 40 kinds of tranquility meditation help the jhana practitioner for his preparation. There are 10 kasina or 10 'wholeness-circle' meditations. A) 10 kasina meditations 1. earth circle [pathavi kasina] 2. water circle [apo kasina] 3. fire circle [tejo kasina] 4. wind circle [vayo kasina] 5. blue circle [niila kasina] 6. yellow circle[piita kasina] 7. red circle [lohita kasina] 8. white circle [odaata kasina] 9. space circle [aakaasa kasina] 10. light circle [aaloka kasina] There are 10 'foul-body corpse' meditation or asubha kammatthanas. B) 10 asubha kammatthanas 1.swollen corpse [uddhumaataka asubha] 2.stained corpse [viniilaka] 3.putrified corpse [vipubbaka] 4.dismembered corpse [vicchiddaka] 5.gnawed corpsed [vikkhaayitaka ] 6.scattered-body-part corpse [vikkhittaka] 7.spread-body-part corpse [hatavikkhittaka] 8.bleeding corpse [lohitaka] 9.lice-eaten corpse [pulluvaka] 10.skeleton corpse [atthika] C) 10 recollections or 10 anussati kammatthanas 1.attributes of The Buddha [Buddha-anussati] 2.attributes of The Dhamma [Dhamma] 3.attributes of The Sangha [Sangha] 4.recollection of moral conduct [siila] 5.recollection of offering [caaga] 6.recollection of merit [devataa] 7.recollection of nibbana [upasama] 8.recollection of death [marana] 9.recollection of body parts [kayagata] 10.recollection of breath [anapana] D) 4 brahmavihara kammatthana or 4 unlimitables 1. loving kindness [metta] 2. compassion [karuna] 3. sympathetic joy [mudita] 4. equanimity [upekkha] E) aharepatikula sanna or thinking of disgust in food F) catudhatuvavatthana or division of 4 element in own body G) 4 non-material meditation 1. boundless space [aakananancaayatana] 2. boundless consciousness [vinnananancayatana] 3. nothingness [aakincinnayatana] 4. neither-perception-nor-non-perception [nevasanna-nasannayatana] May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts on Dhamma Thread. 42066 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Apologies - slower than usual.. Dear Sarah, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:42:00 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott wrote: > Thx for asking, Hugo. I'm just about here! I sprained my ankle on the > first day of the Chinese N.Y. hol Is that considered good luck or bad luck ?? :-) > (not serious at all this time, but it > happened a few hours away from public transport on a remote beach), so > I've been hobbling on sticks, taking pain-killers and anti-inflams and > lots of rest with leg up, so I've been unable to sit at the computer. Ouch! I hope you get better soon, nice time to reflect on the prone to illnessess and imperfections of this body of ours. :-) -- Hugo 42067 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Jon (and Howard) In a message dated 2/11/2005 2:18:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. These are different ways by which dhammas are classified. I do not like dealing with long posts and only have myself to blame for the one you were responding to was quite long. Let me just deal with these two statements you made. In the first one above... Please provide a Sutta reference to back this up. If you don't know of one, and if one exists, I'm sure Nina or Sarah would know exactly where one existed, if it did exist. This is crucial. Feelings and other dhammas are not 'formed from' anything. They may be 'conditioned by' strings of contacts, but that is another matter altogether. If it is 'formed from' something, it's not a dhamma. This is where my understanding and yours are at a crossroads, and why I believe the abhidhamma method leads to a substantive view of states...which in my view hosts a unwitting predilection toward self view. To me, Dependent Origination or Dependent Arising means that states are formulated by the appropriate combination of conditional factors. There are no "realities" in the sense that something has its own essence; there are just states that arise given the necessary conditioning factors. "Formed from" is exactly what they are in my view. The term "dhamma" gets used as if states had a "self existing reality." TG 42068 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma, taming Hi Jon, op 11-02-2005 14:50 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@n...: > Nina, the reference in Hugo's post to 'unexcelled trainer of those who > can be taught' (I'm guessing 'Anuttaro purisa-damma-saarathi' from the > Pali text quoted by Hugo) in the recollection on the Buddha caught my > eye, and I wondered if it was the same as the reference to 'taming' that > we came across the other day in the sutta from AN: >> The wise prescribe giving, >> Harmlessness, self-control and taming, N: Yes, damma is gerund of daamyati, meaning to be tamed. Dama is taming, verb: dameti. Visuddhimagga VII, 47 gives more explanations of taming: established in the refuges and precepts, etc. Nina. 42069 From: nina Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:45am Subject: Pilgrimage India, 5 f Pilgrimage India, 5 f All the objects that appear through the six doors should be fully known; when they are understood as elements devoid of self, there can be detachment from them. Since we have accumulated ignorance from life to life, understanding cannot develop rapidly, without there being the right conditions for it. We need to listen again and again and be reminded to be aware of all dhammas that appear. Although the long bus trips were most exhausting, Acharn Sujin was never tired to explain Dhamma to us. I am most grateful for all her reminders, specifically those she gave me in the different situations we had to face. She pointed out to us when we were clinging to the idea of self, which is deeply engrained. We read in the ³Dhammapada² (translated by Ven. Narada), verses 76-77 : Should one see a wise man, who, like a revealer of treasures, points out faults and reproves, let one associate with such a wise person; it will be better, not worse, for him who associates with such a one. Let him advise, instruct, and dissuade one from evil; truly pleasing is he to the good, displeasing is he to the bad. **** Nina. 42070 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Dear Sarah, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:10:55 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott > > My own experience is that now I am more aware (or aware of more > > things, events, feelings, etc.) than before, and that's because I > > resolved in doing it, but also I set up some experiments to find out > > what it really means to be aware of something and how I could know > > that I was indeed aware or not. I still have long way to go, but at > > least I feel that awareness arises more frequently now. > .... > S: Would you say this kind of awareness is satipatthana? huh? How could I know? How do "you" know that the awareness that "you" experience is satipatthana? BTW, what do you mean with 'satipatthana'? > Do you understand > sati (awareness) of this kind can be aware of things and events? When you > use 'I' here, is there any idea that you really are aware? In other words, > as someone else was suggesting, I think, it may be a different, more > conventional idea of awareness. Both, sometimes I know "I am aware" while being aware, sometimes I know "I am aware" after the fact, so I know that "I was aware", something like that. > > I know, being aware is subtle, as I said before, sometimes I confuse > > awareness with thinking and inferring, but still making the resolution > > to not do anything but just be aware is "doing something". > ... > S: Well, I think that knowing how easy it is to confuse awareness with > thinking is actually progress. I do see your point on the doing/not doing. > Whether there's any idea to do or not to do, such moments of thinking can > be known for what they are. I agree. > So whether you let the kids be or intervene to stop a fight, whether you > go to a quiet room or watch TV, it's just conditioned that way at that > instant and the dhammas involved can be known for what they are. It sounds as if everything "is written". > > So there you go, specific physical practices like eating only once a > > day, sleeping on the floor, etc. and "just being aware" are the same, > > both are ways of practice. Both require an intention and an action. > > I think we are dividing something that can't be divided. > ... > S: ;-) Does ;-) means 'I agree', 'I disagree', 'I abstain' ? > > As I wrote in another post about free will. Free will is also > > conditioned (I guess), so how "free" it really is? > ... > S: Not free at all;-). (See useful posts under 'free will'). So, everything "is written"? Why The Buddha said: "Thus you should train yourselves" ? Why create the order of monks and the rules for behavior? If he knew that there is no free will, why make the poor people go eating only once, live out in the forest, etc.? Why invite them to "go forth into homelessness" ? > > But then we have options......right now I have the option to stop > > writing and unsubscribe from DSG and not learn from all of you. Why I > > am not doing it? > ... > S: No conditions for it. Weasel answer and sounds like: "God's decision". I agree, no conditions for it, because I am convinced that I am learning, thus I don't want to unsubscribe for now (I will take some time off in the future, though, as I did in the past). > S: No need to 'decide' on any approach. Just thinking about which you are > in favour of is conditioned already. One minute there are conditions to > enjoy the senses, the next to study dhamma. Developing wisdom, doesn't > mean less training of your kids or anything different from normal. I agree, that developing wisdom doesn't require to perform any special rituals and that it can be done no matter what religion you follow or what activities you do. But!, I know that if I drink alcohol every day and party all-night during the weekends and keep indulging on pleasures, it will definitely not help wisdom to develop. Thus I won't do that. Isn't that a decision on what approach I am taking? And, no, "conditions" is not a valid answer, if it were, the Tipitaka would be very small, it would say: Title: Tipitaka Table of Contents 1) What did the Buddha taught.......... 1 Chapter 1: What did the Buddha taught The Buddha gave a lot of discourses, but never mind, all you have to know is that everything is conditioned and you can't do nothing about it (BTW, you think of "you" as if you exist but there is actually no-self, but don't try to understand it because you won't, unless the conditions for it arise and besides, there is no "you" who understand). P.S. Don't even try to "make those conditions arise", you won't be able to do it. > > Sabbe satta sabba dukkha pamuccantu. > > (may all beings be free from suffering) > ... > ..and also your Pali lines. Thanks, that's just a way to try to practice and learn more Pali, unfortunately I haven't been consistent, and no it is not because I am lazy, it is because the conditions haven't arised.......mmm...now let me try that with my boss. :-) Kathaa = to talk. -- Hugo 42071 From: Philip Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:21am Subject: Re: Pilgrimage India, 5 f Hi Nina, and all > All the objects that appear through the six doors should be fully known; > when they are understood as elements devoid of self, there can be detachment > from them. "Can" be, or is? Is a moment of detachment a sure thing when there is a moment of right understanding of realities? Is this "detachement" the "revulsion" that appears in so many suttas? (Frank pointed out the other day that "revulsion" is the word Bhikkhu Bodhi uses while Thanissaro Bhikkhu uses "detachment.") What cetasika is "detachment?" Is panna a cetasika? What is the difference between panna and yonisaro manasikara? Sorry for so many questions, and thanks in advance, Nina. It sounds like one of your chapater quizzes! :) Let's see if I can answer them myself: Since moments of right understanding of realities are very rare, I think it is fair to see there is detachment in such moments. Otherwise, how could we cultivate detachment. There are so many connotations with "revulsion" that I still have trouble associating it with "detachment", but I think the detachment you speak of here is that revulsion. What cetasika is detachment? I guess not just one cetasika, but several wholesome universals such as yoniso manasikara along with some particulars such as the one that means applied thinking. (vicara?) Is panna a cetasika? I know sati is. I guess panna is too. Or is it more like several cetasikas that arise together? I don't know. Different between yoniso manasikara and panna. The former adverts to the object in a wholesome way. Panna looks into the object that has been adverted to. >Since we have accumulated ignorance from life to life, > understanding cannot develop rapidly, without there being the right > conditions for it. We need to listen again and again and be reminded to be > aware of all dhammas that appear. I'm happy to have the audio talks to lisen to now. (Thanks Sarah and Jon.) I will be away from the list for awhile when we move so they will be very helpful to help me stay in the moment and not get caught up too much in all the speculating I do when I read suttas. > Although the long bus trips were most exhausting, Acharn Sujin was never > tired to explain Dhamma to us. I think you're like that as are many people here at DSG. Metta, Phil 42072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, op 11-02-2005 19:21 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding > the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. These are > different ways by which dhammas are classified. > > In the first one above... Please provide a Sutta reference to back this up. > If you don't know of one, and if one exists, I'm sure Nina or Sarah would know > exactly where one existed, if it did exist. N: Kindred Sayings IV, in the beginning. That whole book is called salaayatana vagga: sixfold sphere of sense. Elements: in the Middle Length Sayings: the Manifold Elements, and others. Khandhas: Kindred Sayings III, Khandhavagga. Actually, khandhas/ayatanas/elements are all over the scriptures. Often repeated in the Commentaries. Nina. 42073 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hello Ken, Excellent comments, Ken, thanks for keeping it going. On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:21:29 -0000, kenhowardau wrote: > > I am not sure, it sounds as if I would need superpowers in order > to be > > able to do it. > ---------------------- > > You almost do! Satipatthana is the mundane version of the Ariyan > Eightfold Path, for which you really do need superpowers. By > comparison, satipatthana is less demanding (at least in its early > stages), but it is still the most difficult path a worldling can > follow. Ok, I couldn't tell Satipatthana from a plant if I had it in front of me, so I can't reply. > Before the Buddha began to teach, he asked himself (as all Buddhas > do), "Is this truth too deep and difficult to teach? Wouldn't it be > burdensome and a waste of time to even try?" And what exactly do you mean? I am not saying that it is not deep, nor that it is not difficult to teach, nor that it is not difficult to understand. > ---------------------- > < the idea "MY Dhamma practice" indicates akusala thinking> > H: > Agree to a certain point, but can you really don't do any > intentional > > Dhamma-practice? > ---------------------- > > The true Dhamma practice is never intentional (deliberate > conventional activity). It only occurs in a moment when the mental > factors sati and panna arise to know reality the way the Buddha > taught it. So it is these conditioned dhammas that practise, not > people. mmmmm.....then we can't call it "practice" at all, otherwise the phrase "So it is these conditioned dhammas that practise, not people" implies a "self" (those conditioned dhamma). > > If you sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma-practice? > -------------------------------- > > If you meditate (develop insight) while sitting that is Dhamma > practice, but if you sit to develop insight, that is not. You lost me. Could you please re-phrase that? > Sitting is > not one of the three factors that lead to insight. They are; hearing > the true Dhamma, wise consideration of the true Dhamma and > association with good friends. I think that going to the cushion and meditate can be considered under the "wise consideration of the true Dhamma", I mean, I don't go to the cushion to get high on the Jhanas, or to "relax", or to have fun with the nimittas or anything like that. > > If you decide to not sit to meditate, is that considered Dhamma- > practice? > -------------------- > > No (Sorry if that was a rhetorical question.) :-) No, it was not rhetorical, it was serious question. > H: > You either choose to do it or not, and by making the choosing > you are > > making a decision and by making a decision it is intentional. > > So, the intention is to either sit, or the intention is to not sit, > > but either way both are intentions....or not? > ---------------- > > Is that necessarily the case? I haven't recited the alphabet today, > but have I deliberately chosen not to? No. (Well, not until now that > I've thought about it!) :-) You didn't answer my question. I agree with your example of the alphabet, so let me try like this: I am explicitely inviting you to meditate one hour daily, do you accept or not? (try to get away from that one ;-) ) You can break it in two sessions of 30 mins. each, actually that might be better, one in the morning and one at night. > We make decisions all the time - look out the window, pick up the > coffee cup, type a letter to DSG - but these decisions are not > indicators of wrong view. Huh? How do you know? If I type a letter to DSG because my ego, but I disguise it (even from myself) by saying that I am helping others, isn't it wrong view? If I pick up the coffee cup because I want to drink it, and the reason I want to drink it is because I know the caffeine will keep me awake, and I know that I need to stay awake so I can type the above mentioned letter to DSG, isn't it wrong view? > However, I am suggesting the decision to > practise formal Buddhist meditation is an indicator of wrong view. (interesting phrase..... "formal Buddhist meditation is an indicator of wrong view" from the Buddhist point of view.......) Why are you so sure? I don't think that you can say that it IS an indicator. I agree that it COULD be an indicator. If people think that just because they sit they will get enlightened, it would be the same as thinking that just because of chanting (i.e. repeat something like a parrot) will do something for them. > When we deliberately look out the window, pick up a cup or type a > letter, we may not be aware that there are only conditioned dhammas > (so we may not have right view), but nor are we *denying* there are > only conditioned dhammas (so we don't have wrong view). However, > when we deliberately try to practise the Buddha's teaching > (deliberately try to have right view), we are denying his teaching > that there are only conditioned dhammas - no self in control. What if we are not deliberately trying to have right view, but we are deliberately trying to "make", "gather", "create", "encourage" (use whatever verb is more appropriate) the conditions that will let right view arise? I know I can't say: "Hey, let's have Right View!" and TA-DA!, Right View appears. But I know that if I do certain things, the probabilities of having Right View will diminish, like taking intoxicants. (I probably would have pretty cool nimittas appear on meditation sessions under LSD, though). This thinking lead me to avoid taking intoxicants, and that's why I don't take intoxicants. > For example, giving money to > the poor is conventionally a wholesome thing to do, but it can be > done for the wrong reasons. If it is done for the wrong reasons, it > is purely a ritual, and belief in its efficacy would be wrong view. I agree 100% > I doubt the decision to deliberately practice satipatthana can ever > be kusala. Ok, so you are deliberately making the decision to not deliberately practice satipatthana......mmmm sounds like you just lost your train to Enlightenment, as you are deliberately doing something so you "get" (don't know what is the best verb) satipatthana. Greetings, -- Hugo 42074 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hello Howard!! Nice to greet you again. On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 05:56:49 -0800 (PST), upasaka@a... wrote: > Thay reminds me of a book title (which book I never read), namely "The > Accidental Buddhist"! ;-)) > BTW, Ken, it is of course true that there are no people (actually) to > do anything, but only conditions occuring. What is important, as I see it, is > what one concludes from that. May I ask, what one concludes from that? I definitely could use a short-cut for all this mess. > A "devout" subatomic physicist might point out > to his Newtonian brother that he cannot sit down at the table to eat, as there > are only pi-muons etc interacting with other such elusive event-things, and > suggest that he simply not worry about being hungry! :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 42075 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/11/2005 11:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding > the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. These are > different ways by which dhammas are classified. > > In the first one above... Please provide a Sutta reference to back this up. > If you don't know of one, and if one exists, I'm sure Nina or Sarah would know > exactly where one existed, if it did exist. N: Kindred Sayings IV, in the beginning. That whole book is called salaayatana vagga: sixfold sphere of sense. Elements: in the Middle Length Sayings: the Manifold Elements, and others. Khandhas: Kindred Sayings III, Khandhavagga. Actually, khandhas/ayatanas/elements are all over the scriptures. Often repeated in the Commentaries. Nina. Hi Nina What I am looking for is a specific quote from the suttas that states what Jon wrote... "I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome." In other words...a quote where the Buddha says that -- it is by knowing and understanding the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. I have no knowledge of this being explicitly stated in the Suttas. TG 42076 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. : Pilgrimage India, 5 f Hi Phil, op 11-02-2005 20:21 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: >> All the objects that appear through the six doors should be fully > known; >> when they are understood as elements devoid of self, there can be > detachment >> from them. Ph: Since moments of right understanding of realities are very rare, I > think it is fair to see there is detachment in such moments. > Otherwise, how could we cultivate detachment. N: It is pañña itself that leads to detachment. Pañña and alobha go together and grow together, but very, very gradually. It is hard to measure how much or how little there is now. Ph: There are so many connotations with "revulsion" that I still have > trouble associating it with "detachment", but I think the detachment > you speak of here is that revulsion. N:Nibbida or viraga are high degrees of detachment, I think. The destruction of craving, viraga, nirodha, nibbaana. It pertains to the arahat. Ph: What cetasika is detachment? N: alobha. Ph: Is panna a cetasika? I know sati is. I guess panna is too. N: Separate cetasikas. Ph: Different between yoniso manasikara and panna. The former adverts > to the object in a wholesome way. Panna looks into the object that > has been adverted to. N: I read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Narada about manasikaara:< it turns the mind towards the object. Like the rudder of a ship. Or like a chrioteer that sits with close attention on two well-trained horses (mind and object)...Attention is the closest equivalent to Manasikaara. ..As a mental state it is mere spontaneous attention. In manasikaara there is no peculiar vividness or clarity.> But in the case of kusala citta the kusala manasikaara turns the citta towards the object in the wholesome way. Manasikara is different from pañña that has understanding of the object, that penetrates its true nature. But all the accompanying cetasikas operate in the wholesome way. Kusala cetanaa has a leading role, it coordinates the work of all the accompanying nama dhammas. Nina. 42077 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, Is this good enough: KIV, Ch 3 on the all: §27: Just before it is explained what the all is: the eye, objects, eye-consciousness etc. Are these not khandhas, elements, aayatanas? Nina. op 11-02-2005 20:51 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > In a message dated 2/11/2005 11:39:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, > What I am looking for is a specific quote from the suttas that states what > Jon wrote... > > "I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding the > khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome." 42078 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hello Jon, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:24:06 +0800, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Thanks for coming in here. I've been enjoying your recent posts, very > thought-provoking. I can see you've been giving a lot of thought to the > teachings since your break from the list; most commendable. Yes, I have been thinking, reflecting and any other mental activity I can think of. > >Does this mean that I should stop worrying about keeping the 5 > >precepts, meditation, keeping a calm mind and go and party all-night > >on weekends as long as I don't think that it is "me" who is partying? > >and as long as I see all those ladies dancing around as just a stream > >of cittas (nice and curvy cittas by the way)? > > > > > > What I was trying to say is that if and when aksuala arises, as it must > surely do much more than we would like it to, we should not see that as > precluding the (contemporaneous) arising of useful reflection or even > awareness. The next question is in a polite way: Could you please answer my question? > As I think you yourself were suggesting in another post, > whatever is going on can be an occasion for the development of some > level of kusala or another. Yes. > >How is this right view developed? > > > >If I do something in order to develop it, isn't it deliberate > >practice, am I not doing something with the specific intention of > >developing right view? > > > > > > Right view is developed by the occurrence of a combination of factors: > hearing the dhamma explained in a way that is suitable for our level of > understanding, reflecting on what we have heard, and considering the > application of what has thus been realised intellectually to the present > moment. Isn't the above a description of a "practice"? Here you are telling me the factors, if I know them shouldn't I go and look to get them? > How do these factors come about? Well one of the ways they can occur is > by participating in useful discussion with others who also have some > knowledge of the teachings and are likewise trying to understand them, > such as we are fortunate to find on this list. Yes, as long as we decide to subscribe to the list, read the posts, and post something of our own, all of which require making a decision of doing it. > I think you'd agree that > your recent positing is proving to be a condition for a lot of > reflection on what you have heard and read previously (and continue to > read here). huh?, isn't it the reverse........my recent postings proved to be a RESULT of a lot of reflection of what I had heard and read previously......but not only that but it is a RESULT of also all the meditation sessions I have gone through, and all the experiments I have set up and analyzed, and all the changes I have made to "my practice" (i.e. including chanting, etc.). > Yet would you call your participation here 'doing something > in order to develop right view? -- I don't think so. Huh? YES, I would say that my participation here is "doing something"!!!! I didn't wake up one day and "the inspiration came to me" to subscribe. After analysis I thought that I should join a discussion group, also, I intentionally looked for a specific group ("the inspiration didn't tell me, hey choose DSG"), I took a look at the archives of various groups and finally decided on DSG (and others). Then I intentionally decided to leave the group as I thought that I needed to do some reflection on my own, then I intentionally decided to return here, but I also subscribed to even more groups (because I know that I need to get more points of view and not only consider only what the people in this group say). And I intentionally will get out of all the discussion groups in the future as to go an reflect on my own again, and I intentionally will come back, maybe to the same groups as I am subscribed now, maybe more, maybe only one, I don't know, it depends on what is the result of my intentional analysis......and of course what are the conditions (what if I don't have access to Internet anymore?, etc.). Please explain to me how it is not "doing something" > I think for the > most part we all participate here out of interest in the subject-matter, > and out of an appreciation of the value of this kind of discussion, and > not with the specific intention of developing right view, and certainly > not as a deliberate practice. Please define "out of an appreciation of the value of this kind of discussion", and please explain how did you end up in this mailing list if it was not your deliberate intention. If you can appreciate any value on something, that means you are comparing it with something else, value is a relative term. What is valuable for you might not be valuable for me. Now, as I said in another post, I don't think we can "make right view appear", but we can "arrange", "encourage", "at least not put more rocks in the way" the conditions that will let right view to arise. Thanks for your reply, I hope you keep this thread going, Greetings, -- Hugo 42079 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hi, Hugo (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/11/05 2:55:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, eklektik@g... writes: > > BTW, Ken, it is of course true that there are no people (actually) to > >do anything, but only conditions occuring. What is important, as I see it, > is > >what one concludes from that. > > May I ask, what one concludes from that? I definitely could use a > short-cut for all this mess. > ======================= Well, my point was the following: Some - not I - would conclude that there is no such thing as deliberate Buddhist practice. I would say that the correct conclusion is that what we CALL "deliberate Buddhist practice" is a collection of actual events that can and do occur, but are impersonal and are not what they seem to be. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 42080 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 0:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Hello Jon, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:50:17 +0800, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hugo, thanks for the quote. I'd be interested to know what indication > you find in the suttas as to *how* this 'training oneself' is to occur, > what it means exactly. I am not a Sutta expert, but I think this one is nice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn061.html Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.' Maybe your mind is above Rahula's level, but mine is at that level where the above line makes sense to keep repeating it to myself frequently. That sutta contains phrases like: "training day and night in skillful mental qualities." "you should exercise restraint in the future" Jon, didn't you read this sutta before?? Or what about: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn47-020.html Or this (more direct, I don't think you can find it): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-088.html "And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue." and the second part: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-089.html There are many more, haven't you really looked for them?? It took me one search in Google to find them. Here is the link that will give you the results of the search: http://www.google.com/search?q=thus+you+should+train+yourselves&hl=en -- Hugo 42081 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/11/2005 12:10:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: Hi TG, Is this good enough: KIV, Ch 3 on the all: §27: Just before it is explained what the all is: the eye, objects, eye-consciousness etc. Are these not khandhas, elements, aayatanas? Nina. Hi Nina Yes. That is a great example. Thanks. This shows that knowledge of elements, etc., leads to detachment, abandinment, and then one is capable of ending suffering. And I think it does conform to Jon's statement. What it does not show is -- what this understanding and knowledge consists of. Examing the preceeding passages to your quote, starting at the beginning of Samyutta Book 4, ... to understand the elements (the all) is explicitly laid out as the understanding of the impermanent, suffering, and no-self nature of the elements. The elements are to be seen as involving these principles. No where does it say, to my knowledge, that the elements/aggregates are to be understood as "realities" in order to overcome suffering. The Buddha says (paraphrasing) -- "He who see the arising of states does not believe in the non-existence of states. He who see the cessation of states does not believe in the existence of states." He then proceeds to lay down the Dependent Origniation formula. The principles of conditionality: impermanence, suffering, no-self -- are what need to be known. The elements are merely the "tools" we use to see the principles that lead the mind to be able to overcome suffering. I see these tools as things to use and then discard. My problem with calling these things "realities" is that the tools take on an overbearing importance and folks start to see the means as the end. They are over-indulged in and the term "realities" is a key culprit. The Buddha, on the other hand, wanted them seen as .... “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 952 â€" 953) My view is that elements should be seen as elements (not realities), aggregates should be seen as aggregates (not realities), and they should be seen conditioned, impermanent, suffering, selfless, and in light of the above quote. They are constantly mutating states, never remain the same, and have nothing of their own. TG 42082 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Sarah, I kinda look for threads to end but I guess tendency on this group is to prolong them. I think we're mostly saying same things just disagreeing on finer points. > > Kel: The answer is to find even the most subtlest tendencies and > > get rid of them. When your mind is already at certain level of > > calm, the subtler tendencies will be more obvious. And my > > contention is you aren't going to get very far is you're trying to > > in the midst of domanassa all the time. > .... > S: I'm not sure about this. Having just had a good whack of dosa and > domanassa with regard to an injury, I think that dhammas can be known just > as well at these times as when there is less kilesa (defilements) arising > or more supposed calm (so often subtle attachment in my case, such as > whilst walking or doing yoga or tai chi, for example). So much of our life > seems to be spent trying to have the pleasant or calm and avoiding the > unpleasant. Kel: Your injury was unavoidable for whatever reason and the difference is in how you act in the situation. I made a conscious choice to use domanassa and not pain to begin with. Dhamma of course can be known but the mind has to be in a state to know it objectively. If the bodily pain becomes mental pain then no dhamma can be known at that moment. Perhaps aftwards a reflection can be made but there's no samma sati together with domanassa. Were you aware of your subtle attachments during your bout with dosa/domanassa or was your mind dominated by it? What level was it? Merely being aware of the domanassa which can be miccha-sati. Reducing the strength of domanassa by samma sati? Or just aware of rupa with upekkha? It's just a fact we can't run from unpleasant and create pleasant. But here you're mixing the rupa, object and nama all together to make a generic point. You need mental calmness to see clearly all dhammas for what they are. If you look at all the cittas, amoha only arise with either somanassa or upekkha, never with domanassa. > Even if it is wholesome calm we're talking about, I think all kinds of > dhammas have to be known when they appear. If we try to avoid dosa, for > example, it merely indicates more lobha, doesn't it? Even for those who > had attained the highest jhanas, awareness of all dhammas still had to be > developed. Otherwise, how can they be known for what they are? kel: you know as well as I that it's futile to avoid dosa as a puthujjana, only an anagami is rid of dosa. So lobha is more subtle and need to get rid of dosa first actually. I think I saw your statement "awareness of all dhamms" a few times before. Once you understand one dhamma clearly, say jhana cetasika, you understand it all. There's no need to directly experience akusala cittas to also understand it. Panna will extrapolate the knowledge. Complete understanding of lakkhanas of one phenomenon applies to all phenomena. The mind is so calm with jhana, they can investigate a particular cetasika in isolation without all the interference. So the understanding of the true nature of it much easier. By the same token, the clearer the mind, the more likely it will understand the object of investigation. - kel 42083 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/10/2005 5:36:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: I'm not clear on the basis for your decision to call concepts and thoughts 'aspects of perception'. Is it the reference to 'ideas' in the Nyanatiloka definition? But I believe he also explains that perception is a mental factor (cetasika). Mental factors are factors that accompany cittas and experience the same object as the citta. So 'sanna' is not by definition a mind-object. Jon Hi Jon and Howard Just a follow up. 1st. Here is a basis for considering thoughts to be aspects of perception... “Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference of feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of perception there is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is difference of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; owing to difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.