43800 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:50pm Subject: Peak Advantages...!!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Gradual Way to Release: Question: What is the purpose & advantage of Good Behaviour ? Answer: Freedom from Regrets, Remorse & Bad Consciousness ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of absence of Regrets ? A: Gladness is emerging in absence of regret & remorse ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of Gladness ? A: Gladness produces quite