â€? (Ven. Sariputta . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 520, Expanding Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) This quote demonstrates proliferation of mental states. It shows the outgrowth of -- feelings from contacts, perceptions from feelings, thoughts from perceptions, etc. 2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've already pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was losing my mind. ;-) TG 42084 From: cosmique Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Amoeba / Citta Tep asked: Q3. Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases to exist) after Nibbana? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nibbana is timeless phenomena. So nibbana does not have before or after. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Htoo & friends, 1. When it is stated that nibbana is timeless or eternal (?), there is always a temptation to start taking nibbana as the unconditioned absolute, one's real nature either in advaita (in nibbana there is no-duality) or dualistic style (khandhas are one thing, nibbana as the absolute is another). In fact, similar situation has developed in Mahayana schools. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? 2. Is nibbana an individual state? I mean, can one conventionally say that Ananda, for example, realized his individual nibbana state that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants. Or is it more like one universal unconditioned absolute "shared by all", where all individuals' khandhas cease, something like an ocean in which all rivers (beings) cease? With metta, Cosmique The heaviness of one's burden is due to one's grasping. --------------------------------- 42085 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:45pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > > ========= > > > > [Reply to #41900 above] > > > > Dear RobertK, > > > > I am glad that finally, after some eye-opening helps from James, > you > > have a clearer understanding of Acharn Mun as is shown in your own > > message (#41973) below: > > (snipped) > > > >----------------------- > > Dear Tep, > Actually I didn't give an opinion on the debate, I was only > reporting both sides. > As it happens I agree with (the late) Venerable Nyanaponika > Mahathera. I don't think that after arahants pass away they still > exist somehow. Nor do I believe that it is possible for anyone to > see or converse with past Buddhas. > Robertk --------------------------------------- Dear RobertK, Thank you for the explanation that states your position. Frankly, I do find it hard to believe in those incredible stories as told by Maha Boowa about his teacher, Acariya Mun. However, I do not want to jump to a conclusion that Maha Boowa lied or Acharn Mun was hallucinated. Because I highly respect them both and, further, I have zero knowledge about citta after Nibana. Sincerely, Tep ======== 42086 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:17pm Subject: Re: Deliberate practice: formal meditation and 'mind moment' Dear Howard (and Hugo) - In his recent message Ken H. actually put forth (again) his strong view that a 'formal meditation' is not free from wrong views. Below is the part of his message that you might be interested. KH: >The relevant proviso is; we don't know when wrong view is going >to appear. It might appear while we are reading a Dhamma book >or it might appear when we are formally meditating. >Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear > in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same > be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha > described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading > to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. If we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? Hugo also gave his reply to KH (as shown below). My thought is simply that Ken H. is misled. Kind regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Ken, > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:35:58 -0000, kenhowardau > wrote: > > I was talking about case 1 - "a mind moment of formalised vipassana practice." Before that, I had been talking to Hugo about a mind moment of "being interested in one's own personal practice," which might be a sign of attachment and desire for personal gain. > > (snipped) > > Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. If we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? > > I think you are mixing things here. > > If I do chanting, and I believe that just because I am chanting I will > become enlightened, then that is rite and rituals and thus it is a > fetter. > > But, if I do chanting and when I am chanting I am reflecting on what > the chant says, and try to implement that in my life, then the chant > is effective, not per se, but as a tool that will make "me" less prone > to perform unwholesome behaviors. > > The same for meditation, if you think that just by sitting to meditate > and getting high on Jhanas will lead you to enlightenment, well, as > the other Ken has pointed it many times, that's not true, the Jhanas > won't lead you to Enlightenment. I agree. > > > But if you sit to meditate and you try to do what The Buddha taught > and see what he described, then I think that is good. Also, some > people might be able to do that without sitting to meditated, cool!, > excellent, but some other people can't do that, so they need a calm > place with a specific time, cool too. > > > To illustrate it, let's go to the extreme, if you are alcoholic and > drug user, how do you become enlightened?, you need to first work on > the gross and obvious faults and keep working on them until they > becomer subtle and subtle, then dissappear then you move to the next > level of faults, and so on. > > Actually it is the same way you go through the Jhanas (per the > descriptions I have read, I haven't got to even the first) you go to > subtle and subtle levels. > > > > I should add that any period of time contains a diversity of cittas. > > So, even while we are sitting cross-legged on a cushion or > > concentrating on walking, there are much more than "moments of > > formalised vipassana practice." There are moments of hearing, > > touching, thinking and so on. > (snipped) > > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo -------------------------------------- 42087 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/11/05 4:33:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Jon and Howard > > Just a follow up. > > 1st. Here is a basis for considering thoughts to be aspects of > perception... > > “Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to > difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference of > > feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of perception > there > is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is difference > > of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of > obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; > owing to > difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.â€? > (Ven. Sariputta . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 520, Expanding > Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) > > This quote demonstrates proliferation of mental states. It shows the > outgrowth of -- feelings from contacts, perceptions from feelings, thoughts > from > perceptions, etc. > ------------------------------------ Howard: TG, if I'm not mistaken, Jon takes contacts, feelings, perceptions, thoughts (or, better, thinking) etc to be mental operations or functional events that accompany awareness of an object and pertain to that object. If one were to take that perspective, the sutta would still make perfectly good sense. I see this as an operational perspective that is not without its appeal, as it does tend to avoid "things". ---------------------------------- > > 2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. > --------------------------------------- Howard: According to Abhidhamma, after a rupa is apprehended through eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body door, it, and not just a concept of it, is then apprehended mentally. (Perhaps that is the stage at which the object "registers". That makes some sense to me. What do you think?) Is it not possible that namas, with the exception of nibbana, are all actually operations instead of (being defined as) things that are known in a particular way (i.e., "through the mind door")? -------------------------------------------- > Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've > already > pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your > comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was > losing my > mind. ;-) > > TG > > ========================== 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) 42088 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: formal meditation and 'mind moment' Hi, Tep (and Ken & Hugo) - In a message dated 2/11/05 5:26:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, tepyawa@m... writes: > Dear Howard (and Hugo) - > > In his recent message Ken H. actually put forth (again) his strong view > that a 'formal meditation' is not free from wrong views. Below is the part > of his message that you might be interested. > > KH: >The relevant proviso is; we don't know when wrong view is going > >to appear. It might appear while we are reading a Dhamma book > >or it might appear when we are formally meditating. > >Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear > >in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same > >be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha > >described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading > >to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite > and ritual as a fetter. If we persist in our favourite "vipassana > technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? > > Hugo also gave his reply to KH (as shown below). My thought is simply > that Ken H. is misled. > > > Kind regards, > > > Tep > ========================= Ken said the following: It [wrong view] might appear while we are reading a Dhamma book or it might appear when we are formally meditating. Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" The Buddha described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. If we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? My response to this, bit by bit, is as follows: KH: It [wrong view] might appear while we are reading a Dhamma book or it might appear when we are formally meditating. Howard: Yes. KH: Having said that, I would add that wrong view might NOT appear in "a mind moment of reading a Dhamma book." Can the same be said for "a mind moment of formal meditation?" Howard: Again, yes. KH: The Buddha described Dhamma study as one of the factors leading to enlightenment, but he described belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual as a fetter. Howard: What is it that is supposed to be rite and ritual? KH: If we persist in our favourite "vipassana technique" are we not contradicting the Buddha? Howard: Here is a straw man being built in a field of dreams. The Buddha instructed his Bhikkhus in both samatha and vipassana bhavana, and to identify that with rite and ritual is to claim that the Buddha instructed his followers to pursue rite and ritual. The short answer: No, we are NOT contradicting the Buddha - we are honoring him. 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) 42089 From: Philip Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:04pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG and all > > What I am looking for is a specific quote from the suttas that states what > > Jon wrote... > > > > "I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding the > > khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome." Aren't entire suttas devoted to this? Any sutta in which the Buddha asks "Is form permanent or impermanent?" will lead to the bhikkhu knowing the khandas etc and this will lead to the revulsion>dispassion>liberation sequence. The most comprehensive example may be the discourse with Rahula ( SN 18.1) which covers not only the khandas but sense bases and other elements as well, but it would seem to me there are endless examples. I may have missed the point of the question but aren't there any number of suttas which teach the above? If you want this reduced to one pithy sentence it might be harder to find, I guess. But it's there in entire suttas. In entire vaggas of Samyutta Nikaya, I'd say. (eg khandavagga, salayatanavagga) The point of the khandavagga is to better understand the khandas for the sake of liberation from suffering, surely. I forget what ayatanas are, mind you. Metta, Phil 42090 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna Hi Mike, I apologize to you for responding to this message much later than it should be. I admire every active member of DSG who can respond to all mails within a day or two after receiving them. I can do only about 90% of the time. M: Sammaasankappa is identified often in the abhidhamma as the path-factor vitakka. I accept it as such--hypothetically--both because it accords with the AD texts and because it seems to me to make perfect sense in the contexts of the suttas as well as my own experience. T: Yes, it makes sense in the context of suttas, e.g. MN 19. According to MN19 (Dvedhavitakka Sutta), Right thinking consists of "thinking imbued with renunciation, "thinking imbued with non-ill will" and "thinking imbued with harmlessness". When one is mindful of such mental qualities, and with Right effort, Right concentration follows. "Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows: While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply keeps himself mindful of 'those cows.' In the same way, I simply kept myself mindful of 'those mental qualities.' "Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated & single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. ... I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain." [MN 19] M: (citing the Dispeller 441) "Also as regards Right View and Right Thinking, understanding cannot of its own nature determine an object as 'impermanent, painful, no-self', but with applied thought giving [assistance] by repeatedly beating [upon the object] it can. ... . Therefore Right View only is included here in the understanding group as being of the same kind, but Right Thinking is included because of its action [of assisting].". T: It is interesting when we consider MN 19 in the light of the above Dispeller's comment. I think the inference I can draw is that with the assistance of Right view, following the establisment of the 4th jhana, insight knowledge (of the 3 characteristics) can be the result. Do you think so? But the actual mental process of the "vipassana bhavana" must be difficult. M: By the way, I've been reading through the Dispeller of Delusion V. 1 and am nearly finished, looking forward to V. 2. I can't recommend it too highly to anyone with a taste for and/or confidence in the Abhidhamma. T: But you can, if you want to, draw a summary and present it. I, among other people, am going to highly appreciate that effort. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Hi Tep, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tep Sastri" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 11:08 AM > Subject: [dsg] Re: for James - SammaSankappa and Panna > > > > Hi Mike and RobertK - > > 42091 From: connie Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:57pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/Hugo Hi, Hugo, Sorry about the lack of quotes before. If we "aim to be mindful 100% of the time", we're forgetting about things like the actual sense consciousnesses only arising with the seven universal cetasikas: sensorial or mental impression/contact (phassa), feeling (vedana), perception/memory/marking (sa~n~na), volition (cetana), concentration (ekaggata), vitality/'life' (jivita), and advertence/attention (manasikara). So, if 'mindfulness' is sati, it (like pa~n~na/wisdom) doesn't arise all the time even for arahants. If 'mindful' is just 'there is citta', I guess we've already arrived and don't have to worry about shooting our self-esteem (whatever that is) full of holes trying to hit unrealistic targets, but how much 'awareness' will there ever be of the bhavanga/life continuum cittas' object? I think the bhavangas occupy even more of our time than seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. I don't know what would be a reasonable goal... 10%? 1? Even a single moment? Forget time and numbers and ask myself what the conditions that support sati's arising are or Azita's "to have Sati arise, isn't it important to firstly know and really understand what it is that awareness can be aware of?" And when? Uh, yup, the choice to read - usually sitting, like most of my eating. Or even most of my sleeping if we compare deep sleep to moments of bhavanga. Wow, I'm almost a real dhutanga practicer. "Now, what happens when a kid grows without a good self-steem? Do you think they are trainable? No, they are not sure of themselves, they are not sure of anything, they can't make decisions because they think they are wrong. If we want those kids to attain Nibbana, first we would need to build them a good self-steem, so they know they are capable of doing something." That kid has to be confident enough to believe Buddha saying that all worldlings are like madmen and basically ignorant of realities. I think the belief in self is the biggest symptom of our insanity. Maybe those kids are better off than we think and it would be easier for them to understand that they aren't responsible for the world / making things happen. Maybe their uncertainty is a sign of sanity and doubting all the lies we've fed them. It might be a great relief for them to know about conditions and the impersonal nature of phenomena rather than assuming an imaginary, insane burden and spending the rest of their lives protecting that (mass hallucination) from the boogey men. It's not a personal failure when things don't go the way you think they will if you're just playing around, however seriously, trying to understand realities and see how things work. How can you lose when even (especially?) a failure will show you something? Where's the big egotistical, arrogant puke no one can stand to be around if there is no self-centered, all powerful, in-control me in the first place? Where's the big bad, stupid, ugly creep who never does anything right and deserves bad and worse things happening if there is no self to despise and blame? Let the kids know they aren't the jerks but we're all on the other end of the strings and we don't have to dance if we don't believe we have to maintain the illusion. If we want them to attain Nibbana, they have to know there is only one way to do it... and we're back to satipatthana. Now the rules make sense because sati arises with kusala and that's what the rules say: this is what supports more of that and the 'rewards' pop up unexpectedly. We're not rotten people going to hell because there's anger, anger is hell. We don't have people going so far as to say "I wasn't myself" or making other excuses when something we've done doesn't fit our self-image. We just apologize without being afraid of looking at it and go on. We don't compound injury by hating other people when we see their mistakes, even if we're on the hurting end of them at the time. This may not be the easy path, but it's the path of least resistance and most pleasure. Whether we actually find 'the way' or not, we're not being asked to do something that's beyond us. You said about the alcoholic, "Shouldn't you first working on getting him out of the alcohol and late-night parties by any means possible, and then you work on getting him on the right path, and then you can proceed with developing understanding?" I think it's understanding first. Why would I give up all that fun if I didn't have something better already in place? No empties, please. I don't know if any of this explains my saying self(-image) doesn't belong in the picture, but I got lost, too. peace, connie > As for the reasons we tell ourselves, I > guess that's the self-esteem thing and good or bad, it's in the way. It's > just more sticking a self-image into a picture where it's out of place. I got lost here, sorry. 42092 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:03pm Subject: Vism.XIV,138 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 138. (vii) By its mean they live, or it itself lives, or it is just mere living, thus it is 'life'. But its charateristic, etc., should be understood in the way stated under material life (XIV,59). For that is life of material things and this is life of immaterial things. This is the only difference here. 42093 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:28pm Subject: If it can be longer and slower, it can be shorter and faster. Dear Sarah (and the rest of DSG), I think I finally understand what is your real understanding. In message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/41906 You said: " I understand you are saying that for those with poor sila â€" most householdersâ€"should look to any other path factors to develop first, but this is a slower track." and in message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42045 you said: "Moments of wrong resloving or doing with an idea of self may seem to provide the short-term candies and stickers, but actually make the path longer." From reading what you said at two different moments, and to two different persons and using two different words, leads me to believe that it is "your real" understanding as it was able to endure the flow of I don't know how many trillions of cittas, but still be the same. And what I understand is that if the Path can be longer and slower (as you said), I infer that it can be shorter and faster. Why? Because slowER and longER imply a comparison, thus even though you don't mention the object to which you are comparing it, I assume it that you are comparing it to another track or path (depending which message you are reading) which is shortER and fastER. So, I think we can settle the discussion about the so-called "deliberate practice" by saying what I found earlier: 1) Just "observing with wisdom" and 2) Sitting to meditate are both deliberate practice. The question that remains open is which one is slower and longer and which one is faster and shorter. We should remember that sitting to meditate involves "observing with wisdom", it is not just sit down and enjoy the show that the nimittas put up for us, or to relax after a hard day at work. Am I correct in my analysis? Hopefully we can leave this well nailed and move on to other topics, there are way too many defilements and obstacles in the Path, let's keep walking. -- Hugo 42094 From: Hugo Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:36pm Subject: How can you trust your mind? How can you trust your mind when you know it is full of defilements? This phrase alone should be enough to kill the EGO. How can you tell if you are walking on the right Path if your mind is full of defilements? How can you tell if somebody's advice is the right advice if your mind is full of defilements? You cannot know if what you are experiencing is Nibbana or something fabricated by your mind, that's why they say there should be no desire and no wanting to attain Nibbana, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't put effort in attaining it. But this should be the guiding light that shows you that your goal should be to extinguish the defilements and not to attain Nibbana. Once the defilements are gone you will have reached Nibbana, no need to worry about trying to attain it. Disclaimer: I don't have a clue what I am talking about, I was babysitting my kids and got "inspired" to write this. So, don't take it seriously.......how the heck would I know what I am talking about if my mind is full of defilements anyway!! Greetings, -- Hugo 42095 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/11/2005 2:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: “Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to > difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference of > > feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of perception > there > is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is difference > > of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of > obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; > owing to > difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.â€? > (Ven. Sariputta . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 520, Expanding > Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) > > This quote demonstrates proliferation of mental states. It shows the > outgrowth of -- feelings from contacts, perceptions from feelings, thoughts > from > perceptions, etc. > ------------------------------------ Howard: TG, if I'm not mistaken, Jon takes contacts, feelings, perceptions, thoughts (or, better, thinking) etc to be mental operations or functional events that accompany awareness of an object and pertain to that object. If one were to take that perspective, the sutta would still make perfectly good sense. I see this as an operational perspective that is not without its appeal, as it does tend to avoid "things". ---------------------------------- Hi Howard My understanding was that concepts and thoughts were not even considered by Jon (and perhaps by you) as states that actually arise. Here we have a quote as listing thoughts as just another aspect of mentality...nothing especially special about it at all. It appears from the quote that 'thoughts' "actuality" is as actual as any of the other states listed. And also that thoughts are foundations for other types of states -- quests, etc. > > 2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. > --------------------------------------- Howard: According to Abhidhamma, after a rupa is apprehended through eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body door, it, and not just a concept of it, is then apprehended mentally. (Perhaps that is the stage at which the object "registers". That makes some sense to me. What do you think?) Is it not possible that namas, with the exception of nibbana, are all actually operations instead of (being defined as) things that are known in a particular way (i.e., "through the mind door")? -------------------------------------------- The subject, first of all, was "mind-object mental processes;" not sense-object mental processes. But to follow your flow...Yes, consciousness and mental-factors join as mental processes that become aware of contacts. But mental-factors can become objects as well as I have pointed to Sutta and Abhidhamma sources as supporting. Feelings, perceptions, anger, lust, or thoughts can all become objects for "mind-object mental processing" as well. Does that make sense? I'm not quite sure where you're coming from these days Howard. It seems to me you've been saying lately that an object has to be real. But before I thought you were saying that concepts are objects that are not real. I'm probably just confused as usual. > Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've > already > pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your > comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was > losing my > mind. ;-) > > TG > > ========================== With metta, Howard TG 42096 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/11/2005 3:14:48 PM Pacific Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: Aren't entire suttas devoted to this? Any sutta in which the Buddha asks "Is form permanent or impermanent?" will lead to the bhikkhu knowing the khandas etc and this will lead to the revulsion>dispassion>liberation sequence. The most comprehensive example may be the discourse with Rahula ( SN 18.1) which covers not only the khandas but sense bases and other elements as well, but it would seem to me there are endless examples. I may have missed the point of the question but aren't there any number of suttas which teach the above? If you want this reduced to one pithy sentence it might be harder to find, I guess. But it's there in entire suttas. In entire vaggas of Samyutta Nikaya, I'd say. (eg khandavagga, salayatanavagga) The point of the khandavagga is to better understand the khandas for the sake of liberation from suffering, surely. I forget what ayatanas are, mind you. Metta, Phil Hi Phil Yes, I agree with what you're saying. But I'm not trying to reduce it to a pity sentence. I'm trying to reduce it to a "pity principle." ;-) The principle I want Sutta evidence for is that these states need to be investigated and undertstood as "realities" in order to overcome suffering or something along those lines. To see the way things operate "in real life" is extremely important. It allows "conditionality principles" to become part of mind process. I think Abhidhamma can be a nice assistance to understanding Suttas, but following abhidhamma commentarial views by rote is going too far IMO. And I think trying to see states as "realities" does not allow the mind to see things as they really are. The people who have this view often see states as "having their own unique essence." This in my view means that conditionality principles are not being understood. TG 42097 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:09pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Dear Sukinder - The idea of breaking down the long dialogue into 7 threads will not solve the problem of message branching out, because eventually each 'child' becomes very long again like its parent. The in-line question-and-answer logic is at fault, and we should correct the problem right where it began. My next message will no longer use the inline scheme. >S: (#41894) But do you see that the idea of `finding the shortest cut > through Sila-Samadhi- Panna' may go against the Teachings > about the need to `develop the parami' and that the process > involves `long time development' (meaning aeons over aeons)? S: (#41950) I think firstly that you misunderstand my comments about developing the parami. Remember, I am one of those who don't believe in deliberate practice? So I wouldn't say to the effect to develop parami or sila or anything first or last. T: Perhaps, I didn't misunderstand it at all. You said it yourself (see above) about the "need to develp the parami". Okay, if you change your mind not to "develop parami or sila or anything first or last", that's fine with me. But are you now not going against the Teachings yourself? S: What the Buddha said would be the correct conditions only if correspondingly there is a level of understanding on the part of the audience. Without understanding, the image of "one's hair and clothes on fire" will be anything but right. Likewise, Nibbana is an empty concept at best and an object of desire and wrong view at worst, depending on how wrongly we understand it. T: Our Buddha always gave instructions to 'monks, 'bhikkhus' (including bhikkhunis), and 'noble disciples' or 'disciples of the noble ones'. Therefore, the scenario you are assumimg does not apply to His audience. S: On the question of parami, haven't you heard that if these are lacking, then enlightenment is not possible? Do you think that without sacca, khanti, metta, nekhamma, panna, viriya and other qualities being developed to a high degree, it would be possible for sati and panna to develop far enough? T: There you go again! Talking again about parami. But I see some dangers here. There is a lobha associated with your desire for enlightenment. Also, your worry about not having enough parami indicates a 'self' that craves for and accumulates parami as the raw materials for achieving the goal of 'enlightenment'. You also want to control sacca, khanti, etc., such that they meet your quality control objectives! Is that Right intention? So it seems that you yourself are going against your own rules at the beginning of our discussion. [ #41894. Sukinder: But as a dhamma I would not think this to be cetana, but rather vitakka (and any necessary associated state). But then Right intention would be determined by Sati and Panna, because only then the object would be a paramattha dhamma and not an `idea of a self wanting to do and achieve something'.] S: I think that viewing the Teachings as prescriptive creates a big problem, one becomes `goal oriented' and ignores conditions which are causes, namely one's accumulations as expressed from moment to moment. And if one does not see the prime importance of developing understanding in daily life, then these conditions which make up the cause will not become apparent. T: I agree with the importance of developing understanding (insight and wisdom, panna) here and now, in this very life, that's why I have been telling you about the sila-samadhi-panna development. But how do you make your goal-oriented-desire to accumulate parami compatible with the goal of "developing understanding in daily life"? Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I am going to divide my response into separate posts corresponding > with your answers I - VII. > 42098 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:26pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder II Hi Sukinder, my pal - The focus of this post is vipassana meditation, whatever it means. > Sukinder: > Do you mean to associate satipatthana with so called `Vipassana > meditation'? > > T: I mean satipatthana, according to the Satpatthana Sutta, which > is samma-sati (Right mindfulness), is a Path factor that supports > samma- samadhi. And, in turn, sama-samadhi supports sama nana (Right knowledge) and samma vimutti(Right release), according to the > Great Forty [MN 117]. If vipassana meditation accomplishes Right release as explained above, then the answer is 'yes'. Then you said, "My question had to do with whether `vipassana meditation' as popularly understood is a necessary condition for the arising of satipatthana. I wasn't asking if satipatthana lead to vipassana (not the meditation) or the Eightfold Path. I think it does. But I don't see any place for the so called `vipassana meditation' in the Buddha's teachings and so I don't think *this* leads to the 8FP. Satipatthana is not just the development of sati, but at any moment there is samma-sati, then at that time there is also samma-samadhi, samma-ditthi, samma-sankappa and samma-vayama.". But you haven't yet described what you meant by 'vipassana meditation'. Please remember this: you should be careful not to put any meditation technique down, unless you understand it very clearly in both principle and practice. Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > > (II) 42099 From: Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/11/05 9:34:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > In a message dated 2/11/2005 2:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > “Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to > >difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference > of > > > >feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of > perception > >there > >is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is > difference > > > >of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of > >obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; > >owing to > >difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.â€? > >(Ven. Sariputta . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 520, Expanding > >Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) > > > >This quote demonstrates proliferation of mental states. It shows the > >outgrowth of -- feelings from contacts, perceptions from feelings, thoughts > > >from > >perceptions, etc. > > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > TG, if I'm not mistaken, Jon takes contacts, feelings, perceptions, > thoughts (or, better, thinking) etc to be mental operations or functional > events > that accompany awareness of an object and pertain to that object. If one > were > to take that perspective, the sutta would still make perfectly good sense. I > > see this as an operational perspective that is not without its appeal, as it > > does tend to avoid "things". > ---------------------------------- > > Hi Howard > > My understanding was that concepts and thoughts were not even considered by > Jon (and perhaps by you) as states that actually arise. Here we have a > quote > as listing thoughts as just another aspect of mentality...nothing especially > > special about it at all. It appears from the quote that 'thoughts' > "actuality" > is as actual as any of the other states listed. And also that thoughts are > foundations for other types of states -- quests, etc. > --------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, I'm saying what I *think* is Jon's perspective. I could be wrong. Secondly, while I'm saying that the position is not without its appeal, I'm not necessarily adopting it as my own, though it is tempting. I have not made up my mind on this. Thirdly, please note that I substituted "thinking" for "thoughts". In the perspective that I see as Jon's, thinking is a process that amounts to a sequence of mental operations rather than a sequence of mental objects. I do, nonetheless, believe that there are mental objects involved. Elementary mental images, for example. I *do* certainly believe there are mind-door objects in addition to the rupas that were first physical sense-door objects. I believe that Abhidhamma does so as well, though I think it is amazingly vague on the topic. ----------------------------------------------- > > > > > >2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > According to Abhidhamma, after a rupa is apprehended through eye, ear, > nose, tongue, or body door, it, and not just a concept of it, is then > apprehended mentally. (Perhaps that is the stage at which the object > "registers". > That makes some sense to me. What do you think?) > Is it not possible that namas, with the exception of nibbana, are all > actually operations instead of (being defined as) things that are known in > a > particular way (i.e., "through the mind door")? > -------------------------------------------- > > The subject, first of all, was "mind-object mental processes;" not > sense-object mental processes. But to follow your flow...Yes, consciousness > and > mental-factors join as mental processes that become aware of contacts. But > mental-factors can become objects as well as I have pointed to Sutta and > Abhidhamma > sources as supporting. Feelings, perceptions, anger, lust, or thoughts can > all > become objects for "mind-object mental processing" as well. Does that make > sense? -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it makes sense to me. In fact, I think it is standard in Abhidhamma that what are typically concomitants can also become mental objects. I'm not sure whether Jon is denying that, but I think Abhidhamma recognizes that as being the case. (My personal perspective is that when a cetasika becomes direct mental content, it must do so as a memory, because it is no longer present, and what is not present cannot, itself, be an object of awareness. To assert that it can be gets dangerously close to the semi-eternalist position of the Sarvastivadins.) ------------------------------------- > > I'm not quite sure where you're coming from these days Howard. It seems to > me you've been saying lately that an object has to be real. But before I > thought you were saying that concepts are objects that are not real. I'm > probably > just confused as usual. > ---------------------------------- Howard: "These days" I'm becoming less and less interested in having a position! (Since you ask! ;-) As to concepts, I can't grasp them, I can't even find them, and I don't have much faith in them. As far as objects being real, well, I'm not all that sure what you mean by "real". I take 'object' to mean "experiential content". I do believe that there are such phenomena, but I do not think that any conditioned object, event, or state of any sort is a self-existent, separate entity. I think that each is an aspect of experience erroneously and artificially separated off and imagined to be self-existent. While I see conditions as distinguishable [I can distinguish hardness from sound], I do not see condtions as separate, self-existent, or lasting. In my opinion, and, here, *everyone* on DSG will disagree with me (!), there is but one true reality: the real, the peaceful, the excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - nibbana. (Hmm, guess that's a position! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > > > >Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've > >already > >pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your > >comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was > >losing my > >mind. ;-) > > > >TG > > > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard > TG > > ========================== 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) 42100 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:39pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear RobertK, > > Thank you for the explanation that states your position. Frankly, I do > find it hard to believe in those incredible stories as told by Maha > Boowa about his teacher, Acariya Mun. However, I do not want to jump > to a conclusion that Maha Boowa lied or Acharn Mun was hallucinated. > Because I highly respect them both and, further, I have zero knowledge > about citta after Nibana. > >======== Dear Tep, That's a very honest and reasonable statement. RobertK 42101 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > > > If I pick up the coffee cup because I want to drink it, and the reason > I want to drink it is because I know the caffeine will keep me awake, > and I know that I need to stay awake so I can type the above mentioned > letter to DSG, isn't it wrong view? > > ===== Dear Hugo, I'm interested why you classify these activities as wrong view (miccha-ditthi)? RobertK 42102 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard, > H: involved. Elementary mental images, for example. I *do* certainly believe there are > mind-door objects in addition to the rupas that were first physical sense-door > objects. I believe that Abhidhamma does so as well, though I think it is > amazingly vague on the topic. Kel: it's actually quite detailed about what object is taken by each citta. An example is applying Purejata-paccaya to vithi. Mind- door object, hadayavatthu is a rupa in kamma-loka and rupa-loka. Though if you don't believe Attasalini then I guess not. > H: *everyone* on DSG will disagree > with me (!), there is but one true reality: the real, the peaceful, the > excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - nibbana. kel: I happen to agree and stated it before to KenH :) - kel 42103 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:50pm Subject: Modern arahants Dear Tep and all, I follow on with some personal experiences related to Thailand and the belief in arahants. Anyone in Thailand in the late 1980s to early 90s will remember the Phra Acharn Yantra sensation. I met him in 1990 in New zealand where he had an entourage and was very famous. I went to several talks and asked questions and was invited on a trip with him and a few devotees. We left in the early morning and arrived back evening and I was fortunate enough to be able to chat with him most of the day, one to one. I found him very personable and reasonably knowledgeable on Dhamma. He told me how he became an ascetic and walked around tHailand and stayed in caves - even before becoming a monk. It was a pleasant day. The only qualms I had was that other members in our group - both monks and laypeople- were making comments about how he had gone beyond desire and so on (i.e. he was an arahant). This was not within his hearing but he probably knew they regarded him this way. To me he seemed like a normal and devout monk but I had not the least idea that he had attained any stage of enlightenment. The next year I went back to Thailand and was amazed how his fame had grown. In 1989 he was well-known but now he was like a moviestar. It seemed like every second taxi or bus had a photo of Phra Yantra hanging from the drivers mirror. And several Thai people that I visited had pictures of the venerable on their walls. I think on his birthday it was reported that major traffic jamms occured when 100,000 devotees tried to attend his temple in Kanchanaburi. If I wanted instant admiration all I had to mention was that I had spoken with phra Yantra. I especially remember one occasion. I used to visit a Thai primary school and have lunch with the teachers to practice Thai language. They knew I was a student of Khun Sujin and also that I knew phra yantra. So one day the headmaster asks - with trepidation- who I preferred, Ven. Yantra or Sujin. I hesitated and eveyone was silent- it really was q question of importance. I said that actually I prefered Sujin becuase she could explain details of the six doors in a way I found very helpful. The headmaster never again had lunch with me. A couple of years later phra yantra was involved in a scandal and his fame turned to notoriety. The headmaster - much to my surprise- started attending discussions at the house of one of Sujin's students and I think he is still a keen listener to her radio programs. Anyway the point of all this long story was that it let me see how easy it is for people to project their hopes onto others. Even with Khun Sujin I see this happening sometimes. I remember two people in thailand telling me about a trip they were on with A.Sujin and a small cloud appeared overhead when she was giving a talk. They told me that they were sure this was a group of devas come to listen to her. And the number of times someone has said to me that they know Sujin is a sotapanna. I always say 'How do you know'? To me such speculation is unhealthy. We have to make the Dhamma our refuge, not a person. Then we become self-reliant. It is the only way. RobertK 42104 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard upasaka@a... wrote: >>This is correct. An 'imagined object' cannot be 'an object'. But I'm >>not sure we are being consistent in our use of 'object' here. The term >>'object' is used to mean both 'thing' and, especially in this context, >>'what is experienced by ' [consciousness]. What I am trying to say is >>that the latter meaning does not necessarily encompass the former. But >>I admit I am not sure of my ground here ;-)) >> >> >---------------------------------------- >Howard: > That is part of why I enjoy speaking with you, Jon. You are >straightforward and reality-oriented, not "faking it". >--------------------------------------- > > Well, thanks, Howard. And I appreciate your directness and your tendency to question any statement that does not pass your careful and very thorough scrutiny. >----------------------------------------- >Howard: > This position actually has great appeal to me, but I'm afraid I'm not >fully persuaded of its correctness, and were I so persuaded, then I would >dismiss the notion that every moment of consciousness involves an object, because, >to me, an "imagined object" is no object at all. >---------------------------------------- > > I think you are saying that if you were to regard thoughts as not dhammas then you would also feel obliged to conclude that the consciousness that thinks does not have any object. I do not see that the one necessarily imports the other. Can we not distinguish a 'non-actual' object from no object? An object that is 'not a dhamma' does not have to be a 'non-object'. And yes, that object is truly an 'imagined' (i.e., mind-created) one (but not an 'imaginary object', if you see the distinction I'm trying to draw ;-)) Actually, would a consciousness that did not have an object be apparent to us? >------------------------------------- >Howard: > No point in either taking a personal position or in adopting that of >an "expert" (a.k.a., "ancient commentator"), but to just look and see, guided >by the Buddha - the reliable expert. >------------------------------------- > > I certainly agree that the commentaries are not to be uncritically 'adopted', and by the way that would also go for the suttas themselves, since mere 'adoption' of the teachings cannot lead to the development of insight. I also agree that we should be guided by the Buddha himself, which of course is why a detailed study of the Tipitaka is so important, but I find that almost any sutta needs further interpretation in some aspect or other (I defy anyone to give a useful explanation of any significant aspect of the teachings as found in the suttas without extensive reference to outside material). The ancient commentaries are a good place to start (not counting of course the rest of the Tipitaka itself), because they represent the views of the enlightened community of their time rather than the views of the individual compilers, although that is not to say one should have no regard to material outside the ancient commentators. So in considering a given passage from the suttas it is often useful to identify what other parts of the Tipitaka and the ancient commentaries have to say about the matter. There is I think a tendency for others to (mis)take this as an automatic and uncritical adoption of the texts being referred to, and I suspect this tendency is exacerbated by (or perhaps is pretty much due to) the fact that much that is in those texts runs against the deeply held views with which we come to the teachings, and certain views that are widely accepted today. But we should be very wary of rejecting material of long standing in order to accommodate our own preferred views or the views of individual writers who may be very learned in current day terms, or the views of those who espouse a 'practice' (i.e., following an instruction or technique) before a correct intellectual understanding based on the texts has been gained. Jon 42105 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 0:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Tep) - > > In a message dated 2/11/05 11:56:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > As it happens I agree with (the late) Venerable Nyanaponika > > Mahathera. I don't think that after arahants pass away they still > > exist somehow. Nor do I believe that it is possible for anyone to > > see or converse with past Buddhas. > > Robertk > > > ====================== > What I think is the important question is whether an arahant existed > in any way *more* while alive than after death. What is your take on that? >============= Dear Howard, Buddha and Arahant are conventional terms to designate streams of nama and rupa that have erased avijja- ignorance. In the ultimate sense there are only the khandhas (aggregates) .i.e. citta, cetasika and rupa, arising and passing away. Uopn the khandha parinibbana of the Buddha or arahant then citta and cetasika ceases to arise and the only rupa left is that of the physical remains (relics), bits of bone and teeth etc which gradually wear away. One difference between before khandha paribbinana and after, is that before it is possible to speak, see and listen to the arahant and Buddha - if one is born in a time where they still live. However after the passing away no god or man can ever percieve the Buddha or arahant again. Brahmajala sutta: ""Monks, the body of the Tathágata stands with the link that bound it to becoming cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more. Monks, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathágata's link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more." RobertK 42106 From: Philip Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:43am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions HI TG and all > Yes, I agree with what you're saying. But I'm not trying to reduce it to a > pity sentence. I'm trying to reduce it to a "pity principle." ;- ) The > principle I want Sutta evidence for is that these states need to be investigated > and undertstood as "realities" in order to overcome suffering or something along > those lines. Oh, OK. Thanks for clarifying. (If I had been following the thread prperly, you wouldn't have needed to clarify. Sorry about that.) My take on just about anything is that if it helps us to develop detachment (is that an oxymoron?) it is good Dhamma. Reducing dhammas to "realities" seems very helpful to me in this sense - it really discourages the mistaken belief in one's ability to control cittass, encourages us to spend a lot of time reflecting on anatta - but for others it might not be so. Metta, Phil p.s Where is Rob M these days? The last time I remember hearing from him was in a thread related to this topic. If you are out there, Rob, I hope you've been well and please do come back soon! 42107 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hi Howard, -------------------------------- KH: > >So it is these conditioned dhammas that practise, not > people. > > ==================== H: > That reminds me of a book title (which book I never read), namely "The Accidental Buddhist"! ;-)) --------------------------------- Yes, the dhammas do the work and the Buddhist gets the credit. :-) ---------------------------------------------- H: > BTW, Ken, it is of course true that there are no people (actually) to do anything, but only conditions occuring. What is important, as I see it, is what one concludes from that. -------------------------------------------- Well, yes, although you and I are hardly in a position to draw any worthwhile conclusions. It takes a Buddha to discover the loathsomeness of conditioned dhammas as well as their cause, their cessation and the path leading to their cessation. ------------------------ H: > A "devout" subatomic physicist might point out to his Newtonian brother that he cannot sit down at the table to eat, as there are only pi-muons etc interacting with other such elusive event-things, ------------------------- He would right to think there is no being who can sit down to eat, but where is this being who can not sit down to eat? ----------------------------- H: > and suggest that he simply not worry about being hungry! ----------------------------- Then he would see the absurd situations his wrong view can lead to. :-) Regards, Ken H 42108 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/12/05 12:48:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >H: involved. Elementary mental images, for example. I *do* > certainly believe there are > >mind-door objects in addition to the rupas that were first > physical sense-door > >objects. I believe that Abhidhamma does so as well, though I think > it is > >amazingly vague on the topic. > Kel: it's actually quite detailed about what object is taken by > each citta. An example is applying Purejata-paccaya to vithi. Mind- > door object, hadayavatthu is a rupa in kamma-loka and rupa-loka. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: But I'm talking about cetasikas taken as arammana, not rupas. ---------------------------------------- > Though if you don't believe Attasalini then I guess not. > --------------------------------------- Howard: The order of "belief" I give is Sutta Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka, and Commentaries. In any case, what I said was that the Abhidhamma is amazingly vague on non-rupic mind-door objects, which I still believe is relatively true. The Attasalini, which I'm sure has enormous value (I haven't seen it), isn't Abhidhamma. ------------------------------------------- > >H: *everyone* on DSG will disagree > >with me (!), there is but one true reality: the real, the > peaceful, the > >excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - nibbana. > kel: I happen to agree and stated it before to KenH :) > --------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, good. I feel less lonely! :-) ------------------------------------- > > - kel > =================== 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) 42109 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG >You're making me think about this. First of all I have to ask... if mental >factors are not mind-objects, and concepts are not mind-objects, what is it >that you think are mind-objects? > > I don't think I said that concepts are not mind-objects. They are object of consciousness and so, speaking loosely, 'mind-objects'. I was not using 'mind-object' in any particular or technical sense. Sorry for any confusion. >From: Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma -- "The 52 cetasikas can also become >objects of a mind door process, as for example, when one becomes aware of >one's feelings, volitions, and emotions." > > Yes, cetasikas can become object of consciousness. At such moments there would be no thought as object of consciousness. >Also, how can a mind-object not be a nama unless the brain is considered as a >rupa and memories and ideas stored and being scanned from the brain are >considered mind-objects. Now I might go along with this suggestion; but it seems >like a pretty radical idea for Abhidhamma does it not? > > You've lost me, I'm afraid. The object of consciousness may be a rupa, a nama or neither (a thought/concept). >If we examine the Satipatthana Sutta and see what it is calling >"mind-objects"... a majority of the mind-objects can be pulled straight from the list of 52 >mental cetasikas. However, some of those mind-objects look to be based on >conceptual analysis. Concepts in terms of principles I believe would need to >take part in this passage... "Here a Bhikkhu understands the eye, he understands >forms, he understands the fetter that arises dependent on both; and he also >understands how there comes to be the arising of the unarisen fetter, and how >there comes to be the abandoning of the arisen fetter, and how there comes to >be the future non-arising of the abandoned fetter." > > Yes, fine, but the 4 sections in the Satipatthana Sutta are really a way of classifying all dhammas. Thoughts are not included in this scheme of classification, as I understand it. I think this is moving us away from the original question, which was to do with the how thoughts are treated in the teachings. Jon 42110 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/12/05 1:38:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > I think you are saying that if you were to regard thoughts as not > dhammas then you would also feel obliged to conclude that the > consciousness that thinks does not have any object. > ----------------------------------- Howard: What I saying is that there is no such thing as an imagined object. (That is just a manner of speaking.) What there is in that case is the imagining that there is an object of a certain sort, while there really is not. On the other hand, I am not saying that there are mind states without object. When we seem to see a tree or we think of a tree, there are many mindstates, all of which have objects, and none of which is a tree, though we think otherwise. -------------------------------- > > I do not see that the one necessarily imports the other. Can we not > distinguish a 'non-actual' object from no object? An object that is > 'not a dhamma' does not have to be a 'non-object'. And yes, that object > is truly an 'imagined' (i.e., mind-created) one (but not an 'imaginary > object', if you see the distinction I'm trying to draw ;-)) > ------------------------------ Howard: I understand you, but I disagree. ------------------------------ > > Actually, would a consciousness that did not have an object be apparent > to us? > > ------------------------------- Howard: Probably a moot point. ======================= 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) 42111 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Hi, Nina Sorry to hear that your father's health is failing. Not an easy situation for you to handle, I'm sure. But as you say, a reminder of our own frailty and eventual fate. >>2/. Text Vis: It is manifested as non-collapse. >>N: The Tiika explains that it is: 'a dhamma *opposed to collapse*' >>(sa.msiidanapa.tipakkho dhammo). Energy will *not succumb*, but continue >>with the task it has to perform. >>[J: This seems relevant to khanti (patience) being an aspect of viriya] >> >> >N: Yes, also to perseverance and courage. > > Yes, those too! Thanks for pointing this out. Jon 42112 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG >[J:] I think it is explicitly said that it is by knowing and understanding >the khandhas/ayatanas/elements that suffering is overcome. These are >different ways by which dhammas are classified. > >[TG:] In the first one above... Please provide a Sutta reference to back this up. >If you don't know of one, and if one exists, I'm sure Nina or Sarah would know >exactly where one existed, if it did exist. > > Nina has done this, I think (thanks, Nina!). As Nina and Phil both mention, the sutta pitaka is full of suttas dealing with this theme. >[J:] This is crucial. Feelings and other dhammas are not 'formed from' >anything. They may be 'conditioned by' strings of contacts, but that is >another matter altogether. If it is 'formed from' something, it's not a >dhamma. >[TG:] This is where my understanding and yours are at a crossroads, and why I >believe the abhidhamma method leads to a substantive view of states...which in my >view hosts a unwitting predilection toward self view. > >To me, Dependent Origination or Dependent Arising means that states are >formulated by the appropriate combination of conditional factors. There are no >"realities" in the sense that something has its own essence; there are just >states that arise given the necessary conditioning factors. "Formed from" is >exactly what they are in my view. > >The term "dhamma" gets used as if states had a "self existing reality." > > I am familiar with the expression "self-existent" from Howard's posts, but otherwise have not met the term "self existing reality", so can't really comment. I do not recall reading in the texts that 'states' (as you call them; are they 'dhammas' in the texts?) are 'formed from' other states, so I would be interested to know what this conclusion of yours is based on. You seem to be suggesting a connection between dhammas as having their own unique characteristic and 'self view'. I do not see the same connection. Whatever the correct view about the true nature of dhammas, there is still self view and other forms of kusala arising. Only by the development of insight can this aksuala be eradicated. The development of insight of some level or other can occur at any time if there is the correct theoretical basis for it. Jon 42113 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hello Sukinder, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:31:00 -0000, Sukinder wrote: > I had come to more or less the same conclusion after reading this > and some other posts of yours. But I like the spirit with which you > try to apply what you have learnt to daily life. I think it will be > a major asset if you are converted to the non-doing perspective ;-). Nobody has explained to me how is it that you are "non-doing" by posting this message you posted to me. You decided to post the message, other people decided to not post any message, other people even decided to ignore my message, those are decisions, and thus, they are "doing something". The rest of you message, I agree with it (except for the parts about Abhidhamma because I haven't read it, thus I can't comment about it). > thinks one understands. I would want to be more careful and take > baby steps if that is all I am capable of. ;-) See? You are saying that you are "doing something", you are taking baby steps, you deliberately are not taking any other kind of steps, just baby steps. So, please explain how is it that you are not doing something. > ps: Please invite me to Google mail. Thanks in advance. Done, check your mailbox. Greetings, -- Hugo 42114 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hello Howard, Please clarify: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:18:23 -0800 (PST), upasaka@a... wrote: > Sukin, I'm adding no further comments below. I'm including all of your > post, as I just don't know what parts to snip. ;-) > I'm writing just to say that I think that this yours an impressive > presentation: moderate, clear, calm, useful, and given with humility. Have you been "converted" (smile) to the non-doing philosophy? :-) -- Hugo 42115 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hello Sukinder, I re-read your reply and just wanted to clarify something. On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:31:00 -0000, Sukinder wrote: > The reason I don't "try hard" to understand D.O. I agree, I don't "try hard" either. > or think about > seeing it in daily life is because I realize that if I don't > understand the characteristic of dhammas, then I would invariably be > projecting an idea onto the world. I have seen people go so far as > to suggest that D.O. operates in the physical world as well!! And it doesn't?? > On the > other hand, I am waiting for the day that I might have the time to > study Rob M's chart in which he has shown in terms of the 24 > conditions, what is operating at each link in the D.O. This appeals > to me more, because individual conditions are easier to understand > intellectually and they don't tempt one into trying to see phenomena > in a linear and sequential way as D.O. often does. I don't think that D.O. is just linear and sequential, I think there is a bunch of feedback loops here and there, either feedback loops or the fact that the interaction of varios D.O.s (if I can I ever say that) make it behave non linear. -- Hugo 42116 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Hi, Hugo - In a message dated 2/12/05 10:32:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, eklektik@g... writes: > > Please clarify: > > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:18:23 -0800 (PST), upasaka@a... > wrote: > > Sukin, I'm adding no further comments below. I'm including all of your > >post, as I just don't know what parts to snip. ;-) > > I'm writing just to say that I think that this yours an impressive > >presentation: moderate, clear, calm, useful, and given with humility. > > Have you been "converted" (smile) to the non-doing philosophy? :-) > > -- > =================== Hugo, I've been "here" longer than you, and so I have a bit of a different perspective. With regard to Sukin's post, everything is comparative. I see much moderation in his post, and I would not want to leave that uncommented upon. As far as non-doing is concerned: No, I have not been "converted". ;-) IMO, there is doing, but no doer. Also, the stories we tell ourselves about the doing are different from what is actually going on, which is indeed, a matter of impersonal phenomena and operations, importantly including cetana. The stories are abbreviational. They are (often) conventionally true, but they are not literally true. They are shorthand representations for what is literally true. 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) 42117 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/Hugo Hello Connie, On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:57:18 -0800, connie wrote: > If we "aim to be mindful 100% of the time", we're forgetting about things > like the actual sense consciousnesses only arising with the seven > universal cetasikas: sensorial or mental impression/contact (phassa), > feeling (vedana), perception/memory/marking (sa~n~na), volition (cetana), > concentration (ekaggata), vitality/'life' (jivita), and > advertence/attention (manasikara). I admit my ignorance of Abhidhamma, thus I can't reply to this paragraph. I will try the next ones. > That kid has to be confident enough to believe Buddha saying that all > worldlings are like madmen and basically ignorant of realities. I agree, you are accepting that they need to "be confident enough", which means that they need at least a little bit of a "self", thus you need to have a "self" in order to attain Nibbana. Which leads me to think that you have to do something with that "self", that is "use" it skillfully in order to encourage the conditions so you can drop everything and then drop the self. > I think > the belief in self is the biggest symptom of our insanity. Maybe those > kids are better off than we think and it would be easier for them to > understand that they aren't responsible for the world / making things > happen. So, does this mean that Buddhism is like other religions where you can't do anything except if it is God's will? Are you saying that The Buddha didn't encourage us to be responsible of our acts? I always thought that one of the key differences between other religions and Buddhism was exactly that, the fact that in Buddhism you are responsible for whatever you do. My understanding is the following: There is Free Will, but that Free Will is only as Free as the conditions allow it. So, you are free to want to fly, but you don't have wings, thus you won't be able to do it, you are free to pursue enlightenment but depending on your level of "development" it might be easier (those who attained Enlightenment just by listening a Sutta) or very difficult (those like me who are still full of defilements and can't tell satipatthana from a plant). But still you are free to try. > You said about the alcoholic, "Shouldn't you first working on getting him > out of the alcohol and late-night parties by any means possible, and then > you work on getting him on the right path, and then you can proceed with > developing understanding?" > > I think it's understanding first. Why would I give up all that fun if I > didn't have something better already in place? No empties, please. Yes, I agree, there has to be understanding, but when I said "developing understanding" I meant a "higher" understanding, or an understanding of all the nama, rupa and everything else, or in other words, before I start explaining him about the Suttas, etc. I need to explain him about the dangers to his health, and then show him that he is suffering and so on before moving to other topics. And one of the things he needs to do is stop hanging out with those who encourage him to drink, otherwise it will be extremely difficult to quit drinking, which matches exactly to what is my position, you can encourage the conditions to arise, in this case, by not hanging out with them you are encouraging the conditions so he can get stronger and decide to quit once and for all. BTW, this also means that the alcoholic should have a good self-steem, otherwise he won't believe that he can stop drinking he will have all sorts of excuses to keep drinking, if he doesn't believe he CAN DO something, it is very difficult that he even tries. Greetings, -- Hugo 42118 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Modern arahants Hello RobertK, Thanks for this message, I love this kind of messages. On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:50:32 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > Anyway the point of all this long story was that it let me see how > easy it is for people to project their hopes onto others. [...] > to her. And the number of times someone has said to me that they > know Sujin is a sotapanna. I always say 'How do you know'? > To me such speculation is unhealthy. We have to make the Dhamma our > refuge, not a person. Then we become self-reliant. It is the only > way. I definitely agree! -- Hugo 42119 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hello Robert, I share the same position as Tep in regards of Maha Boowa and Acharn Mun, the citta and Nibbana. One question, On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:54:55 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > Brahmajala sutta: > ""Monks, the body of the Tathágata stands with the link that bound > it to becoming cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans > will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion > of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more. Monks, > just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the > mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathágata's link with becoming > has been cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will > see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of > the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more." But it doesn't say that there aren't somewhere in some form at all.....it is really difficult to even state my question because I can't find the proper words, I hope you understand the gist of it without going into technicalities of semantics (ie. I know they "aren't" because the nama and rupa have been separated, etc.). In any case I think this is one of those things that it is better to put aside, isn't it? Greetings, -- Hugo 42120 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hello RobertK, On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:09:39 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Hugo, > I'm interested why you classify these activities as wrong view > (miccha-ditthi)? I didn't say that, please re-read my reply. -- Hugo 42121 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: an unwholesome activity ? Hello RobertK, Oops, sorry for the previous reply, I was reading something else, then I read your question and didn't make sense, but I caught my mistake, so let me try to answer. On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:09:39 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > > If I pick up the coffee cup because I want to drink it, and the > reason > > I want to drink it is because I know the caffeine will keep me > awake, > > and I know that I need to stay awake so I can type the above > mentioned > > letter to DSG, isn't it wrong view? > > > > ===== > Dear Hugo, > I'm interested why you classify these activities as wrong view > (miccha-ditthi)? Because of the self. The paragraph you quoted says "the above mentioned letter" which was a letter that one would write out of his/her ego, so that person wanted to protect his/her ego. -- Hugo 42122 From: Hugo Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Howard & Ken O. Dear Howard, On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:09:53 -0800 (PST), upasaka@a... wrote: > Hugo, I've been "here" longer than you, and so I have a bit of a > different perspective. With regard to Sukin's post, everything is comparative. I > see much moderation in his post, and I would not want to leave that uncommented > upon. > As far as non-doing is concerned: No, I have not been "converted". ;-) > IMO, there is doing, but no doer. I agree. > Also, the stories we tell ourselves about > the doing are different from what is actually going on, which is indeed, a > matter of impersonal phenomena and operations, importantly including cetana. The > stories are abbreviational. They are (often) conventionally true, but they are > not literally true. They are shorthand representations for what is literally > true. And I agree. I only talk conventionally because that's what my understanding allow me to do. (see?, I understand that everything is under the rule of conditions!) As I said in a different post, I am in the mundane and clinging-to-self level. Thanks for clarifying! -- Hugo 42123 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:07am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > Dear RobertK, > > > > Thank you for the explanation that states your position. Frankly, > I do > > find it hard to believe in those incredible stories as told by > Maha > > Boowa about his teacher, Acariya Mun. However, I do not want to > jump > > to a conclusion that Maha Boowa lied or Acharn Mun was > hallucinated. > > Because I highly respect them both and, further, I have zero > knowledge > > about citta after Nibana. > > > >======== > Dear Tep, > That's a very honest and reasonable statement. > RobertK Dear RobertK, my friend - Thank you for the kind words. Warm regards, Tep =========== 42124 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/12/2005 1:45:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: My take on just about anything is that if it helps us to develop detachment (is that an oxymoron?) it is good Dhamma. Reducing dhammas to "realities" seems very helpful to me in this sense - it really discourages the mistaken belief in one's ability to control cittass, encourages us to spend a lot of time reflecting on anatta - but for others it might not be so. Metta, Phil Hi Phil Yes, that is the bottom line. You can't argue with success. If that success ever loses steam, then the methods can be re-evaluated if need be ... or looked into further. TG 42125 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard > Howard: > But I'm talking about cetasikas taken as arammana, not rupas. ... > In any case, what I said was that the Abhidhamma is amazingly > vague on non-rupic mind-door objects, which I still believe is relatively true. > The Attasalini, which I'm sure has enormous value (I haven't seen it), isn't > Abhidhamma. yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non-rupic mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. Ledi sayadaw says: All class of consciousness, all states of mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana-relations. - kel 42126 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1. Dear Tep, op 11-02-2005 03:36 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: . Forgive me if my attitude in this message > is more stubborn than ever before. N: It is fine. I especially like the way you use the image of a juggler! I come to that one later on. T: Walking meditation is a small part of kayanupassana in DN 22 (Maha- > satipatthana Sutta): > > "And again, bhikkus, a bhikkhu while walking knows 'I am walking'.... > Another instruction that touches on awareness training using "body > movements" as the object of sati is seen in MN 39 > Mahaassapurasuttam: > > "Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be mindful and fully aware. In > going forward and returning, .... > > The words like "we will act with clear awareness" and "we will be > mindful" might make the purists jump to conclusion that the Buddha > taught His monks to use intention/determination to direct sati and > sampajanna to arise. Is it the translator's fault? N: Nobody's fault, it is just how different people read the suttas. T: The key idea for training as I understand from the two suttas is that the > meditator routinely maintains sati and sampajanna (awareness) on > each of the four body postures (Iriyapatha), N: Approach:1. by way of conventional terms like walking, legs, etc. Approach: 2. by way of paramattha dhammas, nama and rupa. It depends on the inclinations of different people what approach they take. Ken H differentiated between: the namas and rupas of a moment of consciousness and conventional reality (the concept of continued existence over a period of time). Misunderstandings may arise in conversations when one person uses 1 and the other person uses 2. This may happen when discussing walking meditation. I see the suttas as a means to help people to be aware of whatever nama or rupa appears so that eventually the three characteristics can be penetrated. Indeed often conventional terms are used, like walking, as a means to explain ultimate realities. (snipping a lot to make it shorter.) > > T: I think maintaining awareness in each body posture is very much like keeping attention on the book's content while we're reading it .. N: When we consider paramattha dhammas there is in the ultimate sense no posture. The idea of posture hides the arising and falling away of dhammas. It makes us think of a whole, the whole body. > > T: I never wait for sati to arise or try to direct it, given that awareness > is already present. For example, I am typing now and I am aware of it > without trying to keep sati with the typing. My awareness, or sati, at this > level continues because my attention is staying with the typing. N: I understand what you mean. I know that some people mean by sati: knowing what one is doing. I see this as approach 1. Then you explain: T: How can "do nothing special" produce something very special like lokuttara samma-sati? > Or, is the lokuttara samma-sati conditioned only by the following > vipassana bhavana (which is, in a way, "doing something special")? N: I know this is a dilemma for many. I had an interesting exchange about this with Howard. T: "He dwells perceiving again and again the cause and the actual > appearing of the body or he dwells perceiving again and again the > cause and the actual dissolution of the body....he dwells without clinging to anything in > the world." [Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Translated by U Jotika & U > Dhamminda] N: Yes, the right practice leads to less and less clinging and eventually to arahatship. We read body, but meant are: rupas. The arising and falling away of the rupa such as hardness that appears. When we say: the body, we should know that the whole of the body does not arise and fall away. Here we have the two approaches we should not confuse. Nina. 42127 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/12/05 1:45:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > > Hi Howard > > >Howard: > > But I'm talking about cetasikas taken as arammana, not > rupas. > ... > >In any case, what I said was that the Abhidhamma is amazingly > >vague on non-rupic mind-door objects, which I still believe is > relatively true. > >The Attasalini, which I'm sure has enormous value (I haven't seen > it), isn't > >Abhidhamma. > > yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non-rupic > mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > ------------------------------- Howard: I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. Could you please reformulate this? ---------------------------- > Ledi sayadaw says: All class of consciousness, all states of > mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of > nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana-relations. > ---------------------------- Howard: Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is he saying that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? If so, I don't quite follow that. It seems to me that feeling a touch as, say, pleasant , i.e., encountering the touch with an operation of (pleasant) vedana, is a different experience from merely experiencing the touch as present (vi~n~nana), and that vedanic knowing is an additional element of experience, concomitant to the mere knowing as object, and adding a kind of "flavor" to the mindstate. The operation of feeling is a critical one according to the Buddha, who said that it is requisite for recognition (sa~n~na). ---------------------------- > > - kel > > =================== 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) 42128 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Howard, > > yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non- rupic > > mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > > > ------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. Could you > please reformulate this? > ---------------------------- Heart-object acts the same way as visual-object acts for their doors. The mind-door consciousness formed based on heart-object like the visual-door consciousness based on visual-object. They're all based on rupas and none are just merely mind-based. Maybe it's a totally basic point and I missed your topic, sorry. > Howard: > Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is he saying > that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? If so, I don't > quite follow that. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL02.html#Arammana Have a look there so I don't misrepresent him. - kel 42129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Hi Jon, op 12-02-2005 14:19 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@n...:> > Sorry to hear that your father's health is failing. Not an easy > situation for you to handle, I'm sure. But as you say, a reminder of > our own frailty and eventual fate. N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. The evening before I read to Lodewijk the Jataka that Chris had quoted: the family who did not weep when the son was bitten by a snake and died. Sakka came down and each person spoke about impermanence and the reason he did not weep in his own way. The funeral is Friday. 42130 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/12/05 2:36:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > Howard, > > >> yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non- > rupic > >>mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > >> > >------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. > Could you > >please reformulate this? > >---------------------------- > Heart-object acts the same way as visual-object acts for their > doors. The mind-door consciousness formed based on heart-object > like the visual-door consciousness based on visual-object. They're > all based on rupas and none are just merely mind-based. Maybe it's > a totally basic point and I missed your topic, sorry. > -------------------------------------- Howard: It seems to me that besides a mind-door grasping of rupas, there is also awareness of feelings, emotions, mental images, recalled odors etc. I do agree that all such namas arose, originally, concomitant to awareness of rupas, but, by fresh memory, and also by long-term recall, they, themselves can serve as direct objects. If all that you mean is that awareness of rupas is primary, I agree. -------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is > he saying > >that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? > If so, I don't > >quite follow that. > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL02.html#Arammana > > Have a look there so I don't misrepresent him. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks for the reference. I just checked it out. The quote you gave stopped one sentence too short, IMO. Adding that next sentence, it reads as follows: "What is the Arammana-relation? All classes of consciousness, all states of mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana- relations. There is, in fact, not a single thing (dhamma) which does not become an object of mind and of the mental elements." That last sentence clarifies the meaning. The point of this is that every dhamma *can* appear, and even *does* come to appear, as arammana. But that is not the same as saying that cetasikas are knowable *only* in that fashion. They also serve to "flavor " a mindstate. -------------------------------------- > > - kel > > ================== 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) 42131 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:16pm Subject: Re: Amoeba / Citta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique wrote: > > > > Tep asked: > > Q3. Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases > to exist) after Nibbana? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Nibbana is timeless phenomena. So nibbana does not have before > or after. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Htoo & friends, > 1. When it is stated that nibbana is timeless or eternal (?), there is always a temptation to start taking nibbana as the unconditioned absolute, one's real nature either in advaita (in nibbana there is no- duality) or dualistic style (khandhas are one thing, nibbana as the absolute is another). In fact, similar situation has developed in Mahayana schools. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? > 2. Is nibbana an individual state? I mean, can one conventionally say that Ananda, for example, realized his individual nibbana state that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants. Or is it more like one universal unconditioned absolute "shared by all", where all individuals' khandhas cease, something like an ocean in which all rivers (beings) cease? > > With metta, > > Cosmique --------------------------------------------------------- Friend Cosmique - It all started with my ignorant question, "Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases to exist) after Nibbana?". And you asked a few questions. But I am incapable of taking more questions on top of the unanswered one. Now I am thinking of the story of a poor camel whose back was broken because the owner just added a feather on top of its fully loaded back. This is not unlike the situation here! Your additional questions are as follows: 1. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? 2. Is nibbana an individual state (that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants)? They are good questions, friend. Instead, could you please give me a clue about the views of the Mahayana and Theravada schools? BTW, how is absolute reality different from ultimate reality? Sincerely, Tep ============ 42132 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:00pm Subject: [dsg] Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Sarah, Sarah: Ok, back to 'one'. How is this living entity that builds the seven path factors ever experienced if it exists? Is it seen? Is it heard? Is it smelt? Is it tasted? is it touched? Or, is it merely thought about? James: In what sense do you ask this question: conventional or ultimate? And, what is your reason for asking this question: you don't know or are you trying to make a point? (I think I know the answer, but I thought I should ask anyway ;-) Metta, James 42133 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:24pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I share the same position as Tep in regards of Maha Boowa and Acharn > Mun, the citta and Nibbana. > > One question, > > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:54:55 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Brahmajala sutta: > > ""Monks, the body of the Tathágata stands with the link that bound > > it to becoming cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans > > will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion > > of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more. Monks, > > just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the > > mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathágata's link with becoming > > has been cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will > > see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of > > the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more." > > But it doesn't say that there aren't somewhere in some form at > all.....it is really difficult to even state my question because I > can't find the proper words, I hope you understand the gist of it > without going into technicalities of semantics (ie. I know they > "aren't" because the nama and rupa have been separated, etc.). > > In any case I think this is one of those things that it is better to > put aside, isn't it? > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Hi Robert, Hugo, Tep, and Howard, I have been away from this interesting discussion due to traveling over the weekend. Although the Buddha did say this, look very carefully at what he said. He said that `devas and humans' would not be able to see him after death; in other words, he was not going to be reborn. However, he did not say anything about if other arahants would be able to see him or not. Is an arahant a human? Well, when the Buddha was asked if he was a human he didn't say he was, he said that he was `awake'. Frankly, I don't believe that arahants truly fall under the category of `human'. What happens to the citta that is freed from craving? Is it annihilated? I don't think so. If you will read the section of A. Mun's biography that I referred to, you will see that it explains that only arahants are able to communicate with other arahants after parinibbana. It explains that this communication is just citta to citta or that some psychic form can be assumed when needed. How this all works with anatta I am not sure. But the Buddha refused to talk about this subject. He said that he only taught suffering and the end of suffering, he wouldn't teach what happens after that. And, of course he must have known because he was omniscient. It is an interesting subject. Personally, I think that A. Mun was telling the truth about what he experienced, but only another arahant could know for sure. ;-) Metta, James 42124 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/12/2005 1:45:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: My take on just about anything is that if it helps us to develop detachment (is that an oxymoron?) it is good Dhamma. Reducing dhammas to "realities" seems very helpful to me in this sense - it really discourages the mistaken belief in one's ability to control cittass, encourages us to spend a lot of time reflecting on anatta - but for others it might not be so. Metta, Phil Hi Phil Yes, that is the bottom line. You can't argue with success. If that success ever loses steam, then the methods can be re-evaluated if need be ... or looked into further. TG 42125 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard > Howard: > But I'm talking about cetasikas taken as arammana, not rupas. ... > In any case, what I said was that the Abhidhamma is amazingly > vague on non-rupic mind-door objects, which I still believe is relatively true. > The Attasalini, which I'm sure has enormous value (I haven't seen it), isn't > Abhidhamma. yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non-rupic mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. Ledi sayadaw says: All class of consciousness, all states of mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana-relations. - kel 42126 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1. Dear Tep, op 11-02-2005 03:36 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: . Forgive me if my attitude in this message > is more stubborn than ever before. N: It is fine. I especially like the way you use the image of a juggler! I come to that one later on. T: Walking meditation is a small part of kayanupassana in DN 22 (Maha- > satipatthana Sutta): > > "And again, bhikkus, a bhikkhu while walking knows 'I am walking'.... > Another instruction that touches on awareness training using "body > movements" as the object of sati is seen in MN 39 > Mahaassapurasuttam: > > "Bhikkhus, you should train thus: 'We will be mindful and fully aware. In > going forward and returning, .... > > The words like "we will act with clear awareness" and "we will be > mindful" might make the purists jump to conclusion that the Buddha > taught His monks to use intention/determination to direct sati and > sampajanna to arise. Is it the translator's fault? N: Nobody's fault, it is just how different people read the suttas. T: The key idea for training as I understand from the two suttas is that the > meditator routinely maintains sati and sampajanna (awareness) on > each of the four body postures (Iriyapatha), N: Approach:1. by way of conventional terms like walking, legs, etc. Approach: 2. by way of paramattha dhammas, nama and rupa. It depends on the inclinations of different people what approach they take. Ken H differentiated between: the namas and rupas of a moment of consciousness and conventional reality (the concept of continued existence over a period of time). Misunderstandings may arise in conversations when one person uses 1 and the other person uses 2. This may happen when discussing walking meditation. I see the suttas as a means to help people to be aware of whatever nama or rupa appears so that eventually the three characteristics can be penetrated. Indeed often conventional terms are used, like walking, as a means to explain ultimate realities. (snipping a lot to make it shorter.) > > T: I think maintaining awareness in each body posture is very much like keeping attention on the book's content while we're reading it .. N: When we consider paramattha dhammas there is in the ultimate sense no posture. The idea of posture hides the arising and falling away of dhammas. It makes us think of a whole, the whole body. > > T: I never wait for sati to arise or try to direct it, given that awareness > is already present. For example, I am typing now and I am aware of it > without trying to keep sati with the typing. My awareness, or sati, at this > level continues because my attention is staying with the typing. N: I understand what you mean. I know that some people mean by sati: knowing what one is doing. I see this as approach 1. Then you explain: T: How can "do nothing special" produce something very special like lokuttara samma-sati? > Or, is the lokuttara samma-sati conditioned only by the following > vipassana bhavana (which is, in a way, "doing something special")? N: I know this is a dilemma for many. I had an interesting exchange about this with Howard. T: "He dwells perceiving again and again the cause and the actual > appearing of the body or he dwells perceiving again and again the > cause and the actual dissolution of the body....he dwells without clinging to anything in > the world." [Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Translated by U Jotika & U > Dhamminda] N: Yes, the right practice leads to less and less clinging and eventually to arahatship. We read body, but meant are: rupas. The arising and falling away of the rupa such as hardness that appears. When we say: the body, we should know that the whole of the body does not arise and fall away. Here we have the two approaches we should not confuse. Nina. 42127 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/12/05 1:45:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > > Hi Howard > > >Howard: > > But I'm talking about cetasikas taken as arammana, not > rupas. > ... > >In any case, what I said was that the Abhidhamma is amazingly > >vague on non-rupic mind-door objects, which I still believe is > relatively true. > >The Attasalini, which I'm sure has enormous value (I haven't seen > it), isn't > >Abhidhamma. > > yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non-rupic > mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > ------------------------------- Howard: I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. Could you please reformulate this? ---------------------------- > Ledi sayadaw says: All class of consciousness, all states of > mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of > nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana-relations. > ---------------------------- Howard: Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is he saying that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? If so, I don't quite follow that. It seems to me that feeling a touch as, say, pleasant , i.e., encountering the touch with an operation of (pleasant) vedana, is a different experience from merely experiencing the touch as present (vi~n~nana), and that vedanic knowing is an additional element of experience, concomitant to the mere knowing as object, and adding a kind of "flavor" to the mindstate. The operation of feeling is a critical one according to the Buddha, who said that it is requisite for recognition (sa~n~na). ---------------------------- > > - kel > > =================== 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) 42128 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Howard, > > yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non- rupic > > mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > > > ------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. Could you > please reformulate this? > ---------------------------- Heart-object acts the same way as visual-object acts for their doors. The mind-door consciousness formed based on heart-object like the visual-door consciousness based on visual-object. They're all based on rupas and none are just merely mind-based. Maybe it's a totally basic point and I missed your topic, sorry. > Howard: > Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is he saying > that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? If so, I don't > quite follow that. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL02.html#Arammana Have a look there so I don't misrepresent him. - kel 42129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Hi Jon, op 12-02-2005 14:19 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@n...:> > Sorry to hear that your father's health is failing. Not an easy > situation for you to handle, I'm sure. But as you say, a reminder of > our own frailty and eventual fate. N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. The evening before I read to Lodewijk the Jataka that Chris had quoted: the family who did not weep when the son was bitten by a snake and died. Sakka came down and each person spoke about impermanence and the reason he did not weep in his own way. The funeral is Friday. 42130 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/12/05 2:36:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > Howard, > > >> yea, that's what I was trying to point out. There is no non- > rupic > >>mind-door object after consolidation Attasalini made. > >> > >------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I'm sorry. I don't understand the point you are making. > Could you > >please reformulate this? > >---------------------------- > Heart-object acts the same way as visual-object acts for their > doors. The mind-door consciousness formed based on heart-object > like the visual-door consciousness based on visual-object. They're > all based on rupas and none are just merely mind-based. Maybe it's > a totally basic point and I missed your topic, sorry. > -------------------------------------- Howard: It seems to me that besides a mind-door grasping of rupas, there is also awareness of feelings, emotions, mental images, recalled odors etc. I do agree that all such namas arose, originally, concomitant to awareness of rupas, but, by fresh memory, and also by long-term recall, they, themselves can serve as direct objects. If all that you mean is that awareness of rupas is primary, I agree. -------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Now, here I'm unclear as to what the Sayadaw is saying. Is > he saying > >that there is no form of knowing other than knowing as arammana? > If so, I don't > >quite follow that. > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL02.html#Arammana > > Have a look there so I don't misrepresent him. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks for the reference. I just checked it out. The quote you gave stopped one sentence too short, IMO. Adding that next sentence, it reads as follows: "What is the Arammana-relation? All classes of consciousness, all states of mental concomitants, all kinds of material qualities, all phases of nibbana, all terms expressive of concepts, are arammana- relations. There is, in fact, not a single thing (dhamma) which does not become an object of mind and of the mental elements." That last sentence clarifies the meaning. The point of this is that every dhamma *can* appear, and even *does* come to appear, as arammana. But that is not the same as saying that cetasikas are knowable *only* in that fashion. They also serve to "flavor " a mindstate. -------------------------------------- > > - kel > > ================== 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) 42131 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:16pm Subject: Re: Amoeba / Citta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique wrote: > > > > Tep asked: > > Q3. Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases > to exist) after Nibbana? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Nibbana is timeless phenomena. So nibbana does not have before > or after. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Htoo & friends, > 1. When it is stated that nibbana is timeless or eternal (?), there is always a temptation to start taking nibbana as the unconditioned absolute, one's real nature either in advaita (in nibbana there is no- duality) or dualistic style (khandhas are one thing, nibbana as the absolute is another). In fact, similar situation has developed in Mahayana schools. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? > 2. Is nibbana an individual state? I mean, can one conventionally say that Ananda, for example, realized his individual nibbana state that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants. Or is it more like one universal unconditioned absolute "shared by all", where all individuals' khandhas cease, something like an ocean in which all rivers (beings) cease? > > With metta, > > Cosmique --------------------------------------------------------- Friend Cosmique - It all started with my ignorant question, "Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases to exist) after Nibbana?". And you asked a few questions. But I am incapable of taking more questions on top of the unanswered one. Now I am thinking of the story of a poor camel whose back was broken because the owner just added a feather on top of its fully loaded back. This is not unlike the situation here! Your additional questions are as follows: 1. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? 2. Is nibbana an individual state (that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants)? They are good questions, friend. Instead, could you please give me a clue about the views of the Mahayana and Theravada schools? BTW, how is absolute reality different from ultimate reality? Sincerely, Tep ============ 42132 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:00pm Subject: [dsg] Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Sarah, Sarah: Ok, back to 'one'. How is this living entity that builds the seven path factors ever experienced if it exists? Is it seen? Is it heard? Is it smelt? Is it tasted? is it touched? Or, is it merely thought about? James: In what sense do you ask this question: conventional or ultimate? And, what is your reason for asking this question: you don't know or are you trying to make a point? (I think I know the answer, but I thought I should ask anyway ;-) Metta, James 42133 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:24pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I share the same position as Tep in regards of Maha Boowa and Acharn > Mun, the citta and Nibbana. > > One question, > > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:54:55 -0000, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Brahmajala sutta: > > ""Monks, the body of the Tathágata stands with the link that bound > > it to becoming cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans > > will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion > > of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more. Monks, > > just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the > > mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathágata's link with becoming > > has been cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will > > see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of > > the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more." > > But it doesn't say that there aren't somewhere in some form at > all.....it is really difficult to even state my question because I > can't find the proper words, I hope you understand the gist of it > without going into technicalities of semantics (ie. I know they > "aren't" because the nama and rupa have been separated, etc.). > > In any case I think this is one of those things that it is better to > put aside, isn't it? > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Hi Robert, Hugo, Tep, and Howard, I have been away from this interesting discussion due to traveling over the weekend. Although the Buddha did say this, look very carefully at what he said. He said that `devas and humans' would not be able to see him after death; in other words, he was not going to be reborn. However, he did not say anything about if other arahants would be able to see him or not. Is an arahant a human? Well, when the Buddha was asked if he was a human he didn't say he was, he said that he was `awake'. Frankly, I don't believe that arahants truly fall under the category of `human'. What happens to the citta that is freed from craving? Is it annihilated? I don't think so. If you will read the section of A. Mun's biography that I referred to, you will see that it explains that only arahants are able to communicate with other arahants after parinibbana. It explains that this communication is just citta to citta or that some psychic form can be assumed when needed. How this all works with anatta I am not sure. But the Buddha refused to talk about this subject. He said that he only taught suffering and the end of suffering, he wouldn't teach what happens after that. And, of course he must have known because he was omniscient. It is an interesting subject. Personally, I think that A. Mun was telling the truth about what he experienced, but only another arahant could know for sure. ;-) Metta, James 42134 From: connie Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:43pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/Hugo Dear Hugo, Yes, we all use the imaginery tool/coping mechanism called self. I don't know how skillfully, though. We tend to forget it's not real - it's shorthand aspect as you and Howard mentioned. We're still giving our cartoon characters super powers and getting all caught up in our own suspended disbelief. I flew as a child and even though I pretend to know better now, my mind still flies away from present realities. My body may be on the ground, but I'm not aware of it and can't say I'm all here. As an adult, I expect you have a certain idea of my childhood flights that would fit with the general (dis)belief and for the most part, I'd agree... imagination. Certainly I never told anyone young Connie used to find herself standing among white-robed strangers and was surprised one adult day when a woman came to my house with a friend, stared at me for awhile and said, "You used to come take my place when I couldn't stand it anymore" and proceeded to describe my fantasy from parts of her childhood. I guess we are both crazy and our flight paths had crossed before. I'm sure I never really left my room and we had never met. I don't know how to explain any other stories I believe about people knowing things they don't have any "real" way of knowing except to say we're flighty. I'll accept that I don't have wings, but how literally are we to take phrases like 'wings of awakening' or the following verse from the venerable Buddharakkhita's translation of the Dhammapada? 175. Swans fly on the path of the sun; men pass through the air by psychic powers; the wise are led away from the world after vanquishing Mara and his host. Closer to the ground, we have: 37. Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara. 38. Wisdom never becomes perfect in one whose mind is not steadfast, who knows not the Good Teaching and whose faith wavers. People will look strangely at a child who says "there is faith" rather than "I believe", but the child would be speaking the truth. It's not not a matter of any self-confidence but the degree of conviction that Buddha spoke the truth. Did he say 'be responsible for yourself'? Sure, and we can find any number of quotes to support that. Again, how literally are we to take them and is my current understanding the full measure of their truth? If I tell you I'm standing on the ledge about to fly, you probably tell me that's fine, but please come in and let you fix the hole in my cape first. Why threaten my sense of reality and force me to prove it when you can use my madness to help me? You've got to use words I understand and leave it to me to get well enough to see that's there's still more there I haven't understood yet. I may never come to realize what you meant when you referred to my cape, but for there to be any hope for whatever sanity I might have, it has to be little by little, deeper, deeper. Mine are very poor examples, but the Buddha excelled at talking over our heads in words we could relate to without talking down to us. He would know our limits and how much we could accept before we were paralyzed by culture shock while still opening up a whole new world of understanding for us. We can stick to the regular tourist routes or go native and either way, say we've been. He would know which alcoholic cared about health and would benefit from that approach or which would be better off staying with his friends to see his own foolishness there and turn away in disgust and relief. When the conditions are right, the drink is not tempting. It is seen for what it is and that's the end of desire. No will power needed. It is no longer the same person when there is new understanding. It is the difference between sobriety and a "dry drunk" or "stinkin' thinkin'". Yes, within the limits of our understanding, we intend "to avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind -- this is the teaching of the Buddhas." (Dhp 183) But this intention is another shorthand for countless moments of thinking and doing and explaining to my conventional self what it is I'm about. Is it true that I "can't do anything except if it is God's will?" Which god(s)? Some of my friends tell me this is just our way of personifying naturally occurring phenomena and functions, so in that sense, why not? How could I possibly act against the laws of nature? Better I should come to understand them and learn to use them at least to understand if not work miracles. Here I am just thinking of Buddha's teaching as the greatest of these, not that this is another way to think of Buddha as the tamer of gods, although I suppose we could. If you will teach anyone "an understanding of all the nama, rupa and everything else", what is the everything else? Nama sees, nama thinks, nama tells rupa to act. Where is self? When I said self doesn't really belong in the picture, it's because the picture is already complete without it. We just put it there to make sense of things. Self comes in after nama has recognized a rupa that has already arisen or after nama has thought of concepts or whatever. Any realities are long gone before the self comes in to take the credit for everything. Self can do nothing about the present or the future, it can only react to what has already been (written). Nibbana aside, only nama and rupa exist in the present. peace, connie 42135 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:44pm Subject: Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1- MN 95. Dear Nina - You know, I always learn something good from you every time we have an exchange of views. I call the dialogue an "exchange" because there is no perception of winning or losing (or who is right or wrong); even when you tell me that something I believe in is incorrect, I don't feel bad. It would be nice if I could extend this 'selfless' environment to every discussion everywhere. >T: The key idea for training as I understand from the two suttas > is that the meditator routinely maintains sati and sampajanna > (awareness) on each of the four body postures (Iriyapatha), N: Approach:1. by way of conventional terms like walking, legs, etc. Approach: 2. by way of paramattha dhammas, nama and rupa. T: I am glad that there are two acceptable ways in training for right mindfulness. --------------------------------- N: I see the suttas as a means to help people to be aware of whatever nama or rupa appears so that eventually the three characteristics can be penetrated. Indeed often conventional terms are used, like walking, as a means to explain ultimate realities. T: Yes, indeed, wise attention to both the suttas' conventional terms and the paramattha dhamma terms must be better than one single approach. -------------------------- >T: Or, is the lokuttara samma-sati conditioned only by the following > vipassana bhavana (which is, in a way, "doing something special")? "He dwells perceiving again and again the cause and the actual > appearing of the body or he dwells perceiving again and again the > cause and the actual dissolution of the body....he dwells without clinging to anything in the world." [Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Translated by U Jotika & U Dhamminda] N: Yes, the right practice leads to less and less clinging and eventually to arahatship. We read body, but meant are: rupas. The arising and falling away of the rupa such as hardness that appears. When we say: the body, we should know that the whole of the body does not arise and fall away. T: The talking about the "right practice", based on using suttas, reminds me of MN 95. Please allow me to present an excerpt from this sutta with my thoughts. I think you might like it too (you most probably have read this sutta). " The final arrival at truth, Bharadvaja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth." "Striving is most helpful for the final arrival at truth, Bharadvaja. If one does not strive, one will not finally arrive at truth: but because one strives, one does finally arrive at truth. That is why striving is most helpful for the final arrival at truth." etc. etc. The striving (atapi) is a supporting factor in this training of the supramundane insight ('final arrival at truth'). The whole process described in this discourse, which starts from 'hearing the Dhamma' may be summarized as follows: The final arrival at truth <--- Striving <--- Scrutinizing <--- Application of will <--- Zeal <--- Reflection on the Teachings <---Examination of meanings <--- Memorizing the Teachings <--- Hearing the Dhamma. I have a question for you. I think this process of mind training (sikkha) for lokuttara panna clearly depends on the establishment of good perceptions (e.g. anicca-sanna) through repeated training ("repetition, development and cultivation ") until bad perceptions(e.g. nicca-sanna) are gone. There are words like "application of will" and "striving", which indicate 'bala' and persistence(viriya) during the vipassana bhavana. Is this understanding a right one (without a 'self' directing the effort, or lobha that yearns for results)? Kindest regards, Tep ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep, > op 11-02-2005 03:36 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > . Forgive me if my attitude in this message > > is more stubborn than ever before. 42136 From: cosmique Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta Dear Tep, I realize now my questions might sound a little disorderly. In fact, I tried to hit with one stone as many birds as possible. Htoo's answer to your question about citta becoming extinct after realizing nibbana instantly generated a slightly sporadic flow of thoughts in my citta that does not know nibbana yet and therefore will not cease to exist after this life. I assume that Mahayana view (Zen & Tibetan schools) is well-known to a degree, that is, there is buddha-nature, or tathagata-garbha, the enlightened aspect of consciousness, intrinsically pure and non-dual that is identified with the absolute. Different Mahayana schools term this reality differently. What is common about their positions is that this reality is pre-existent in a metaphysical sense and ready to be peeled off by right methods. It is one's true nature. It is Mahayana's ultimate reality (nibbana?) This also sounds very close to advaita-vedanta's view. Theravada does not assert the ultimate reality (nibbana) in positive terms and stays away from identifying it with one's true nature. Nevertheless, if it states that nibbana is ultimate, timeless reality, unconditioned state, what forbids one to call it one's true nature peeled off khandhas unless, of course, it is pure nothing? You see, Theravada's position to me is a little unstable because it does not say concretely that nibbana is something or nibbana is nothing. When I read more or less positive properties of nibbana I am tempted to equate it with the absolute of Vedanta or Mahayana. At last, what is the real difference between nibbana and the following description of the ultimate reality from an Upanisadic passage? It is not that which is conscious of the internal world, nor that which is conscious of external world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of all sentiency, nor that which is simple consciousness, nor which is insentient. It is not it is unseen by any sense organ, not related to anything, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable…. However, when nibbana is characterized in negative terms such as absence of existence, my mind tends to slip into nihilism. Therefore, I think I should reformulate my first question in the following manner: if nibbana is the ultimate and timeless reality (and not pure nothing), what is the difference between Theravada's concept of nibbana and the absolute of Mahayana & Advaita? The second question is more or less clear and it remains unchanged. I will be glad if you or anybody else shed some light on the above questions. With metta, Cosmique Tep Sastri wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique wrote: > > > > Tep asked: > > Q3. Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases > to exist) after Nibbana? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Nibbana is timeless phenomena. So nibbana does not have before > or after. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Htoo & friends, > 1. When it is stated that nibbana is timeless or eternal (?), there is always a temptation to start taking nibbana as the unconditioned absolute, one's real nature either in advaita (in nibbana there is no- duality) or dualistic style (khandhas are one thing, nibbana as the absolute is another). In fact, similar situation has developed in Mahayana schools. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? > 2. Is nibbana an individual state? I mean, can one conventionally say that Ananda, for example, realized his individual nibbana state that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants. Or is it more like one universal unconditioned absolute "shared by all", where all individuals' khandhas cease, something like an ocean in which all rivers (beings) cease? > > With metta, > > Cosmique --------------------------------------------------------- Friend Cosmique - It all started with my ignorant question, "Does the citta (stream of consciousness) become extinct (ceases to exist) after Nibbana?". And you asked a few questions. But I am incapable of taking more questions on top of the unanswered one. Now I am thinking of the story of a poor camel whose back was broken because the owner just added a feather on top of its fully loaded back. This is not unlike the situation here! Your additional questions are as follows: 1. If nibbana is eternal, can it be identified with or called the absolute reality, the absolute? 2. Is nibbana an individual state (that is separate from nibbanas of other arahants)? They are good questions, friend. Instead, could you please give me a clue about the views of the Mahayana and Theravada schools? BTW, how is absolute reality different from ultimate reality? Sincerely, Tep ============ The heaviness of one's burden is due to one's grasping. --------------------------------- 42137 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:14pm Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi James - Again, you said it all very well. James: Frankly, I don't believe that > arahants truly fall under the category of `human'. What happens to > the citta that is freed from craving? Is it annihilated? I don't > think so. Kind regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > I share the same position as Tep in regards of Maha Boowa and > Acharn > > Mun, the citta and Nibbana. > > > > One question, > > (snipped) > > In any case I think this is one of those things that it is better > to put aside, isn't it? > > > > Greetings, > > -- > > Hugo > > Hi Robert, Hugo, Tep, and Howard, > > I have been away from this interesting discussion due to traveling > over the weekend. Although the Buddha did say this, look very > carefully at what he said. He said that `devas and humans' would > not be able to see him after death; in other words, he was not going > to be reborn. However, he did not say anything about if other > arahants would be able to see him or not. Is an arahant a human? > Well, when the Buddha was asked if he was a human he didn't say he > was, he said that he was `awake'. Frankly, I don't believe that > arahants truly fall under the category of `human'. What happens to > the citta that is freed from craving? Is it annihilated? I don't > think so. > > If you will read the section of A. Mun's biography that I referred > to, you will see that it explains that only arahants are able to > communicate with other arahants after parinibbana. It explains that > this communication is just citta to citta or that some psychic form > can be assumed when needed. How this all works with anatta I am not sure. But the Buddha refused to talk about this subject. He said > that he only taught suffering and the end of suffering, he wouldn't > teach what happens after that. And, of course he must have known > because he was omniscient. > > It is an interesting subject. Personally, I think that A. Mun was > telling the truth about what he experienced, but only another > arahant could know for sure. ;-) > > Metta, > James 42138 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:46pm Subject: Reflections on Death Dear Nina and Lodewijk, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. The evening > before > I read to Lodewijk the Jataka that Chris had quoted: the family who did > not > weep when the son was bitten by a snake and died. Sakka came down and > each > person spoke about impermanence and the reason he did not weep in his > own > way. The funeral is Friday. .... S: We're very glad to hear it was peaceful. Please accept our condolences. Indeed he was fortunate to have your care,kindness and love at this time. I know it's been a real test and trial at times and your father was a really great warrior in his own way. The end of a great chapter about a very valiant man. Will Lodewijk be giving a eulogy? If so, please share it with us sometime. I know it would be very moving as Lodewijk would deliver it. He had such a close bond with your father and I'm sure that writing, speaking and reflecting on dhamma is the best medicine at this time as at all times. I love that Jataka too (354, Uraga Jataka) - how appropriate for you to read it together at this time. From Christine's earlier post, firstly with the words of the Bodhisatta (then the father): "Man quits his mortal frame, when joy in life is past. Even as a snake is wont its worn out slough to cast. No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead. Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." Similar questions were asked from the dead son's mother who replied thus: "Uncalled he hither came, unbidden soon to go. Even as he came he went, what cause is here for woe? No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead. Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." "Sisters surely are loving to their brothers. Why do you not weep?" asked Sakka of the dead man's sister. She replied: "Though I should fast and weep, how would it profit me? My kith and kin alas would more unhappy be. No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead. Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." Sakka then asked the dead man's wife why she did not weep. She replied thus: "As children cry in vain to grasp the moon above, So mortals idly mourn the loss of those they love. No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead. Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." Lastly Sakka asked the maid-servant why she did not weep, especially as she had stated that the master was never cruel to her but was most considerate and kind and treated her like a foster child. This was her reply: "A broken pot of earth, ah, who can piece again? So too, to mourn the dead is nought but labor vain. No friends' lament can touch the ashes of the dead. Why should I grieve? He fares the way he had to tread." ***** Metta, Sarah p.s There are also many good posts with textual quotes under 'Death' in Useful Posts. ================ 42139 From: Philip Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:58pm Subject: Aren't we rooted in ignorance? (was Re: Predominant roots?) Hi Connie and all Connie wrote: > I wonder what good it does to tell myself I'm predominantly greedy or > hateful or any of the 6 (more or less, depending on who you read) basic > natures. Since we discussed this topic, I haven't found myself wondering whether I am more deeply rooted in this or that. And I found a sutta passage which told me - as you did - that it needn't be something to reflect on in detail. The passage: "Therefore, Bhikkhus, one should often relect upon one's own mind thus, "For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust, hatred and delusion.'Through the defilements of the mind beings are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are purified." (SN 22.100) This tells me that it is more than enough to reflect on this general truth without trying to identify the specifics. >Basically, we're all here because of lobha mula citta. I was wondering about this and would like to ask. I remember learning that the citta that propels us into rebirth (patisandhi- citta?) is always accompanied by lobha, is that right? And if that is right, is that what you mean here? It confuses me a bit because it seems to me that ignorance is a more fundamental conditioning factor. All akusala is accompanied by ignorance, whether it's dosa or lobha, right? There is a sutta about the rooftop meeting at its top point, all beams leading to one point, and that one point is ignorance. On the other hand, I found this this morning in SN 22.82: "But, venerable sir, in what are these five aggregates subject to clinging rooted?" and the Buddha answers "These five aggregates subject to clinging, bhikkhu, are rooted in desire." Which sounds like what you said: "we're all here because of lobha mula citta." But what about ignorance? Isn't it at the root of it all? Thanks in advance for any feedback on this. I should go back and re- read the chapters in ADL on lobha. dosa and moha. Metta, Phil 42140 From: Philip Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:00pm Subject: Re: Reflections on Death Dear Nina > > N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. Very sorry to hear this, Nina. Please accept my condolences. Metta Phil 42141 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Hugo, I wrote that being interested in one's own personal practice might be a sign of attachment and desire for personal gain. You responded: -------------------------- > I agree, and actually it is, I am attached to the Path, I have the desire to be Enlightened, and I am actively searching on what is the best way to do it. > --------------------------- I think you are saying that your attachment, desire and energy are not of the akusala variety (rooted in greed), but something more wholesome and inspired by faith. I'm sure they are, but not all the time. As uninstructed worldlings (non-ariyans), we have akusala consciousness nearly all the time. That is how the Buddha described us, and so that is how we should understand ourselves to be. Remember, lobha can be extremely subtle - even while we are giving money to the poor or sitting on a meditation mat, there can be - and mostly is - the desire to gain something for ourselves. ---------------- H: > If you are subscribed to DSG, if you are reading Dhamma books, if you are having Dhamma discussions, if you are observing with wisdom, aren't those your own personal practice? ---------------- I would be wrong to think they were. The outside, conventional, appearance is not what counts. In reality, there are only fleeting dhammas - some of them will be kusala, but most will be akusala - and they are all that count. If we think the outside, conventional appearance is what counts then we have wrong view. ------------------ H: > Aren't those intentional practices? ------------------ They are commonly understood as intentional practices. But in fact, there is never any control. You and I think we can make choices - e.g., to snap our fingers or not snap our fingers, to look straight ahead or look to the side - but that is only thinking. In reality, everything is conditioned by dhammas, over which there is no control. For conventional purposes, it doesn't matter that we think we have control, but for Dhamma practice, it does matter - we have to know there is no control. ------------ H: > So, Ken, please explain me how you "do nothing" ------------ I am beginning to understand that Dhamma practice is not a matter of doing something. However, I am also beginning to understand it is not a matter of doing nothing. That seems to be the way to go - understanding the Buddha's teaching. There are other good points in your post that require discussion, and there are two more recent posts that you have kindly addressed to me. But I had better send this off before I get too far behind. (It's a busy weekend - the surf's up and we have visitors.) Ken H 42142 From: Carl Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Carl, > > You wrote to Howard: > ---------------- > > I believe you are addressing the point of contact (phassa)?. At > least this is my intention. ... That instant of a > rupa "arriving" upon a sensory field. > > ----------------------------- > > I think that you refer to a 'point of contact' where the Abhidhamma > refers to vipaka citta........(snip)....... > Regards, > Ken H =================================================================== Hi Ken H (and Howard) Well, actually I was trying to isolate that instant of time immediatly preceeding the arising of panca-dvarava-citta. Sorry I am so unclear. My interest is regarding rupa as desireable/undesirable. I discovered in the DSG files under "useful posts" a whole bunch of posts discussing this very subject! I see you have been through this befor with Sara and others :-).(msg#25779 10/2/03) Thanks for your patience. I am still unclear on this subject. I read that rupa is related to four factors: 1. kamma 2. citta 3. nutrition 4. temperature Now,if you would indulge me,I would like to set up this hypothetical: I want to consider only rupa's that have not yet been experienced. Suppose all sentient life and all carriers of citta has just now vanished. There are no cittas left to know rupa. There used to be cittas and now they are gone. Will you allow me this kind of foolishness? I promise to keep it short. :-) OK, I can understand the first three (kamma, citta, nutrition) rupa as having "desireable/undesirable" I can understand this because they are the stuff of kamma (maybe nutrition has exceptions?). I can see that "desireable/undesirable" can be related to kamma. But those particular instantanious effervescent formations of rupa (temperature related without kamma influence) having never been touched or known by kamma, how can it be said this condition has "desireable/undesirable"? Back to citta time. My question: It seems to me that if all rupa have "desireable/undesirable" as an intrinsic quality, then aren't we talking about good/evil existing apart and independent from kamma. It also seems to me not to much of a stretch to go from "desireable/undesirable" to "good/evil". Then (it seems to me) I can eaisly move to "god/devil". This is not a position I desire. So Ken, can you save me from this downward spiral into Christianity :-) . Please tell me that not all rupas have "desireable/undesirable" as an intrinsic quality. Tell me that good/evil is not an independent force just waiting to be experienced by citta. Even just one teansy itty bitty rupa, free from "desireable/undesirable", would be enough. Thanks Carl p.s no need to be gentle with me. :) 42143 From: mnease Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Kelvin and Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: "kelvin_lwin" To: Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions > Hi Howard, > > > H: involved. Elementary mental images, for example. I *do* > certainly believe there are > > mind-door objects in addition to the rupas that were first > physical sense-door > > objects. I believe that Abhidhamma does so as well, though I think > it is > > amazingly vague on the topic. > Kel: it's actually quite detailed about what object is taken by > each citta. An example is applying Purejata-paccaya to vithi. Mind- > door object, hadayavatthu is a rupa in kamma-loka and rupa-loka. > Though if you don't believe Attasalini then I guess not. > > > H: *everyone* on DSG will disagree > > with me (!), there is but one true reality: the real, the > peaceful, the > > excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - nibbana. > kel: I happen to agree and stated it before to KenH :) Howard and I have been here before, I think--I'd be grateful if either of you could (directly) support the statement, "there is but one true reality: the real, the peaceful, the excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - nibbana" from the Paa.li texts. That is, did the (historical) Buddha ever say as much? Since I came to the Theravaada from the Mahayana, the distinction is significant to me. Thanks in advance, mike 42144 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hello Howard, Robk, Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Tep) - > > In a message dated 2/11/05 11:56:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > > Dear Tep, > > Actually I didn't give an opinion on the debate, I was only > > reporting both sides. > > As it happens I agree with (the late) Venerable Nyanaponika > > Mahathera. I don't think that after arahants pass away they still > > exist somehow. Nor do I believe that it is possible for anyone to > > see or converse with past Buddhas. > > Robertk > > > ====================== > What I think is the important question is whether an arahant existed > in any way *more* while alive than after death. What is your take on that? > > With metta, > Howard Azita: IMO. Conceptually speaking, an arahant exists. On the Paramattha Dhamma level, no arahant, only nama and rupa arising and falling away xtremely rapidly. Patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 42145 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique wrote: > Dear Tep, > : if nibbana is the ultimate and timeless reality (and not pure nothing), what is the difference between Theravada's concept of nibbana and the absolute of Mahayana & Advaita? > The second question is more or less clear and it remains unchanged. > I will be glad if you or anybody else shed some light on the above questions. > With metta, > Cosmique > >=== Dear Cosmique, Why do you ask if nibbana is THE ultimate reality? Theravada does not say that. Nibbana is an ultimate reality but there are many more - i.e all cittas, cetasikas, rupas. Nibbana is the only unconditioned reality- it does not arise or pass away. Robert 42146 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Mike - In a message dated 2/12/05 8:41:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > Howard and I have been here before, I think--I'd be grateful if either of > you could (directly) support the statement, "there is but one true reality: > the real, > the peaceful, the excellent, the island, the refuge, the unconditioned - > nibbana" from the Paa.li texts. That is, did the (historical) Buddha ever > say as much? > > Since I came to the Theravaada from the Mahayana, the distinction is > significant to me. > > Thanks in advance, > ========================== All dhammas other than nibbana are impermanent, ceasing almost at the very moment of their arising. Nibbana is permanent. All dhammas other than nibbana are conditioned and fully dependent on other ephemera for their existence. Nibbana is unconditioned and independent. All dhammas other than nibbana are dukkha. Nibbana is perfect peace. Among all the paramattha dhammas, only nibbana is permanent, timeless, unconditioned and independent, and perfect peace - the only true refuge. No dhamma has a shadow of reality compared to nibbana. As I see it, nibbana alone is worthy of the epithet "real". 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) 42147 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Mike - > . Nibbana is permanent. > ==== Dear Howard, Do you have any references for this idea or is that a conclusion you infer? RobertK 42148 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:58pm Subject: Re: Reflections on Death Dear Nina and Lodewijk, > > > N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. > Azita: My thoughts are with you, Nina. I have appreciated your intermittant comments about your father - I felt like I almost knew him. These are some passages from the Marananussati: "Seeing with wisdom the end of life in others and comparing this to a lamp kept in a windy place, one should meditate on Death. Just as in this world beings who once enjoyed great properity will die, even so one day will I die too. Death will indeed come to me. This death has come along with birth. Therefore, like an executioner, Death always seeks an opportunity to destroy. Life, without halting for a moment, and ever keen on moving, runs like the sun that hastens to set after its rise. This life comes to an end like a streak of lightning, a bubble on water, a dew-drop on a leaf, or a line drawn on water. Like an enemy intent on killing, Death can never be avoided"............. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 42149 From: connie Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:52pm Subject: re: Aren't we rooted in ignorance? Strange, isn't it, Phil? Our lobha accompanied patisandhi/re-linking citta is a kusala kaamaavacara vipaka citta and the bhavangas that follow are all the same type of citta as the patisandhi. Nina's SPD: Kaamaavacara is a name for the citta which is involved in dhammas of the sense sphere, kaamaavacara dhammas. The “Atthasaaliniiâ€? explains that the planes of existence of the kaamaavacara dhammas, thus, the sensuous planes of existence, extend from the lowest plane, which is the “aviici hellâ€?, up to the highest sensuous plane which is a heavenly plane, called the “paranimmita vasavatti deva planeâ€? (the plane of heavenly beings with power over the creations of others). In all these planes there are sense objects. As regards the term basis of sensuousness or clinging, vatthu kama, this has, according to the “Atthasaaliniiâ€?, a wider meaning than visible object, sound, odour, flavour or tangible object. Any kind of dhamma which is a basis or foundation for attachment is actually vatthu kaama. Lobha cetasika is the reality which is attached, which clings to everything, except lokuttara dhammas. Lobha clings to the ruupa-brahma planes and the aruupa-brahma planes, thus, these are vatthu kaama, the basis on which clinging depends. All dhammas other than lokuttara dhammas are vatthu kaama, they are the basis of clinging. The “Atthasaaliniiâ€? uses several methods to explain the meaning of kaamaavacara citta. According to the first explanation, kaamaavacara citta is the citta of the grade or plane of sensuousness, kaama; it is not free from kaama, sensuousness. According to the second method, kaamaavacara citta is the citta which frequents, “travelsâ€? to the sensuous planes of existence: the four unhappy planes, the human plane and the six classes of heavenly planes (of the devas). According to the third explanation, kaamaavacara citta is so called because it attends to, frequents the sense objects: visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. Since the citta takes these sense objects as its objects of experience, citta is called kaamaavacara citta. Sounds like we've all got our fair share of greed. Then again, the patisandhi and subsequent bhavanga cittas can also be accompanied by any or none of the three beautiful roots: alobha, adosa and amoha or pa~n~na. How do you suppose there could be alobha and lobha at the same time? Or amoha at all if there has to be ignorance in order for there to be greed? I hope I sound confused. "All akusala is accompanied by ignorance, whether it's dosa or lobha, right?" I believe so. Moha can arise without dosa or lobha, but neither of them can arise without moha. Maybe we just say 'rooted in greed' because ignorance is a given. peace, connie 42150 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation Hi, Hugo Thanks for responding in such detail to my message. I see there is much to discuss -- good! Reading through your comments and questions (here and in other posts too), I see that your main area of interest at the moment is the question of whether the 'practice' involves a measure of 'doing something', 'deliberate intention', 'arranging conditions to be such and such', or the like. This is a very worthwhile area to discuss, and I would like to say something in general on this before commenting on your questions. When we talk about the development of insight we are talking about the growth of understanding of dhammas, nothing more and nothing less. Growth of understanding is the incremental increase of existing understanding, that is to say, growth by means of the correct nourishing or stimulating of existing understanding (organic growth?). Existing understanding is understanding that has been accumulated in the past. However, this accumulated understanding is not available 'on call': it needs the necessary nourishment ('inputs', if you like). The same applies as regards all the other kinds of kusala -- they have been accumulated to varying degrees but their arising and further increase needs the right combination of circumstances. That nourishment or combination of circumstances is again not something that can be produced to order. It can be described, and has been described by the Buddha, and once understood intellectually it will make a difference to our lives (a difference that is not necessarily noticeable to anyone else). But there is no a 'shopping list' of things to get, or list of do's and don'ts; the development of insight is much more subtle than that. On the other hand, given that every waking moment of our life can be described in terms of deliberate intention, doing something, or arranging things a particular way, there is a sense in which the difference to our lives that results from a better grasp of the factors that lead to the growth of understanding could be described in those same terms. So there you have it -- the pro's and con's of 'doing something', 'deliberate intention' and the like ;-)). The choice is yours! In the end, however, it matters not whether we characterise the development of insight as 'doing something' or whether we consider that characterisation better avoided. What matters is that we gradually improve our intellectual understanding of this process as described by the Buddha, at the same time reflecting on what we have already understood as it applies to the present moment, that is to say, at this very moment as we read this post or consider what we have just read or compose a reply. As regards the expression 'undertaking a particular form of practice', I do not think there is any sense in which this is an appropriate description of the growth of understanding or the coming to be of the factors that support that growth. I hope I'm making sense. This is already long enough, so if you don't mind I'll snip your post for now and respond to your individual questions separately (unless you find this note contains the answers already ;-)). Jon Hugo wrote: >Hello Jon, > >On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:24:06 +0800, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > >>Thanks for coming in here. I've been enjoying your recent posts, very >>thought-provoking. I can see you've been giving a lot of thought to the >>teachings since your break from the list; most commendable. >> >> > >Yes, I have been thinking, reflecting and any other mental activity I >can think of. > > ... 42151 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi James & All, --- buddhatrue wrote: >>S: How is this living entity that builds the seven path factors ever > experienced if it exists? > > Is it seen? > Is it heard? > Is it smelt? > Is it tasted? > is it touched? > > Or, is it merely thought about? **** > James: In what sense do you ask this question: conventional or > ultimate? And, what is your reason for asking this question: … … S: Thank you for asking. Simply put, I think we're all experts in Self Study here - we've been doing it for years, lives and aeons. What we're not expert in is Dhamma Study (i.e the study of presently arising dhammas) and hence the need to share and exchange such reminders. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we call such dhammas conventional or ultimate or anything else. What matters is whether there is any growth in understanding of these dhammas as dhammas when they are experienced. As Connie just put it to Hugo: C:>"Where is self? When I said self doesn't really belong in the picture, it's because the picture is already complete without it …… Nibbana aside, only nama and rupa exist in the present." …. S: So yes, I'm also trying to share a precious point, or rather to give a reminder about the essence of the Buddha's Teaching that we forget about so very often, even in the context of the teachings, I think. ***** "Bhikkhus, what do you think: is rupa permanent or impermanent ? - Impermanent, venerable Sir. - Now, is what is impermanent painful or pleasant? - Painful, venerable Sir - Now, is what is impermanent, what is painful, what is subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine this is I, this is my self'? - No, venerable Sir "Bhikkhus, what do you think: is vedana permanent or impermanent ? -….. "Bhikkhus, what do you think: is sanna permanent or impermanent ? -…... "Bhikkhus, what do you think: are sankhara permanent or impermanent? ….. "Bhikkhus, what do you think: is vinnana permanent or impermanent ? -….. "So, Bhikkhus, any kind of rupa whatever, whether past, future, or present, whether gross or subtle, whether internal or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must, with right understanding of things as they really are, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self'. "Bhikkhus, any kind of vedana…. "Bhikkhus, any kind of sanna…. "Bhikkhus, any kind of sankhara … "Bhikkhus, any kind of vinnana …. "Bhikkhus, seeing thus, the learned noble disciple becomes wearied of rupa, of vedana, of sanna, of sankhara and of vinnana. Becoming wearied of all those he gets detached, and from detachment he attains to Deliverance. "And he realises: "Rebirth is no more; I have lived the pure life; I have done what ought to be done; I have nothing more to do for the realisation of Arahatship." That is what the Exalted One said. The delighted Bhikkhus rejoiced at His words. Now, during this discourse the minds of the Bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from defilements through clinging no more. ________________________________________ From: Samyutta Nikaya, Khandha-vagga Pali, 1. Khandha Samyutta, 1. Upaya-vagga, 7. Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, p. 55, 6th Syn. Edn. • ***** S: Without an understanding that life, people and even the development of the path merely consist of various khandhas or namas and rupas, we will always be stuck in Self Study. Mostly when I ask questions or share reminders, the ignorance that is so easily taken for 'Sarah' has little idea about the present truths, but just the asking, sharing and listening to others, helps a lot, so thank you for hanging onto this fine thread of ours, however tangled it may seem;-). Metta, Sarah ======= 42152 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Carl Carl, > My interest is regarding rupa as desireable/undesirable. Rupa by itself is neutral. It's only when it's experienced by nama there's categorization of sensation, vedana, as a cetasika. All the kalapas don't have desirable or undesirable component to them. - kel 42153 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions RobertK, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Mike - > > . Nibbana is permanent. > > > ==== > Dear Howard, > Do you have any references for this idea or is that a conclusion you > infer? > RobertK He actually said Nibbana is permanent, timeless. It's always described in negation as whatever we know cannot be used to describe nibbana, we can only say what it is not. It is not impermanent and doesn't have time or space associated with it. I'm sure Howard was just speaking loosely by combining "not impermanent" into "permanent" without intending to go down that rabbit hole. - kel 42154 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard, > not a single thing (dhamma) which does not become an object of mind and of the > mental elements." > > That last sentence clarifies the meaning. The point of this is that > every dhamma *can* appear, and even *does* come to appear, as arammana. I asked my Abhidhamma teacher today about what are valid objects for the mind door. He said all things minus the objects experienced by the 5 doors. I asked even pannatti? He said yes, pannatti is included. Just wanted to let you know. - kel 42155 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic Dear Joop,Steve & All, --- jwromeijn wrote: > Sarah: I have read your quote of the Dispeller (I think that's one of > the books Buddhaghosa has written, you did not say that). … S: Sorry about that (and also the delays)and yes, you're right. It is the commentary to the Vibhanga, second book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, compiled by Buddhaghosa. …. > But again: > I am interested in 'anicca' and the quote is more about 'anatta'. > Do you have quotes from the Suttas, from Buddhaghosa or from modern > explanators that I can use contemplating about 'anicca'? …. S: I just quoted briefly from the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta in SN: > "Bhikkhus, what do you think: is rupa permanent or impermanent ? - Impermanent, venerable Sir. - Now, is what is impermanent painful or pleasant? - Painful, venerable Sir - Now, is what is impermanent, what is painful, what is subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine this is I, this is my self'? - No, venerable Sir< The same is said for the other khandhas. We see how the ti-lakkhana are intertwined. Like you, I've been surprised that more isn't written or said about impermanence, but I think the really deep understanding of anicca can only really be understood after an understanding of the various namas and rupas are really known over and over again. The reason is that it is the understanding of the impermanence of these dhammas as anatta that the Buddha taught as being the ti-lakkhana of anicca and such understanding only comes about after an understanding of khandhas and conditioned dhammas (i.e the first principal vipassana nana or insight after the various tender insights). I thought Steve's question before on anicca was a very astute one. Further to Nina's comments, perhaps we can say that other teachings may teach about impermanence, but not as a ti-lakkhana of conditioned dhammas? For example, in the Dispeller, where it discusses about the comparative obviousness of impermanence and suffering, we read about how everyone can appreciate at some level or other that what we cling to doesn't last or leads to pain: "In such passages as: "Materiality, bhikkhus, is impermanent; what is impermanent is painful; what is painful is not self; what is not self, that is not mine, that am I not, that is not my self' (S iii 82), he taught the characteristic of no-self by means of both the impermanent and suffering. Why? Because of the obviousness of impermanence and suffering. For when a plate or saucer or whatever it may be falls from the hand and breaks, they say: 'Ah! Impermanence,' thus impermanence is obvious. But as regards the person (attabhaava), when boils and carbuncles and the like have sprung up, or when pierced by splinters and thorns, etc, they say: 'Ah! The pain.' Thus pain is obvious. The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known." ***** A little more from an earlier paragraph on impermanence from the same source too: "Now in order to point out their aspect to be seen by insight he said: 'Cakkhu.m anicca.m (Eye is impermanent)' and so on. Herein, in the first place the eye should be understood as impermanent in the sense of absence after having become. It is also impermanent for four other reasons, [namely,] because of being possessed of rise and fall, because of change (vipari.naama), because of temporariness (taavakaalika) and because of exclusion of permanence (niccapa.tikkhepa)." ***** S: I believe that the insight into the rise and fall of dhammas can only be taught by a Buddha and only penetrated when there is an understanding of such dhammas as anatta. Even the Bodhisatta or the key disciples could not have developed stages of insight without hearing the teachings from a Buddha. I'll welcome other comments, of course. Metta, Sarah p.s Joop, kamma is cetana cetasika which arises and falls. It is a paramattha dhamma. Yes, all tendencies and intentions are accumulated and condition further tendencies or bring particular results, but even so there are just the present dhammas conditioning and being conditioned at any present moment. Does the analogy of billiard balls knocking and affecting other billiard balls help? Also on rebirth, I like your comments. No need to be concerned about future results, otherwise it's likely to indicate more clinging to 'I' as you say. But again, just as we need to see that how the present billiard ball is hit will affect the other balls on the table, so we can begin to appreciate that the present dhammas, such as this very moment of seeing or unpleasant feeling or anger have their own particular causes and conditions. Again, I think this helps to take them less for 'self' and to develop more detachment that they are mere dhammas arising because of various causes and given such causes couldn't be 'positioned' any other way, just like any billiard ball. Ethics- yes, again I like what you say. Present understanding, wise reflection and conscience (hiri and otappa perhaps in Pali) are more precious and useful than any concern about future effects or rebirth, I believe. =========================================== 42156 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:52pm Subject: Recollection of the Buddha ... !!! Friends Faith => Confidence => Conviction = Certainty: Faith is the initiating first spiritual ability & the very entrance to the Noble Way. Faith is rooted in the reality of the Buddha's actual perfect Self-Enlightenment! From this faith grows confidence, conviction & finally certainty in the Dhamma, Sangha, Morality, Training & Concentration. This enables the necessary effort... To gain, increase & complete the faith ability, recollect Buddha thus twice daily: 'Certainly worthy, honourable & perfectly self-awakened is this blessed Buddha, completed in knowledge & behaviour, well-gone all beyond, expert in all worlds & dimensions, unsurpassable trainer for those who can be tamed, teacher & guide of devas & humans, exalted & enlightened. Having directly experienced, penetrated & fully comprehended this entire world with it's devas, maras, brahmas, princes & people, he explains this Dhamma teaching, which is sublime both in the beginning, in the middle, & in the end, both in the true spirit & in the perfected expression. He displays, lives & establishes a fully purified, complete & supreme Holy Life...' To add additional stabilizing layers of advantageous admiration, consider these: The 10 Powers of a Buddha (dasabala): 1: He knows what are the causes & not-causes of any event & thing. He knows the possible as possible & the impossible as impossible! 2: He knows the results of any past, present & future action... 3: He knows the destination of any way, method, path & course... 4: He knows the diversity of forms in any world & dimension... 5: He knows the diverse character & inclination of any being... 6: He knows the different abilities & possibilities of any being... 7: He knows the obstruction, clearing, reaching, emerging, release & concentration of any meditation & any training... 8: He knows and remembers his prior lives in every minute detail... 9: He knows & sees the decease & rearising of all the various beings... 10: He knows directly the elimination of all the mental fermentations... About Conviction: see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-038.html Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma Dhamma-Questions sent to my email are quite Welcome. 42157 From: robmoult Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Kel, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > I asked my Abhidhamma teacher today about what are valid objects > for the mind door. He said all things minus the objects experienced > by the 5 doors. I asked even pannatti? He said yes, pannatti is > included. Just wanted to let you know. Sorry for butting in... Does the conformational mind door process (tadanuvattika manodvaravithi) not take the same object as the previous 5 door process? See CMA p164. Metta, Rob M :-) 42158 From: robmoult Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Carl Hi Kel, Sorry for butting in again... I think that Carl may be referring to Abhidhamma's definition of rupas as: - inherently undesirable (anittha) - inherently moderately desirable (ittha or itthamajjhatta) - inherently desirable (ati-ittha) See CMA p 172 for some details (I can provide more if required - this is a fascinating topic). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Carl, > > > My interest is regarding rupa as desireable/undesirable. > Rupa by itself is neutral. It's only when it's experienced by > nama there's categorization of sensation, vedana, as a cetasika. > All the kalapas don't have desirable or undesirable component to > them. > > - kel 42159 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:01am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > p.s Where is Rob M these days? The last time I remember hearing > from him was in a thread related to this topic. If you are out there, > Rob, I hope you've been well and please do come back soon! I'm back...... Metta, Rob M :-) 42160 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Deliberate practice: should we "do" something or just "observe with wisdom"? Hi Hugo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:37:22 -0000, kelvin_lwin wrote: > > Just curious if you're an engineer? This post kinda suggests you > > are. > > Yes I am. > Greetings from another Abhidhamma-loving engineer who has been away for a while :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 42161 From: cosmique Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta Dear Robert and all, rjkjp1 wrote: ------Why do you ask if nibbana is THE ultimate reality? Theravada does not say that. Nibbana is an ultimate reality but there are many more - i.e all cittas, cetasikas, rupas. Nibbana is the only unconditioned reality- it does not arise or pass away. Robert----------- Cosmique: Thanx for correction. It is a good point. When I say "the ultimate" I mean the unconditioned, eternal, timeless reality. Citta, cetasikas and rupa arise and pass away therefore they do not qualify to be the "absolute". With metta, Cosmique The heaviness of one's burden is due to one's grasping. --------------------------------- 42162 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique wrote: >> > Cosmique: Thanx for correction. It is a good point. When I say "the ultimate" I mean the unconditioned, eternal, timeless reality. Citta, cetasikas and rupa arise and pass away therefore they do not qualify to be the "absolute?E > > With metta, > > Cosmique > >======== Dear Cosmique, I am still interested. Do you have any references for Nibbana as being eternal? How can something that is unborn be eternal? RobertK 42163 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Kel, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > I kinda look for threads to end but I guess tendency on this group > is to prolong them. I think we're mostly saying same things just > disagreeing on finer points. … S: Well, yes, some of us do have very pronlonged threads here. Actually, I never consider any thread ended;-)*** Lets look at some of those finer points - it's really good to discuss them with you, because we can just plunge into abhidhamma, like I do with Htoo: …. > Kel: Your injury was unavoidable for whatever reason and the > difference is in how you act in the situation. I made a conscious > choice to use domanassa and not pain to begin with. …. S: I know, and I followed suit, referring to 'dosa and domanassa with regard to an injury' to make it quite clear there was no misunderstanding. [For others, domannassa refers to the unpleasant feeling which accompanies mental aversion (dosa) as opposed to the unpleasant bodily feeling (dukkha) at the time that sensations are experienced through the body-sense]. Of course, as I know you appreciate, it's never a question of how 'you act', but of what conditioned dhammas arise, following the unpleasant bodily feeling. For anagamis and arahants, no conditions for any more dosa and domanassa. …. >Dhamma of > course can be known but the mind has to be in a state to know it > objectively. If the bodily pain becomes mental pain then no dhamma > can be known at that moment. ….. S: As you go on to explain, strictly speaking, sati cannot arise with dosa and domanassa. However, as we read in the Satipatthana Sutta and throughout the Tipitaka, all states have to be known and can be known as present dhammas. In abhidhamma language, satipatthana can arise and be aware of the characterisitic of dosa, domanassa or any other state which has just fallen away. As Jon recently wrote to you: ".And the cittanupassana section of the Satipatthana Sutta seems to confirm that akusala mental states can be object of sati in just the same way that kusala mental states can." It starts with awareness of cittas rooted in attachment, from memory. ….. >Perhaps aftwards a reflection can be > made but there's no samma sati together with domanassa. …. S: Such reflection would be thinking, however wise it may be. All dhammas can be direct objects of samma sati. It's just the same as when there is awareness of as sense object (say a visible object or hardness) in the mind door. Strictly speaking, the rupa has fallen away, but it's mirror image or characteristic appears and can be the object of awareness in just the subsequent mind door process too. Please let me know if you still disagree. I think this is a very important point and an example of where detailed knowledge of abhidhamma can lead to problems if we're not really clear about it. ……. >Were you > aware of your subtle attachments during your bout with > dosa/domanassa or was your mind dominated by it? What level was > it? Merely being aware of the domanassa which can be miccha-sati. > Reducing the strength of domanassa by samma sati? Or just aware of > rupa with upekkha? …. S: Rather than trying now to analyse past states which cannot (now) be known, let's see if there can be any awareness now of any present lobha, dosa or other dhammas being experienced such as the hardness or visible object when touching or looking at the screen. Simply put, if there's any effort to be aware of particular dhammas and not others (eg domanassa), this to me would be an indication of miccha sati. …. > It's just a fact we can't run from unpleasant and create > pleasant. But here you're mixing the rupa, object and nama all > together to make a generic point. …. S: Please elaborate or point out any such mixing. I believe I was merely giving a common example of dosa and domanassa following unpleasant bodily feelings and suggesting that sati can be aware at any time and of any dhamma. ... >You need mental calmness to see > clearly all dhammas for what they are. If you look at all the > cittas, amoha only arise with either somanassa or upekkha, never > with domanassa. … S: Yes. If we then go on to say that therefore, to see all dhammas as they are, there shouldn't be any domanassa or that sati cannot arise at times of dosa, I believe it's quite wrong, though I understand where you're coming from. What about at all the times of subtle lobha or moha, can there not be any awareness of them either? …. > kel: you know as well as I that it's futile to avoid dosa as a > puthujjana, only an anagami is rid of dosa. So lobha is more subtle > and need to get rid of dosa first actually. …. S: But I believe this will only be by panna with detachment. Not by trying to arrange conditions in life so that no dosa will arise. …. >I think I saw your > statement "awareness of all dhamms" a few times before. Once you > understand one dhamma clearly, say jhana cetasika, you understand it > all. There's no need to directly experience akusala cittas to also > understand it. ….. S:In that case, why is it impossible to become enlightened in the arupa brahma realm (no rupas or dosa)? Why would the Buddha stressing the knowing of the 'all', of all khandhas etc. Why would there be any mention of understanding attachment over and over and over again as the cause of suffering to be known directly? Why bother to teach about cittas rooted in attachment and aversion as objects of satipatthana? I think we have a big point of difference here (and no quick end to this thread;-)). …. >Panna will extrapolate the knowledge. Complete > understanding of lakkhanas of one phenomenon applies to all > phenomena. …. S: yes, but the lakkhanas can only be penetrated by understanding all kinds of namas and rupas over and over again for what they are. All 5 khandhas have to be known. For example, the understanding of impermanence can only be known by directly be aware of a succession of dhammas appearing, I believe. Not just one. …. >The mind is so calm with jhana, they can investigate a > particular cetasika in isolation without all the interference. So > the understanding of the true nature of it much easier. By the same > token, the clearer the mind, the more likely it will understand the > object of investigation. …. S: But is there any understanding of these dhammas as anatta? Why didn't all jhana attainers become ariyans? I hope you don't mind if we keep this thread alive a while longer. Perhaps others will join in too. Metta, Sarah *** p.s I followed Hugo's invite and got a google account which I'm experimenting with for in-coming DSG mail. It sorts in-coming messages neatly into threads, so one can see at a quick glance which threads are most active. Also, great for searching as expected. Contact Hugo or Jon for an invite off-list if you'd like to try it anyone. =========================================== 42164 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 137 and Tiika. Dear Nina (and Lodewijk) Adding a few words to Sarah's earlier note. >N: Thank you. He died this morning, but it was peaceful. The evening before >I read to Lodewijk the Jataka that Chris had quoted: the family who did not >weep when the son was bitten by a snake and died. Sakka came down and each >person spoke about impermanence and the reason he did not weep in his own >way. The funeral is Friday. > > I was sorry to hear this sad news. The loss of a father, even for someone with your excellent grasp of the teachings, will be an occasion for grief. It was no doubt a relief to you that the end was peaceful for him. You were also fortunate during that past few days to have known that the end was coming. I know that you and Lodewijk have given great support of all kinds to your father over the years. I'm sure that that kusala will be a source of moments of calm for you both during these difficult times. With our condolences Jon 42165 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Howard upasaka@a... wrote: >------------------------------------ >Howard: > Jon, we are having a communication problem that I don't know how to >rectify. > My apologies for my part in this mis-communication ;-)). I think I can see where the sticking point is, and I'll do my best to clarify. >What I am saying is unknowable is an alleged entity that lies beyond >experience. When I feel hardness, that experienced hardness is not beyond >experience. What I am saying the existence of which is unknowable is an alleged rupa >of hardness that exists on its own, beyond experience. That is the best that >I can do in explaining myself, but I'm afraid it isn't good enough. :-( > No at all ;-)) What you say is perfectly clear, at least I think. You are making a distinction between the 2 categories of phenomena or alleged phenomena described just above: (a) presently experienced hardness, one of the 5 sense-door objects, on the one hand (H: 'When I feel hardness, that experienced hardness is not beyond experience'), and (b) anything that may exist (or that allegedly exists) beyond that at (a), on the other hand (H: 'an alleged entity that lies beyond experience ... an alleged rupa of hardness that exists on its own, beyond experience'), and you are saying that (b) is unknowable. I have no difficulty in appreciating this distinction. As I see it, our mis-communication lies in the fact that, while I have been asking for your comments in relation to a situation involving phenomena of the kind at (a), in the context of your remark about paramattha dhammas, you have been responding to me in terms of (alleged) phenomena of the kind at (b). My apologies if I have not managed to make my question clear. I will try putting it more explicitly and clearly (I hope). To remind ourselves, your original statement was: "Paramattha dhammas are objects of a moment of consciousness, and they are created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' outside the moment of consciousness of which they are the object." Now transposing your reference at (a) above into this statement we get : "The presently experienced hardness [J: or, for that matter, any presently experienced sense-door object] is created at that very moment of consciousness, having no 'existence' outside the moment of consciousness of which it is the object." What I am interested in is the following 2 questions, which are closely related, and which I see as assumptions that are implicit in your statement, namely: (a) whether there is any *necessary co-occurrence* of the exact moment of arising of the presently experienced sense-door object and the exact moment of arising of the sense-door consciousness of which that sense-door object is the object, and (b) whether the period of subsistence (i.e., the period between the moment of arising and the moment of falling away) of the presently experienced sense-door object (being a rupa) is *necessarily of exactly the same duration as* the period of subsistence of the present moment of sense-door consciousness (being a nama) of which that sense-door object is the object. As regards the first of these questions, I am not aware of any reason to assume that the moment of arising of the presently experienced sense-door object must necessarily coincide exactly with the moment of its becoming object of the present moment of sense-door consciousness. In other words, there is the theoretical possibility of the arising of the former preceding (fractionally) that of the latter. As regards the second question, I am likewise not aware of any reason to assume that the periods of subsistence of the 2 different types of dhammas (one rupa, one nama) should be the same. And obviously, if it were the case that the period of subsistence of the presently experienced sense-door object exceeds the period of subsistence of the present moment of sense-door consciousness, no matter by how minuscule an amount, then there would be some period of subsistence of the former that is outside is outside the period of subsistence of the latter. Do you have any thoughts on either of these, apart from the 'knowable/unknowable' issue (which I discuss next)? On the 'knowable/unknowable' issue, you say that what I am asking you to comment on is unknowable, and that anything that is unknowable should be disregarded. Bearing in mind that we are talking about the presently experienced sense-door object, I believe that *any* aspect of that rupa is capable of being known/verified by highly developed panna which has that sense-door object as its object. But even if we were to consider the present matters to be 'unknowable', the consequence of that would be that they cannot actually be disproved. Now if they are valid hypotheses that cannot be disproved, then I don't really see how they can be ignored in favour of some other hypothesis that is considered 'knowable'. Sorry to be so long-winded, but I have tried to pinpoint the issue more precisley. To reiterate, I am talking only about the presently experience sense-door object and not anything that may 'exist' (or that allegedly exists) beyond that. This post is already long enough, so I will respond on the rest of your message separately. Jon 42166 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Robert - In a message dated 2/12/05 11:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Mike - > >. Nibbana is permanent. > > > ==== > Dear Howard, > Do you have any references for this idea or is that a conclusion you > infer? > RobertK > > ========================== Perhaps 'eternal' would be a better word than 'permament', though that is inadequate also. U Narada Thera, in Buddhism in a Nutshell, writes "Nibbana of the Buddhists is neither a mere nothingness nor a state of annihilation, but what it is no words can adequately express. Nibbana is a Dhamma which is "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed." Hence, it is eternal (dhuva), desirable ( subha), and happy (sukha)." The problem with 'permanent', and 'eternal' as well for that matter, is the suggestion of nibbana as some thing that exists in time, but without beginning or end. I don't mean to imply that. Nibbana transcends time. It transcends all conditions. Perhaps it is best to say that nibbana is the sole paramattha dhamma that is not impermanent. 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) 42167 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 0:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta Hello Robert, cosmique, all, Francis Story in his Dimensions of Buddhist Thought says regarding Nibbaana: "The ultimate goal of the Buddhist life is the attainment of Nibbaana, but many people do not feel certain as to what Nibbaana really is. One view, for which there is no support whatever in Buddhist doctrine, is that it is eternal life. The opposite is that it is annihilation. There is more reason for holding the latter view, but nevertheless it conveys a false idea. It is not surprising that there should be such misunderstandings, because by what we are accustomed to call `common sense' reasoning it must be either the one or the other. But is precisely these two pitfalls that the Buddha took great care that we should avoid. That is why most of the references to Nibbaana are in negative terms. Wherever the Buddha used terms with a positive meaning, such as Amata, the deathless, the Dhuva, the Permanent, to describe Nibbaana He did so in a more or less metaphorical sense. As descriptions the words are true, but they must not be taken in exactly the same sense as that in which we ordinarily use them. Nibbaana is without death because it is without birth; it is permanent because it is not subject to time and conditionality." (Francis Story) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique > wrote: > >> > > Cosmique: Thanx for correction. It is a good point. When I > say "the ultimate" I mean the unconditioned, eternal, timeless > reality. Citta, cetasikas and rupa arise and pass away therefore > they do not qualify to be the "absolute?E > > > > With metta, > > > > Cosmique > > > >======== > Dear Cosmique, > I am still interested. Do you have any references for Nibbana as > being eternal? How can something that is unborn be eternal? > > > RobertK 42168 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel - In a message dated 2/13/05 2:20:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > I asked my Abhidhamma teacher today about what are valid objects > for the mind door. He said all things minus the objects experienced > by the 5 doors. I asked even pannatti? He said yes, pannatti is > included. Just wanted to let you know. > ======================== I do believe that Abhidhamma considers pa~n~natti as possible objects of awareness. [That Abhidhammic position just makes no (literal) sense to me.] As to the implication that 5-door objects are exceptions to being valid mind-door objects is confusing to me, because I understand Abhidhamma to say the opposite - at least that is what I have learned on DSG. 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) 42169 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hi Hugo, In case you should wonder, I am very sure that no one is ignoring your posts here, but few of us can keep up with you;-) {Tep, I probably reach about 5% average same day replies, so I think your average 80% is pretty remarkable!!). …. --- Hugo wrote: > > S: Would you say this kind of awareness is satipatthana? > > huh? > > How could I know? … S: Isn't that what we are discussing and studying? …. > How do "you" know that the awareness that "you" experience is > satipatthana? > > BTW, what do you mean with 'satipatthana'? …. S: Good questions. I do believe that as panna (rt. understanding) develops, there is a growing clarity about when there is direct awareness and what the objects of awareness are. This is the way that doubts about the path become less and are seen for what they are - more conditioned dhammas. By satipatthana, I mean the direct awareness and understanding of dhammas (realities) which are presently appearing, such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking, feeling and so on. When there is an idea of being aware of things, events, actions…..people and situations, its' a conceptual kind of awareness we refer to conventionally, but not satipatthana. Only the latter can lead to the eradication of any idea of self being aware. Please ask anything further - these are good questions. Also, see 'Satipatthana' in Useful Posts in the files section. …. > > So whether you let the kids be or intervene to stop a fight, whether > you > > go to a quiet room or watch TV, it's just conditioned that way at that > > instant and the dhammas involved can be known for what they are. > > It sounds as if everything "is written". …. S: I hope Engineer Rob M will join in your 'Free-will' vs 'Written' threads - we had many discussions together on this topic. If by 'written' you mean 'conditioned', then it's correct. If by 'written' you mean 'pre-determined', then it's wrong. …. > Does ;-) means 'I agree', 'I disagree', 'I abstain' ? … S: Sometimes it just means I'm in a rush and can't pick up every point, but I'm having fun reading your comments none the less and there's nothing that stands out for me to madly object to! … > So, everything "is written"? > > Why The Buddha said: "Thus you should train yourselves" ? > > Why create the order of monks and the rules for behavior? > > If he knew that there is no free will, why make the poor people go > eating only once, live out in the forest, etc.? > > Why invite them to "go forth into homelessness" ? … S: The Buddha knew what was helpful and not helpful, what was right and what was wrong. But even the Buddha couldn't make anyone become enlightened or do anything. He taught that whatever arises, does so by conditions and that when we talk about going forth into homelessness and so on, these are mere conventional designations representing various dhammas which are not in anyone's control. … > > ... > > S: No conditions for it. > > Weasel answer and sounds like: "God's decision". …. S: Why does anything happen? By the 24 paccaya taught in the Patthana in great detail. No decision by God involved;-). ….. > But!, I know that if I drink alcohol every day and party all-night > during the weekends and keep indulging on pleasures, it will > definitely not help wisdom to develop. Thus I won't do that. Isn't > that a decision on what approach I am taking? …. S: A good decision. We think it's 'you', 'me' or 'Hugo' taking it, but really the thinking, the determination, the effort and so on are various conditioned namas. Sometimes we may decide to stay home and then go out anyway. Or we may go to the party but not drink. Anything can happen by such conditions and by wise and unwise thinking at any time. … > > And, no, "conditions" is not a valid answer, if it were, the Tipitaka > would be very small, it would say: > > Title: Tipitaka > Table of Contents > 1) What did the Buddha taught.......... 1 > > Chapter 1: What did the Buddha taught > The Buddha gave a lot of discourses, but never mind, all you have to > know is that everything is conditioned and you can't do nothing about > it (BTW, you think of "you" as if you exist but there is actually > no-self, but don't try to understand it because you won't, unless the > conditions for it arise and besides, there is no "you" who > understand). … S: Good Stuff!!;-);-) Of course, for Sariputta (Upatissa) the Tipitaka (which he heard from the Elder Assaji) was even shorter: >"Of all those things that from a cause arise, Tathagata the cause thereof has told; And how they cease to be, that too he tells, This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse."[2] Upon hearing the first two lines, Upatissa became established in the Path of stream-entry, and to the ending of the last two lines he already listened as a stream-winner. ***** > > P.S. Don't even try to "make those conditions arise", you won't be > able to do it. … S: Quite right. Did the understanding about conditioned dhammas lead Sariputta to live a life of total non-action? Of course not. He became the Buddha's foremost disciple and never ceased listening, teaching and explaining the Tipitaka in full for those with a lot more dust in their eyes. … > > > Sabbe satta sabba dukkha pamuccantu. > > > (may all beings be free from suffering) > > ... > > ..and also your Pali lines. > > Thanks, that's just a way to try to practice and learn more Pali, > unfortunately I haven't been consistent, and no it is not because I am > lazy, it is because the conditions haven't arised.......mmm...now let > me try that with my boss. :-) … S: :-) = good one! Metta, Sarah p.s I enjoy all your other musings - boredom etc None of us could get bored here! Simile of the Saw (Kakacupama Sutta) - yes, great. Training and understanding what is useful, but by conditions and lurking tendencies, we can still blurt out anytime with evil words….just sooo anatta. ======= 42170 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Amoeba / Citta Hi, Robert (and Cosmique) - In a message dated 2/13/05 3:12:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > How can something that is unborn be eternal? > ======================= Pardon? Why not? How could something that is *born* be eternal? What is born, will die. What arises, ceases. What exists but does *not* arise will also not necessarily cease. Nibbana is not pa~n~natti. It is paramattha dhamma, hence a reality. Does nibbana cease, Robert? Is it an occurrence in time? 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) 42171 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi, Howard Continuing with my reply to your post. upasaka@a... wrote: >>>(I tend to dismiss, pragmatically, what is in >>>principle unverifiable.) >>> >>Hmmm. A useful strategy. If you deem it unverifiable, you can >>conveniently decline to discuss it ;-)) >> >> >------------------------------------ >Howard: > You don't get it, Jon. (My fault, not yours.) What is not experiential >is not experiential! >----------------------------------- > This is another communication problem, I believe ;-)). Whether or not something is capable of being experienced by highly developed panna, and is thus potentially verifiable, is no simple matter to determine, given our relatively modest level of developed panna. So it needs careful consideration. For example, in an earlier post you said that 'the notion of rupas as phenomena that are what they are in and of themselves' is something that cannot be directly known. But I'm not sure that is so. Take the case of the presently experienced sense-door object (one example of a rupa). If that rupa becomes the object of highly developed panna, I see no reason why that panna could not know it as a phenomenon with its own individual characteristic. Furthermore, the fact that a valid hypothesis appears (to us, at this moment, with our present level of developed understanding) unverifiable does not justify our dismissing it, particularly when it is a hypothesis that could have significant implications for other views held. I say that because it occurs to me that the possibility of sense-door consciousness taking an *already-arisen* rupa as its object could be a problem for the phenomenologist view (at least as I understand that view from discussions with you on this list), since that would clearly leave open the possibility of rupas arising *without* becoming the object of a moment of sense-door consciousness. So could there be some subconscious resistance on your part to this issue? >>Well, we'reboth talking about paramattha dhammas, but yours are a Howard >>version (mine are the Abhidhamma version as best I understand it). >>------------------------------------- >> >Howard: > Jon, yours are inferred. Mine are experienced. >------------------------------------ > > I read you as saying here that the paramattha dhammas of the Abhidhamma are inferred (vs. your 'experienced'). I'm not sure I know exactly what this means, but I don't see there being anything inferred about the paramattha dhammas spoken of by the Abhidhamma. Your impression to this effect may be a result of the way paramattha dhammas have been referred to on dsg, and I would like an opportunity to address this. Howard, would you mind explaining this in a little more detail so I can respond to the point. Thanks. >>I hope you don't mind my asking, but is your description based on your own >>experience, or does it have some other source? >> >------------------------------------- >Howard: > Gosh, I just love it when you bring in an argument from authority! ;-)) >------------------------------------- > > Another miscommunication ;-)). I am simply trying to ascertain whether you are, for example, expressing a view based purely/mainly on personal experience (with all the qualifications that implies), or stating a matter of general application based on reasoned thinking, or summarising what you understand to be a particular established point of view. I think that is a fair question in a long-running discussion such as this, as it helps avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications. Just to state my own position in that regard, I am not expressing a personally held view but summarising what I understand to be the Abhidhamma 'take'. But I certainly do not say that gives any authority to anything I write (or any less 'authority', on a personal level, to what you write).. >>Whichever of the two it is, how reliable is that source? Why do you regard them as 'paramattha dhammas'? >> >-------------------------------------- >Howard: > Jon, I would answer this if we were discussing the same subject. But >we are not. We are just using similar speech for different subjects. >------------------------------------ > > Another one ;-)). I understood you to be saying that the Abhidhamma's paramattha dhammas are inferred while yours are experienced, i.e., that they are 2 different sets of things (I think, but maybe not?). So I was surprised that you should adopt a peculiarly Abhidhamma term to describe your set of 'things' (but perhaps you are saying you see your set of dhammas as being more 'paramattha' than the Abhidhamma's). Whew, this miscommunication business makes for a lot of extra work!! Hopefully we can get back to the meat of the issue(s) ;-)) Jon 42172 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > The problem with 'permanent', and 'eternal' as well for that matter, > is the suggestion of nibbana as some thing that exists in time, but without > beginning or end. I don't mean to imply that. Nibbana transcends time. It > transcends all conditions. Perhaps it is best to say that nibbana is the sole > paramattha dhamma that is not impermanent. > >========= Dear howard, Yes I like all this. There are words like Dhuva, accanta, ananta, and apalokita used for Nibbana that have connotations of permanence but as Christines quote from Francic story shows these are used in a metaphorical way. Robert 42173 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] If it can be longer and slower, it can be shorter and faster. Dear Hugo, --- Hugo wrote: > In message: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/41906 > > You said: > " I understand you are saying that for those with poor sila" most > householders"should look to any other path factors to develop first, > but > this is a slower track." ... S: I tried to paraphrase some comments someone else (James) was making. There was no suggestion I was in any agreement. .... > and in message: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42045 > > you said: > "Moments of wrong resloving or doing with an idea of self may > seem to provide the short-term candies and stickers, but actually make > the > path longer." ... S: yes, these are my comments, with the stress on *seem*. ... > From reading what you said at two different moments, and to two > different persons and using two different words, leads me to believe > that it is "your real" understanding as it was able to endure the flow > of I don't know how many trillions of cittas, but still be the same. ... S:I don't think so. ... > And what I understand is that if the Path can be longer and slower (as > you said), I infer that it can be shorter and faster. > > Why? ... S: the length of the path will depend on whether any wisdom is developed or not. ... > > Because slowER and longER imply a comparison, thus even though you > don't mention the object to which you are comparing it, I assume it > that you are comparing it to another track or path (depending which > message you are reading) which is shortER and fastER. ... S: Only one path, that of satipatthana. Many factors will affect whether there is any developement and how fast or slow it is. ... > > So, I think we can settle the discussion about the so-called > "deliberate practice" by saying what I found earlier: > > 1) Just "observing with wisdom" > > and > > 2) Sitting to meditate > > are both deliberate practice. ... S: Yes, and both probably suggest a self to do them, wouldn't you say? Neither are the path of satipatthana as I understand. ... > > The question that remains open is which one is slower and longer and > which one is faster and shorter. > > We should remember that sitting to meditate involves "observing with > wisdom", it is not just sit down and enjoy the show that the nimittas > put up for us, or to relax after a hard day at work. > > Am I correct in my analysis? ... S: I'd prefer to look at the path at the present moment. What are the dhammas now as we speak? We're not 'sitting to meditate' now, but sitting at the computer. What are the dhammas or realities or nimittas appearing? Who or what can observe anything? .... > > Hopefully we can leave this well nailed and move on to other topics, > there are way too many defilements and obstacles in the Path, let's > keep walking. ... S: Earlier you sounded rather Htoo-ish, taking my comments out of context and now you sound rather Kel-ish, looking for a quick end to an interesting thread that's only just beginning:-). Look f/w to speaking after a few more dozens of posts here... Metta, Sarah p.s next time you get bored, see if you can find that ice-cream family pic for the album....a chance for some great dana and ice-cream meditation for Phil and all....:-) .... 42174 From: robmoult Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves Hi Hugo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: I hope Engineer Rob M will join in your `Free-will' vs `Written' > threads - we had many discussions together on this topic. > > If by `written' you mean `conditioned', then it's correct. If by `written' > you mean `pre-determined', then it's wrong. > …. Sorry, I have not been following the threads lately. Free-will is one of my favourite subjects. Care to start me off with a message reference or a question? Metta, Rob M :-) 42175 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/13/05 3:41:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > What I am interested in is the following 2 questions, which are closely > related, and which I see as assumptions that are implicit in your > statement, namely: > (a) whether there is any *necessary co-occurrence* of the exact moment > of arising of the presently experienced sense-door object and the exact > moment of arising of the sense-door consciousness of which that > sense-door object is the object, and > (b) whether the period of subsistence (i.e., the period between the > moment of arising and the moment of falling away) of the presently > experienced sense-door object (being a rupa) is *necessarily of exactly > the same duration as* the period of subsistence of the present moment of > sense-door consciousness (being a nama) of which that sense-door object > is the object. > ================= It still seems that I have not made myself clear. You mean "experienced sense door object" something different that I. If you meant what I mean, the question in (a) would make no sense to raise. It seems to me that by "experienced sense door object" you mean some thing, existing on its own, which at some point in time becomes known through a sense door. I am not talking about "an object that becomes, or is, experienced". I am talking about an experience! I am talking about, for example, a hardness-experience. An unexperienced hardness-experience is like a square circle. There is no such thing. 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) 42176 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/13/05 4:09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > What is not experiential > >is not experiential! > >----------------------------------- > > > > This is another communication problem, I believe ;-)). > > Whether or not something is capable of being experienced by highly > developed panna, and is thus potentially verifiable, is no simple matter > to determine, given our relatively modest level of developed panna. So > it needs careful consideration. > > ==================== We're still missing. You are speaking of something that is capable of being experienced. I am speaking of an experience. We are not talking about the same thing. Jon, here and with regard to a prior post, I've only quoted a little piece and commented briefly on it. That is because all the rest of your post presumes an assumption included in this quoted material as to what I am talking about that is incorrect. We aren't discussing the same matter, Jon. I find myslf in the strange predicament of being unable to respond to your questioning, and I can't even make clear where the problem lies. I really apologize, but I can't seem to do better on this. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 42177 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 2/13/05 4:09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > > I read you as saying here that the paramattha dhammas of the Abhidhamma > are inferred (vs. your 'experienced'). I'm not sure I know exactly what > this means, but I don't see there being anything inferred about the > paramattha dhammas spoken of by the Abhidhamma. Your impression to this > effect may be a result of the way paramattha dhammas have been referred > to on dsg, and I would like an opportunity to address this. Howard, > would you mind explaining this in a little more detail so I can respond > to the point. Thanks. > ======================= What you are addresing here is the core of the matter, I think. But I regret that I find myself unable to explain further! I'm really sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 42178 From: Date: Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Robert (and Christine) - In a message dated 2/13/05 4:11:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > The problem with 'permanent', and 'eternal' as well for > that matter, > >is the suggestion of nibbana as some thing that exists in time, > but without > >beginning or end. I don't mean to imply that. Nibbana transcends > time. It > >transcends all conditions. Perhaps it is best to say that nibbana > is the sole > >paramattha dhamma that is not impermanent. > > > >========= > Dear howard, > Yes I like all this. There are words like Dhuva, accanta, ananta, > and apalokita used for Nibbana that have connotations of permanence > but as Christines quote from Francic story shows these are used in a > metaphorical way. > Robert > > ===================== Good! BTW, I was happy with Christine's post! :-) 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) 42179 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Hi Sarah, > Of course, as I know you appreciate, it's never a question of how `you > act', but of what conditioned dhammas arise, following the unpleasant > bodily feeling. Kel: yes and I was conventionally asking how good were your particular conditioned dhammas :P > S: In abhidhamma language, satipatthana can arise and be > aware of the characterisitic of dosa, domanassa or any other state which > has just fallen away. kel: well that's the key here, it has to fall away to give a chance for sati to arise. But if dosa is strong then it surely won't give way. However if sati has been continous and strong before dosa arose then surely sati can quickly interrupt dosa, call it momentum. And the amount of kusala is directly proportional to strength of sati. I still don't see how dosa is better. We can only cut our losses by using it as an object AFTER its power is reduced. You remember 4 ways of training kusala/akusala I'm sure. Why would Buddha also encourage that? > >Perhaps aftwards a reflection can be > > made but there's no samma sati together with domanassa. > …. > S: Such reflection would be thinking, however wise it may be. Kel: Poor choice of words on my part. I was referring to the same thing you were in the earlier paragraph was using it as an object after. > point and an example of where detailed knowledge of abhidhamma can lead to > problems if we're not really clear about it. Kel: should I be concerned? :) > S: Rather than trying now to analyse past states which cannot (now) be > known, Kel: actually I disagree, full sati always remember perfectly. > S: giving a common example of dosa and domanassa following unpleasant bodily > feelings and suggesting that sati can be aware at any time and of any dhamma. Kel: yea and we just discussed how this statement isn't true. It's not "any time" with presence of domanassa. > >You need mental calmness to see > > clearly all dhammas for what they are. If you look at all the > > cittas, amoha only arise with either somanassa or upekkha, never > > with domanassa. > … > S: Yes. If we then go on to say that therefore, to see all dhammas as they > are, there shouldn't be any domanassa or that sati cannot arise at times > of dosa, I believe it's quite wrong, though I understand where you're > coming from. What about at all the times of subtle lobha or moha, can > there not be any awareness of them either? Kel: As I said above sati can surely arise after but not together with domanassa. I think we can both agree on this. Let's be clear about what is subtle lobha and moha now. If it's lobha or moha then it's akusala and you only refer to difference in intensity. When there's full and uninterrupted sati, how can there be any akusala? Subtleness could be defined as how quickly sati arise again after being interrupted by akusala. If it's just one akusala vithi then surely it's very fast. Then the following sati might or might not know of getting interrupted. Actually it's pretty hard to detect rise and fall of the same type of citta in a row but different types are a cinch. > > kel: you know as well as I that it's futile to avoid dosa as a > > puthujjana, only an anagami is rid of dosa. So lobha is more subtle > > and need to get rid of dosa first actually. > S: But I believe this will only be by panna with detachment. Not by trying > to arrange conditions in life so that no dosa will arise. kel: How can I disagree with this statement? And it's futile to try to arrange conditions anyway right? What I would like actually is to leave this kind of obvious statements aside. I'll try not to either. > S:In that case, why is it impossible to become enlightened in the arupa > brahma realm (no rupas or dosa)? Kel: Two theories: they have no sense-doors for receiving dhamma and because they lack rupa to investigate into nama/rupa. If all khandas are essential for enlightenment how come they can become sakagami to arahat? Ariyas no longer need to penetrate the same thing? I thought they have to go through the same nanas at each stage of enlightenment? Maybe that gives more credence to the theory that they no longer need to receive dhamma from others because it's already instilled in them and not really about the object available to them to investigate. > S: Why would the Buddha stressing the > knowing of the `all', of all khandhas etc. Why would there be any mention > of understanding attachment over and over and over again as the cause of > suffering to be known directly? > Why bother to teach about cittas rooted in > attachment and aversion as objects of satipatthana? Kel: We have attachment to existence itself and he didn't just teach about cittas, see below. You can see attachment in anything and everything that is part of this mundane world. Once the mind see the dukkha nature of any kind of existence, why is it necessary to differentiate cittas at all? They're all undesirable and share the same lakkhanas. Actually a point can be made that as long as the mind can still differentiate, it's not free from attachment. > >Panna will extrapolate the knowledge. Complete > > understanding of lakkhanas of one phenomenon applies to all > > phenomena. > …. > S: yes, but the lakkhanas can only be penetrated by understanding all > kinds of namas and rupas over and over again for what they are. All 5 > khandhas have to be known. For example, the understanding of impermanence > can only be known by directly be aware of a succession of dhammas > appearing, I believe. Not just one. Kel: Why is there kayanupassana, vedananupassana, cittanupassana and dhammanupassana? If you can hold onto vedana cetasika fully, the whole field of mind and matter can be experienced and understood. Same thing with using the whole citta as anchor and all 52 cetasikas with mind-based rupa. Likewise for kaya and dhamma. 5 Khandas are just one mode of exposition. Why is it called Namarupa- pariccheda-Nana and not refer specifically as 5 khandas? I hope you aren't going to tell me one has to penetrate everything through all 6 mind-doors before panna can arise. > > token, the clearer the mind, the more likely it will understand the > > object of investigation. > …. > S: But is there any understanding of these dhammas as anatta? Why didn't > all jhana attainers become ariyans? Kel: By your logic Bodhisattas would become ariyans prematurely because they already reached sankharupekkha-nana. And that nana already requires pretty deep understanding of anatta right? Just because the mind can see phenomenon doesn't mean it'll fully understand to the point of relinquishing. I just said it's easier for such a calm mind to see it clearly, nothing about understanding. - kel 42180 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard, > H: As to the implication that 5-door objects are exceptions to being valid > mind-door objects is confusing to me, because I understand Abhidhamma to say the > opposite - at least that is what I have learned on DSG. yes, sorry for not giving context and misleading statement. What you know is correct. I should've broken down the vithis it was referring to. - kel 42181 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi RobM, > Does the conformational mind door process (tadanuvattika > manodvaravithi) not take the same object as the previous 5 door > process? See CMA p164. Cannot exactly be the same exact as the original object is already gone. Original vithi receive it as pancadvaravajjana with the object still present. Subsequent vithis can only receive it as mandovaravajjana. Also why the 2nd mano-vara combines the two impressions of the object. I don't have CMA so I can't check if we're talking the same. - kel 42182 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: walking, what is sati,Tep. no 2. Dear Tep, op 11-02-2005 05:49 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > T: Reading through the above quote, I have no trouble understanding > clearly that the 'derived materialities' indeed are impermanent and not > self because they are conditioned dhamma.... > Quote: N: Thus, all this is a way of teaching and, as is always the case when > listening and considering, it sinks in. It is a condition for more > understanding so that sati can arise and be aware. It is not a method > we have to follow. If we think of lifting, or concentrate on a step, all the > rupas have gone already. They flash in and out as lightning in the sky. > > T: The first part of this paragraph is encouraging because of the > assurance that through listening and considering the Dhamma more > understanding results, and it supports sati-sampajanna. But the > sentences after that are discouraging because there is no real-time > reality as object of satipatthana (N: but we have to distinguish thinking > from direct awareness). But, is real-time realities are strictly > necessary? N: Perhaps we should go into this point. You mean: right at the moment a reality arises, or right at the moment it appears to sati? There is a difference. I wait until we come to the juggler. T: If your reasoning is right, then why did the Venerable > divide the leg movements into six steps.... N: As a way of teaching. He did not say: now you have to be aware of the six steps, or of walking etc. T: Nowadays walking meditation, based on the six foot > movements like this, is still being used for training concentration at > several vipassana retreat centers. N: I know. Tep quotes: When walking, there is thinking, there is seeing and hearing, different > kinds of nama. They can be objects of awareness too, otherwise we > take these for self. They arise because there are conditions for their > arising, they have no core, no possessor. > > T: Because there are so many varieties of reality arising and passing > away rapidly at each cross section in time, how can anyone take them > all as objects of awareness? It is like we are trying to act as a magical > juggler who can keep a thousand different objects in the air at the > same time. Shouldn't it be easier for us to focus on an object, or a > class of objects (like vedana), one at a time until we can see its > characteristics clearly? N: Good point. Here we come to the essence. I understand that you think of a juggler. Take the whole body. The great elements and derived rupas contained in different groups of rupa, arising and falling away all the time. Rupa only lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, and thus its duration is extremely short. How could we catch them all, impossible. Or the feelings and cittas, and other cetasikas. There is no we who could be *in time*. Just as well, otherwise we cling even more to a self who can control dhammas and be in time to catch them. There is no we who can focus on any object. We understand this in theory, but, to really apply it is not easy. We have the latent tendencies of wrong view and clinging. Realities, including sati, arise because of their own conditions. The next moment is unknown. Sati may or may not arise. If it arises it takes an object, a nama or a rupa. We cannot know which object impinges on one of the six doors, impredictable. At that short moment understanding of that object can develop. Sati and understanding fall away, but they are accumulated and this is the encouraging part. It is not possible to maintain sati, because it is beyond control, anatta. Right understanding of the anatta nature of sati and of what can be the object of sati (only a paramattha dhamma) is essential. The object of sati is whatever dhamma appears now. There is no need to think of the object of sati, there can just be awareness of a moment of hardness or seeing, while you type. This is not a matter of fixing your attention on the typing and trying to maintain sati there. That is again thinking of conventional terms or thinking of sati. I find it helpful in my daily life to have more understanding of the fact that there are six worlds appearing through the six doors, one at a time. If we only think of persons and the conventional world, we are caught up in thoughts of worry, sadness, clinging. Whereas if we learn to see through all of this and understand that there is only one moment of experiencing an object, it is beneficial even if it is still intellectual understanding. This in itself is a condition for direct awareness sometimes. However, it is important to realize that it is understanding that matters, not this or that amount of sati. If we aim for many moments of sati we forget the goal of the dhamma: understanding leading to detachment. If we do not forget the goal understanding will grow for sure. Again, let everyone find out for himself whether this is true. Nina. 42183 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, The term realities seems to lead to confusion. What about the term dhammas? op 11-02-2005 22:10 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > The principles of conditionality: impermanence, suffering, no-self -- are > what need to be known. The elements are merely the "tools" we use to see the > principles that lead the mind to be able to overcome suffering. I see these > tools as things to use and then discard. N: the three characteristics are characteristics *of* dhammas. Thus, seeing now is impermanent, dukkha, anatta. The three characteristics are not abstractions, as you will agree, I am sure. > >Quote: ³Form is like a lump of foam, > Feeling like a water bubble; > Perception is like a mirage, > Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), > And consciousness like an illusion, > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 952 953) N: We can repeat all this, but then it is only thinking. Understanding of dhammas has to be developed stage by stage so that it is directly realized. It cannot be realized immediately that rupa is a lump of foam. First it has to be clearly known what are the dhammas that are a lump of foam, a water bubble, etc. TG: My view is that elements should be seen as elements (not realities), > aggregates should be seen as aggregates (not realities), and they should be > seen > conditioned, impermanent, suffering, selfless, and in light of the above > quote. > They are constantly mutating states, never remain the same, and have nothing > of > their own. N: Let us examine more closely what elements are: nama and rupa, and also the unconditioned element, nibbana is included here. The five khandhas: rupa, cetasikas, citta which are conditioned dhammas. The aayatanas: nama and rupa, and also nibbana is included here in dhammaayatana. Now we speak only of conditioned dhammas. First they have to be directly known when they appear as dhammas, arising because of a concurrence of conditions. Without conditions seeing could not arise. Seeing is real, it can be experienced at this moment. It is a reality or, if you prefer a dhamma. Terms are not at fault, but it is right understanding that is deficient, not yet developed. Nina. 42184 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. visible object neutral? Carl Hi RobM, > I think that Carl may be referring to Abhidhamma's definition of > rupas as: > - inherently undesirable (anittha) > - inherently moderately desirable (ittha or itthamajjhatta) > - inherently desirable (ati-ittha) > > See CMA p 172 for some details (I can provide more if required - > this is a fascinating topic). If you can paste the relevant parts from CMA then we can discuss since I don't have it. I don't see it as a fundamental definition that's talked about in Rupa section. There are just different modes of splitting things up and above is just one of them. I know there was several threads where people already dwelled on this topic too. - kel ps. I'm guessing old timers here have deja vus all the time. 42185 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anicca as characteristic --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Joop,Steve & All, > > --- jwromeijn wrote: > > Sarah: I have read your quote of the Dispeller (I think that's one of > > the books Buddhaghosa has written, you did not say that). > … > S: Sorry about that (and also the delays)... Dear Sarah Thanks for your response, I knew I needed patience in waiting for it (and being patient is difficult for me) Three remarks You quoted the Dispeller (one of the books written by Buddhaghosa) "Because of the obviousness of impermanence and suffering. For when a plate or saucer or whatever it may be falls from the hand and breaks, they say: `Ah! Impermanence,' thus impermanence is obvious. But as regards the person (attabhaava), when boils and carbuncles and the like have sprung up, or when pierced by splinters and thorns, etc, they say: `Ah! The pain.' Thus pain is obvious. The characteristic of no- self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known." I don't agree totally. As I said before: for some personality types (or, as Nina prefers 'for persons with some kind of accumulations) no- self is more difficult to penetrate; and for other types impermanence is more difficult to penatrate. For me, impermanence is more difficult than no-self. When the Buddha should have asked to me: "Joop, what do you think: is rupa permanent or impermanent ?", I perhaps had said: "Well, Sir, when You mean with the term 'rupa', 'experienced materiality', yes, that experience is impermanent. But when You mean 'matter' when You say 'rupa' than I think it's permanent, because of the laws of physics, that of conservation of energy and that of momentum." I know it's the wrong answer and when life should be an exam, I should fail but this is what I (in my imperfect big ontological need) think. Maybe the reason of the difference is I'm not so thinking anthropocentric and egocentric (in the literal meaning of the word). That brings me to my second remark: what you said about 'kamma' is clear. I understand now what was wrong in my question: "why does kamma not obey the law of anicca?" Everything (except nibanna) is falling away because of the conditions. And of nama and rupa the conditions are very quick so that they disappear, and of kamma not so quick. That brings me to my third remark: That I still am contemplating the relations between 'anicca' and 'emptiness', for example the questions of these two are in fact the same. For that reason I'm studying now the Kaccaayanagotta Sutta and what Nagarjuna is saying about it, and Kalupahana, and you (in message # 15227). But that's not a question. Metta Joop 42186 From: Sukinder Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:12am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Hi Hugo, I'm slowly trying to catch up with the posts and am still way behind. > S: Remember, I am one of those who don't believe > in deliberate practice? Hugo: Actually I think that you DO believe in a "deliberate practice". Why? Consider the following: I invite you to meditate at least one hour daily (two sessions of 30 mins. each or one session of 1 hour). Now, you have only two options, either you accept or you don't accept the invitation (you can't "ignore" it, because if you are reading this, you already read the invitation). Now, if you don't accept it saying "I don't believe in deliberate practice", why are you not accepting it? Because you consider that doing the meditation will not help you attain Nibbana, thus, you don't do it. Isn't that deliberate practice? It seems to me that it is, because you are deliberately not doing meditation. Sukinder: If I make a choice not to respond to your invitation to meditate, it would be due to conditions either wholesome or unwholesome, with or without right view. For example, to be able to read at all would have been because of many, many conditions. To understand your message one way or another would also be due to many other conditions. The choice `not' to meditate may be motivated by right understanding in the moment, no understanding but instead a conditioned habitual response, or it may be out of aversion for the idea of meditation. All these however are conditioned by many factors. The important thing is, they arise to condition in part, the thought `about making a choice one way or another'. Now, one can react to conventional realities without knowing anything about what really underlies the actions. You, I, Jon, Connie, Ken, Sarah can all decide to take a flight to Africa and reach there. We can interpret this as most people do, that there are `selves' with `free will' who have made a certain choice and actualized it. In fact this is the basis of most people's wrong idea of control. As Buddhists we can also deny conditionality and make conventional actions the basis of our world view, but we would then be denying the Buddha's teachings. But even here we have no control, no choice, but depending on how much we have studied and understood conditionality and anatta, there will be believing in partial freewill or no freewill at all. If this moment has already arisen and fallen away conditioning the subsequent moment, including any idea on our part as to what this might be, where is there control? Even the idea to "do" something or to develop kusala or satipatthana, is conditioned by our views. We may take seriously the idea of a `self', `doing meditation' in `time' and `future results', all of which are in fact only `concepts' and not ultimate realities. Can we for example make `wisdom' arise? Likewise `mindfulness' too can't be made to arise, but these depend on precise conditions unrelated to any conventional idea. The apparent control we seem to have for the arising of akusala states and the readiness by which they arise, such as anger and lust, is because the accumulated tendencies to these are infinite, and besides we live in the sensuous plane where the objects of tanha are plenty. Also this is the reason that apparent neutral states like seeing, hearing, touching and so on seems to be something we can `choose to do', kamma is conditions the sense bases and the sensuous realm is never without appropriate objects. But do we really want to deny conditionality and thus lose out on truly understanding Dhamma? The above should also give reason to pause and consider if in fact what one considers to be `mindfulness' when meditating, is not in fact one face of lobha! Most people just change objects when they approach a religion. If their practice does not lead to detachment, then it must be attachment that they bring to their practice. Why does one want to continue a certain practice, in order to finally be detached?!!? Why justify by saying that the particular activity (meditation) and/or the `intention' for kusala, is part of the conditions which leads to the goal? Why not question the very idea (of meditation) formed in one's mind? Hugo: There are not two groups, both, those who meditate and chant and all that, and those who just "observe with wisdom" are both doing deliberate practice. It is just our minds playing the game it knows how to play, that of making things out of nothing, in other words, our minds are creating these two "self" entities. Sukinder: Agreed, if we hold on to a position and identify with it, then it is only a convenient idea that there are different groups. But this "observe with wisdom" group has been created in part by you Hugo. Firstly, you have turned it into a "doing" group when in fact the members oppose such an idea. Only panna can condition right practice, no one to `observe with wisdom', this is the basic position. But of course we can use labels for convenience of communication, as long as we understand. :-) Hugo: If you reply back to me tearing to pieces the above argument and I get angry because of what you say, then I would be creating a self out of the argument and making Hugo that argument, thus, when you tore it to pieces, I experienced the pain of being torn to pieces. But, if I "observe with wisdom" your reply and not create a self out of the argument, then I won't feel pain and I won't be angry. So, I do daily meditations, but when I read your reply what I should do is observe with wisdom. Sukinder: The root of the problem is `self view', not any subsequent attitude we have towards `selves'. Hugo: We are all bound to conditions (actually we are conditioned ourselves), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it. Otherwise getting to Nibbana is like winning the lottery, but even without buying a ticket. Sukinder: Getting to Nibbana requires that panna be accumulated enough and this in turns requires the paramis to be accumulated. This panna gets developed from understanding the present moment and the idea that some conventional activity must be done first and regularly, is in fact a movement away from *this present moment* into a conventional idea. That can't be a decision made by panna, in my opinion. :-/ > S: I think that viewing the Teachings as prescriptive creates a big > problem, one becomes `goal oriented' and ignores conditions which > are causes, namely one's accumulations as expressed from moment to > moment. Hugo: If that was the case, I really don't understand why does the Vinaya exist at all? What's the Vinaya?, it is only a set of rules of behavior. Why does an order of monks exist at all? Hey, why does the 5 precepts exist at all? Why did the Buddha said: "Thus you should train yourselves?" Sukinder: All words are just part of the conditions; there is nothing magical about them. The magic is when the accumulations is such that the words when heard become meaningful enough to induce enlightenment. Before that stage, words can be interpreted as per one's level of wisdom. The vinaya is `ideal' for those monks who understand the rules not as from an outside authority, but one that is most useful for the development of satipatthana while living as a monk. In other words, these rules have value only if there is panna of a certain level to appreciate them. Same with the precepts, these are `training rules' not meant to be commandments and not to have one form of akusala arising while one is eager to develop kusala. Hugo: Anuttaro purisa-damma-saarathi satthaa deva-manussaana"m buddho bhagavaa; unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings; awakened; blessed; So, the first thing is to find out if you are one of those who can be taught, and if you are go ahead and train yourself. Just the fact that one is interested in Buddhism, is probably a good indication that one is trainable. Sukinder: But the problem is that you are equating `training' with `meditation' and/or any decision to do so. I am not concerned whether or not I am trainable, but I see danger in wrong view, and if you ask me, I think this is good training. ;-) Hugo: So, don't be so scared about the "self" it is not the boogeyman, if you get to know it will be a tool, if you treat it with aversion it will always be there to haunt you. The reverse is also true, don't get too friendly with the "self" or you will start believing it is you, and it won't let you "go" to Nibbana. The Middle Way. Sukinder: The Middle Way is when there is a moment of satipatthana. It is not about creating two extremes and a middle position between them. This may in fact be with a certain kind of self-view and hence one extreme. So in one sense there is good reason to fear self-view, because this will create all sots of situation to perpetuate itself even in the name of `Middle Way'. So no, you can't use `self' to root out `self'. Hugo: Again, I am not an expert, I am not an authority in anything, I haven't reached any Jhanas, nor having seen any special nimittas, I still have a lot of defilements, so please go ahead and tear to pieces those arguments, that's how I learn. Sukinder: I really appreciate your presence here Hugo, in many ways you inspire me. :-) Thank you for inviting me to Gmail. Metta, Sukin Ps: On reading the above I find that it is not what I initially had in mind when I read your post. I am writing from home and the kids don't provide a good atmosphere for writing. :-( 42187 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > > A little more on your earlier post #41743- sorry for the delay. Forgive me, too, for the delay in responding, I have been unable until this point, to write a decent reply without it entirely reeking of evil or mischief, I will give it another try though. > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > Can't "we" or "you" do anything to put in place the conditions to > > cultivate sati, even if you do it without a lower level self belief > > (consciousness with wrong view), or even with consciousness without > > wrong view? In other words, can't we practise sati still with the > > higher self-view, to say nothing of the lower self-view. > …. > S: In truth, it's never any kind of self that practices. Only ever cittas, > cetasikas and rupas at any moment. When there's any kind of idea of `we' > who can practice or a whole situation such as `sitting cross-legged and > focusing on posture', it's not the development of satipatthana. How would you qualify this. Isnt satipatthana mindfulness and awarness of what is going on in one's own psycho-physical organism? If mindfulness can be cultivated (indeed, according to what I can glean from Suttanta and CMA, it can be), can't we progress towards knowing that there is no 'self' involved in the process, but still follow instructions, such as from a practise guide, or from the Satipatthana sutta, realizing that this body and mind are related in such a way and have such and such interactions, but can still be told to do something, and carry it out? You'll have to explain to me how this isn't satipatthana, and something else is. > …. > > But what about ultimate realities? Can't these be legitimately known, > > too? Also, which type of wrong view do you assert for this occasion? > > I'd be really interested to know. > … > S: Yes, ultimate realities can be known at any moment without any > restrictions if there has been wise reflection about what they are. For > example, seeing consciousness or visible object now. There can be joy when > there is a beginning of understanding that life is just made up of these > present dhammas and that all those stories and `situations' are mere > figments of the imagination. How is this understanding different from the understanding of the five faculties, part of the 37 aids to enlightenment, understanding that one breaths in a certain type of breath, and that one is having pleasant feeling, or contemplating on the six internal and external sense bases? (And indeed, how is this done in your method? By reading that the components are such, and reflecting on it? I would not dismiss your method outright, in fact I might even gain something from learning about it, but I still feel very strongly that satipatthana can all be cultivated. For example, I have recently purchased "The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering" by Bhikku Bodhi, and I would like to practise from this book.. B.B. says that space confines limit literature on each step, and since it is not an exhaustive work on any of the path factors, there is a recommended reading section included in which is Some Thera's "The Way of Mindfulness ," commentary on the satipatthana sutta. There are numerous indications here and elsewhere that mindfulness is to be cultivated, that one should strive to be aware of namas and rupas, or even the components of the body that make up such namas and rupas, such as posture. For exmaple, contemplating on the four elements in your mouth and hands and elsewhere as you eat (not easy but can be done). Time after time there are realities we are supposed to be mindful of. "we" is just something I said, a person can easily open up this book or webpage and follow the instructions, that can be the condition for the arusing of the four foundations of mindfulness. See a section I have pasted from Soma Thera's work: <> > … > > >S: Let me know if you want me to say more. I can give lots of > > examples, like > > > anytime there is an idea of following a practice….!! > > > > Yes, please. In particular this bit came to my attention: > > > > SN 22-01 > > > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- > > who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined > > in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well- > > versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to > > be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, > > or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' > > or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes > > & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & > > despair over its change & alteration. > …. > S: Thanks for this. In truth, the body we find so important consists of > mere changing rupas - none of which are self or belong to the self. When > we cling to an idea of my body or posture or breathing meditation, there's > no way that dhammas (namas and rupas) can be seen for what they are as > impermanent elements without any owner and not in anyone's control. > … See from what I read you should be able to recognize, systematically, and more and more over time, through practise, that these are only conditioned realities and there is no self controlling them. This should happen through mindfulness and awareness itself. I can't see where 'wrong view of self' would hold practise back, since these, for the most part, are factors a person can cultivate. If there are other factors one cannot cultivate, but are only conditioner, then, I can see self-view possibly being a problem, but probably moreso just not leading to anything good. But overall, it looks like a person can work on all this. > > Now I know there is a sutta out there, or in somewhere,, that > > discusses knowing the three types of feeling, and abandoning the > > underlying tendency to lust, aversion, and ignorance respectively in > > pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful > > feeling. This to me seems a direct way to practise that is in accord > > with the satipatthana method of practice > <….> > S: In SN, there's a whole section on feelings (Vedaba Samyutta) because of > the importance we attribute to feelings. We hanker after the pleasant ones > and have aversion to the unpleasant all day long. Again, the descriptions > are reminders that these feelings are conditioned and anatta and to be > understood as they are, when they appear. Again, if there's a focusing on > feelings as you (and perhaps other teachers describe), it's not with > detachment and understanding as I read you. How about in the suttas, the instructions are, when feeling a pleasant feeling, to know that there is a pleasant feeling, same for painful and neutral feelings. These can be contemplated on intentionally for various results, with some success. > …. > > And you are saying this institutes wrong practise? If this can > > logically be expected to work (that is, it is sound instruction), I > > see nothing wrong with it. I have had at least awareness, and > > possilby calm grow from doing precisely that (concentrating on breath > > while sitting). > > So youre saying self-view can't lead to eradication of self-view. But > > perhaps it can? Can we bring out some more examples here of how this > > might or might not work? > …. > S: Would you say that anger leads to the eradication of anger or > attachment leads to the eradication of attachment or delusion leads to the > eradication of delusion? No, but I can say greed can lead to non-greed, that is, if I have greed for something that reduces greed. Similarly, view of a person can lead one to practise that through which one will discover (eventually) that there is no 'person' of its own, just different realities. At this point I feel inclined to quote D. 2, Fruits of the Contemplative life: >>83. And so, with his mind concentratat, purified and cleanesed, unblemished, free from impurities, malleable, workable, established, and having gained imperturbability, he directs and inclines his mind towards knowing and seeing. And he knows "This is my body, made up from the four great elements, born of mother and father, fed on gruel, impermanent, liable to be injured and abraded, broken and destroyed, and this is my consioucsness which is bound to it and dependent on it.>> So we see that the monk can go through the jhanas and attain supernormal powers, still with the idea of a person or being, and /possibly/ coming to realize lack of 'beinghood' when he reaches this point. I would also say that we all know from Vissudhimagga, that one of the results of the meditation on the four great elements (different from the above, it just reminded me) is that a person can discard the idea of a living being. So it seems it can be with other factors, too, such as mindfulness of breathing and clear comprehension of purpose and suitability, and of posture in this case according to Ven. U. Silananda's "The Four Foundations of Mindfulness". There will be many points where we can be established in dharma and observe that there is no self controlling the process. > > No, similarly, self view just leads to more self-view. So while you're > sitting on your cushion or speaking on the telephone, there may well be > moments of awareness and wise reflection, but these moments of awareness > or understanding will have been conditioned by precious moments of wise > reflection or awareness, rather than using the telephone or sitting on the > cushion. No wise reflection had happened, Sarah, or I'd be doing much better than I am. It sort of breaks the hard line skepticism I had that "If we cannot develop awareness of realities, or perfections, why do they come to us but not ordinary people?" It seems mindfulness came about just by my wanting to, and perhaps by sitting meditation. I will state again, I have not done wise reflections, only read that one should be mindful in less than one page of instructions (perhaps even only one or two paragraphs) and sitting meditation. > …. > > Perhaps you have it right that one shouldn't try to control one's own > > life but if one 'goes with the flow' and tries to develop > > understanding of ultimate realities which he will later experience > > this can lead to benefits of practise. > … > S: If one does try to control anything, there are also conditioned dhammas > at such a time and they can be known for what they are - a kind of > thinking, often with self-view, that dhammas really are within some kind > of control. Controlling what cannot be controlled, it seems might indeed involve some sort of a wrong view. One reason I began studying Abhidhamma is so I can know, and be aware of such wrong views and their associated mental states, as part of the four foundations of mindfulness, but regardless of what you call it, recognizing some of these wrong views, if they are indeed wrong views, is something I'd like to do. To what extent are 'wrong views' really wrong views associated with consciousness, or just ideas that may not tend to help practise any? > <…> > > I know understand what vinnana is. > > > > Is the latter similar to contemplating on the six external and > > internal sense bases? > … > S: The six external bases are the sense door objects (visible object etc) > and the 6th consists of cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. > > The six internal bases are the sense bases (eye-base etc) and the 6th > consists of all cittas. > > So vinnana here would refer to the cittas included in the 6th internal > sense base. Oh. Ok. > > [Sometimes, in context, the meaning can be a little different, such as > vinnana just referring to vipaka cittas in D.O etc] > …. > > The Buddha talks about how a monk possesses mindfulness and full > > awareness in all postures whether talking or remaining silent, going > > forward or backwards, even attending to calls of nature. How are we > > supposed to acheive this if we can't cultivate sati or awareness? > > It's fleeting otherwise. > …. > S: It means, ideally, mindfulness can arise at any time, such as during > any of these daily life activities. The commentary notes make it clearer > that it is the namas and rupas that are the objects of satipatthana. No doubt. What else are we of? > > Satipatthana has to be developed gradually and there's never a `we' to > achieve it. If it was so simple, why would the Buddha have hesitated when > it came to teaching the Dhamma? Why is it considered so very profound? It is hard to follow precisely, this is why I am looking into Abhidharma, to know the nature of ultimate realities so I can assure myself I'm practising rightly. From what I know of why the Buddha didn't want to teach was that those in lust and hate would not perceive the Dhamma, it went against the worldly stream, well I for one have liked transcendence and not rejoicing so much in worldliness, but I wouldn't let that affect my idea of practise. > …. > <…> > >If only I could have it in > > all postures at all the time. One of my friends suggests taht it > > appears when I am not wrapped up in something.. it can come in at > > some very odd times. > > > > Anyway, your take on this would be appreciated. > … > S: On our recent trip, we were reminded often that `lobha is the teacher'. > > `If only….' Lobha again. > …. I have seriously considered implementing the layperson's code of discipline which would really kill the idle chatter due to lobha as I've experienced recently, as it can only be cause for rebirth in the lower realms or cause for misfortune in this and future lives. Doing work would be the crux of that. According to that same discipline, one is not supposed to act out of desire, but wherever lobha does show up, I would like to know it. > > Just of one nama & rupa at a time, or can knowing more nama and rupa > > condition even more mindfulness and awareness? It seems to me that > > the Buddha meant mindfulness and awareness for the monk to be present > > with every step he takes. > …. > S: So awareness has to begin with just a very little `taste' and gradually > get used to the flavour of namas and rupas so that it can develop with the > assistance of panna which understands what this awareness is and isn't. > Ideally, yes, we'd all be arahants, but there's no point wishing or > dreaming. > > Even just a little understanding can make a huge impact in our lives > though, I think. So imagine how much a lot of understanding could! :0) > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Apologies for my delays too > ======== Bye Sarah 42188 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG >1st. Here is a basis for considering thoughts to be aspects of perception... > >“Owing to difference of element there is difference of contact; owing to >difference of contact there is difference of feeling; owing to difference of >feeling there is difference of perception; owing to difference of perception there >is difference of thought; owing to difference of thought there is difference >of intention; owing to difference of intention there is difference of >obsession; owing to difference of obsession there is difference of quest; owing to >difference of quest there is difference of what is gained.â€? >(Ven. Sariputta . . . Long Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 520, Expanding >Decades, Dasuttara Sutta, #34) > > I'm afraid that this is an example of the problem of inconsistent translation terms. What is translated as 'thought' in this passage is the Pali term 'sankappa' which I believe refers to the cetasika vitakka. So this passage is not a basis for considering thoughts to be aspects of perception. >This quote demonstrates proliferation of mental states. It shows the >outgrowth of -- feelings from contacts, perceptions from feelings, thoughts from >perceptions, etc. > > One dhamma is a condition for the other, that's all. I would not think of this as an 'outgrowth'. >2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. >Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've already >pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your >comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was losing my >mind. ;-) > > Nama is a term used to describe those dhammas that experience an object. Consciousness (citta) is one example of a nama (cetasikas are another). We are discussing thoughts as object of consciousness. Thoughts do not have an object, so are not considered namas. Jon 42189 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:38am Subject: Salesmanship: Re: abhidhamma - Andrew L Hi Sarah, Of course I knew that your question wasn't an open question. It was a leading question which supports your particular point of view. We have covered this ground so many times that it is getting too redundant to get into a deep analysis. Let me just summarize: You hold the view: "There is No Self" while I hold the view "Everything is Non-Self". It may not seem to be a big difference but this difference in viewpoint will translate into a difference in practices. Your practice is passive while mine is active. Your practice is text-centered while my practice is experience-centered. Your practice attempts to begin at the supermundane while mine begins at the mundane. If your practice works for you, fine. Good luck. I don't have anything more to say about it. Metta, James 42190 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:42am Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi James - > > Again, you said it all very well. > > James: Frankly, I don't believe that > > arahants truly fall under the category of `human'. What happens to > > the citta that is freed from craving? Is it annihilated? I don't > > think so. > > > Kind regards, > > > Tep Thanks for the positive feedback. BTW, I like your Yahoo name "Buddhistmeditator" :-)) Metta, James 42191 From: Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Kel (and Rob) - In a message dated 2/13/05 6:19:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, kelvin_lwin@y... writes: > Hi RobM, > > >Does the conformational mind door process (tadanuvattika > >manodvaravithi) not take the same object as the previous 5 door > >process? See CMA p164. > Cannot exactly be the same exact as the original object is already > gone. Original vithi receive it as pancadvaravajjana with the > object still present. Subsequent vithis can only receive it as > mandovaravajjana. Also why the 2nd mano-vara combines the two > impressions of the object. I don't have CMA so I can't check if > we're talking the same. > > - kel > > =========================== I would just like to mention that "Cannot exactly be the same exact as the original object is already gone" accords with my personal perspective. (I don't know the word 'mandovaravajjana'. Does it refer to a mind-door replica?) 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) 42192 From: Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I Hi, Sukin (and Hugo) - Looking to butt in a bit! ;-) In a message dated 2/13/05 7:12:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Hugo, > > I'm slowly trying to catch up with the posts and am still way behind. > > >S: Remember, I am one of those who don't believe > >in deliberate practice? > > Hugo: > Actually I think that you DO believe in a "deliberate practice". > > Why? > > Consider the following: > > I invite you to meditate at least one hour daily (two sessions of 30 > mins. each or one session of 1 hour). > > Now, you have only two options, either you accept or you don't accept > the invitation (you can't "ignore" it, because if you are reading > this, you already read the invitation). > > Now, if you don't accept it saying "I don't believe in deliberate > practice", why are you not accepting it? > > Because you consider that doing the meditation will not help you > attain Nibbana, thus, you don't do it. > > Isn't that deliberate practice? It seems to me that it is, because > you are deliberately not doing meditation. > > Sukinder: > If I make a choice not to respond to your invitation to meditate, it would > be due to conditions either wholesome or unwholesome, with or without > right view. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly, behind any correct conventional story lie the actualities. ------------------------------------- > > For example, to be able to read at all would have been because of > many, many conditions. To understand your message one way or > another would also be due to many other conditions. The choice `not' to > meditate may be motivated by right understanding in the moment, no > understanding but instead a conditioned habitual response, or it may be > out of aversion for the idea of meditation. All these however are > conditioned by many factors. The important thing is, they arise to > condition in part, the thought `about making a choice one way or > another'. ----------------------------------------- Howard: That is unquestionable, IMO, and I bet Hugo agrees as well. ------------------------------------------ > > Now, one can react to conventional realities without knowing anything > about what really underlies the actions. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. That is a perfectly true statement. ------------------------------------------ You, I, Jon, Connie, Ken, Sarah > > can all decide to take a flight to Africa and reach there. We can > interpret this as most people do, that there are `selves' with `free will' > who have made a certain choice and actualized it. In fact this is the > basis of most people's wrong idea of control. As Buddhists we can also > deny conditionality and make conventional actions the basis of our world > view, but we would then be denying the Buddha's teachings. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Again, no disagreement. I would add one more thing here, assuming your hypothesized trip actually takes place: The statement that Hugo, you, Jon, Connie, Ken, and Sarah travel to Africa is TRUE. It is abbreviational and not literally true, but with the unravelling of the complex abbreviational structure, there would be a statement of literal truth about the unfolding of an unimaginable complexity of impersonal, interrelated conditions. ----------------------------------------- > > But even here we have no control, no choice, but depending on how > much we have studied and understood conditionality and anatta, there > will be believing in partial freewill or no freewill at all. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: With the foregoing statement, there is the danger of mixing literal and figurative senses, producing a semantics that is neither true nor false. What do I mean? I mean that the facts are as follows: Literally there is no "we", and to say "We have no control," is to assert something literally meaningless. But figuratively - conventionally - it is not meaningless at all but simply *true*. ------------------------------------------- If this moment > > has already arisen and fallen away conditioning the subsequent > moment, including any idea on our part as to what this might be, where > is there control? Even the idea to "do" something or to develop kusala or > satipatthana, is conditioned by our views. We may take seriously the > idea of a `self', `doing meditation' in `time' and `future results', all of > which are in fact only `concepts' and not ultimate realities. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, literally, before any alleged person can "decide to take an action" millions of impersonal conditions have arisen and ceased. However, and I think this is critically important, if we translate this fact from the literal realm to the conventional realm in an un-subtle way, and conclude the impossibility of *conventional* decisions and actions, we are in fact subverting the occurrence of complex patterns of reality that can lead to progress on the Buddha's path of practice. If in realizing that that there is literally no one to engage in guarding the senses, and being attentive to kusala and akusala states, one conventionally makes no effort in that direction, one is being a pedantic pseudo-Buddhist. (And I believe that you clearly realize that to be so, as do most others on DSG. But I think it is important to point it out.) ====================== 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) 42193 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:13am Subject: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna Hi Hugo, Sarah, Jon, Nina, ... There have been a great deal of discussion here about panna. Now, let's hear what the Buddha said about the development of wisdom. According to a sutta, there are 8 conditions that "lead to the acquiring of the as-yet-unacquired discernment that is basic to the holy life, and to the increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of that which has already been acquired": 1. Living in apprenticeship to the Teacher or "a respectable comrade in the holy life" with established "strong sense of conscience, fear of blame, love, & respect". 2. Approaching the Teacher/comrade with Dhamma questions. 3. Achieving seclusion in body and seclusion in mind. 4. Dwelling restrained "in accordance with the Patimokha" ..."having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest faults". 5. After having heard so much, one retains what one has heard and memorize it all well. Also by discussing, accumulating, examining and well penetrating the Dhamma. 6. Keeping one's persistence aroused for abandoning unskillful mental qualities and for taking on skillful mental qualities" and not shirking one's duties "with regard to skillful mental qualities"(kusala dhammas). 7. Speaking Dhamma or inviting another to do so and feeling "no disdain for noble silence". 8. Remaining "focused on arising & passing away with regard to the five aggregates" (panca-khandha). Panna Sutta, AN VIII.2 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an08-002.html Are any of these 8 conditions contradicting to your views? Conditions #1 and #4 are good only for monks, I guess. Kindest regards, Tep ========= 42194 From: Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/13/05 4:09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: > Whew, this miscommunication business makes for a lot of extra work!! > Hopefully we can get back to the meat of the issue(s) ;-)) > ====================== I'm going to make another attempt at explaining what I mean, and I'm going to do it by "sneaking up on it". Let me give an analogy. I don't think that either of us is a materalist or accepts the stories of Physics as literal truth. So you will understand that I am only trying to point to my position through analogy. From the perpective of biophysics, when one's finger pushes against the external object called a table, encountering resistance, nerves in the finger are affected, nerve impulses travel from the finger tip to the spinal cord, and then up along the spinal cord to the brain where the brain cells in some area of the brain react in a way that is called "feeling hardness". The resistance in the external table - the "hardness" there - is whatever it is. The*felt* hardness is, or corresponds to, brain function. The hardness in the table and the felt hardness are two different things, with the former a condition for the latter. One could give a similar story of light waves hitting the eyes, and eventually a sight experience occurring. Quick disclaimer: I consider these biophysics stories to be useful, conventional, predictive theories that "work". I put them forward only to point to the distinction between alleged external physical phenomena and physical experiences. What is it that are directly experienced? My answer: the experiences. What is it that are *known* to arise? My answer: the experiences. What is it that *can* be directly known to exist, albeit fleeingly? My answer: the experiences. Might there be external phenomena that underlie and cause these experiences, as biophysics concludes? Certainly. Can I infer it from my experiences? Sure - apparently a non-contradictory inference. Can I directly *know* it from my experiences? No, I can only directly know the experiences themselves. I hope this helps, Jon. It is about the best effort I can muster, I believe. 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) 42195 From: Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 2/13/2005 5:30:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@n... writes: >2nd. The way I see it Jon, is -- mind-objects ARE by definition Nama. >Mind-objects means that the objects are aspects of the mind. I think I've already >pretty well demonstrated this from quotes in a previous post. But your >comments did make me rethink everything cause I was wondering if I was losing my >mind. ;-) > > Nama is a term used to describe those dhammas that experience an object. Consciousness (citta) is one example of a nama (cetasikas are another). We are discussing thoughts as object of consciousness. Thoughts do not have an object, so are not considered namas. Jon Hi Jon I guess that then leaves the question...what is a mind object? The criteria it has to meet is this: 1) A mind-object has to be an object primarily associated with "being mind." 2) It has to be an object by which consciousness and mental factors can arise in association with it. 3) It has to incompass the scope of meanings and uses as found in the "mind-object section/analysis" of the Satipatthana Sutta. Based on this criteria, I cannot get away from concluding that a mind-object is at least in part; plain and simple "thinking and analysis." It is discriminating thought and in my view aslo incorporates mindfulness of feelings and other mental factors. You will need to read carefully the Satipatthana Sutta and see what it considers "mind-object" and draw your own conclusions. TG 42196 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] thanks. Dear Sarah, Jon, and also Howard, Azita, Phil, Mike, all who said kind words to Lodewijk and me on or off list, our heartfelt thanks for this. op 13-02-2005 09:26 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jsabbott@n...: > It was no doubt a relief to you that the end was peaceful for him. N: His lady friend was with him, and he had waited for her to die at last without all those fears. We are very grateful to her. J: I know that you and Lodewijk have given great support of all kinds to > your father over the years. I'm sure that that kusala will be a source > of moments of calm for you both during these difficult times. N: All these last fifteen years were not easy. There was kusala, but in between a lot of akusala. I had to conquer myself so many times, I was frustrated and impatient. But there were also good moments, especially with the music. Sarah, my father did not wish any eulogies, and years ago he said that he even did not like us to be at his funeral. He was so strongwilled, and very special in many ways. We never knew he changed his mind, but we are all going to his funeral, all family members. There will not be any fringes. As Sarah said, This is true. Nina. 42197 From: nina Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:03am Subject: Pilgrimage India 5 g Pilgrimage India 5 g During this pilgrimage we experienced that association with wise friends is of great benefit. When we were waiting at the airport of Patna, on our way to Sikkim, one of my Thai friends, Khun Sukol, reminded me that we do not want to accept that there is no self. Even though we understand the truth intellectually, deep in our hearts we cling to the idea of self. The Buddha taught against the stream of common thought. Khun Sukol is eager for Dhamma conversations at any time. Acharn Sujin¹s reminders that we continue to believe that it is ³us² who want to develop insight whereas it is only a dhamma, not ³us² who develops insight, were an important lesson to me. If we do not apply this truth we walk on the wrong Path and we shall not become detached from nåma and rúpa. I am grateful to the founder of the Maha-Bodhi Society, Anagarika Dharmapala. If he had not initiated the preservation of the holy places we would not be able to pay respect today to the Buddha at these sites and commemorate his birth, his enlightenment, his first sermon and his parinibbåna. The venerable monks of the Maha-Bodhi society continue Anagarika Dharmapala¹s excellent work with great earnestness and devotion. Their simplicity, kindness and hospitality deeply impressed and inspired us. **** Nina. 42198 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:14am Subject: object condition Hi all, It seems to me there are no objects, and the object condition is fundamentally responsible for the sense of a separate self, aka conceit. An object is a reference point and, as such, is never present, therefore there are no objects. From a schematic point of view an object gives birth to its own subject, with the help of other "midwife" conditioners. But an object is not an object until a subject makes it an object. The subject defines itself in relation to another; this other is the object. Rupa impinges on the body door; consciousness and feeling make this an experience; sanna identifies this experience with names and associations and sankhara khandha reacts to this experience with like, dislike, etc. The experience as object is gone by the time sanna and sankhara make it an object, and, in creating an object, sanna and sankhara make themself a unitary subject. Even if the object is a memory, the memory is gone before it is made into an object. Panna's job, first of all, is to see this subject object relationship as simply discrete elements: hard is hard, experience is experience, painful is painful, bump is bump, dislike is dislike. Secondly, because there are no objects, there are no objects of satipatthana. Just this, this, this; without reference point, timelessly. Even seeming reference points and relationships are just that, i.e., this, this, this. Objects are created by subjects, but objects are gone before they are made into objects; therefore there are no objects. There cannot be a subject without an object because a subject defines itself in relation to another, so there are neither objects nor subjects. Just this. Larry 42199 From: connie Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:45am Subject: abbreviated conversation Hi, All, Just listening to mp3's again and thought I'd send part of the Lumbini1_01 talk on as it reminded me of some of the recent posts. peace, connie TA: I think that when we are very concerned about ourself, it is not the understanding of reality right now, so I try to stress on the characteristic of a reality right at this moment. Because when we talk about dhamma it doesn't mean that we just talk about the thing that we learn by words, but actually it's the development of understanding the reality which is now appearing, see? So, if we are engrossed by thinking about future, tomorrow or this evening or tonight, especially, we are getting lost again in the world of concept, like we used to be. So by talking about realities, one is saved from attachment and aversion to the concept. Because even right now, visible object is appearing, right? But no one developing the understanding of it when there is interest in concept instantly follow from moment of seeing to hearing all in one's life, world, or ocean of concept. Even right now, realities appear at different doorways, for example, visible object is appearing. But it doesn't appear as a reality, which there is no one, no thing, in it at all. But when there is the idea of someone or something one knows that that is not the char of visible object which arises and falls away instantly. It has gone completely but this sign of it, the sign of visible object appears as people and thing all the time. So we are used to take visible object as people and thing by just the sign, which is not the actual arising and falling away of visible object. Q (?): When you say sign, I don't understand sign? TA: Now? There is visible object apearing, right? Is it visible object or someone or something? That is the sign. Because the real one has gone each moment, instantly, from moment to moment. So it's only the sign of visible object. In Pali it's nimitta. So there are many levels of nimitta. Nimitta of nama and nimitta of rupa and nimitta of concept as well. Q (Sarah?): Do we say different level or different kinds of nimitta? TA: Ok, kind, level, yeah. For example, like we talk about a dream, it depends on what level we are talking about. For example, when we think of the word we use to understand by a dream, it's at night while one is asleep and there is a dream but what about this moment, see? We can talk about another level of understanding. What is the difference between a dream at night and a dream now? Is it not a dream? Because it's only the thinking after the processes of seeing, hearing... just dream about reality which keeps on arising and falling. And in a dream, one sees the story of things one has experienced before, or not experienced, either by the sankhara khanda. The thinking just has many components to think about. So it's right this moment. Even just the visible object - that there are the collection, accumulation of memory of what we take out of visible object as things and people, which is so permanent in our thinking.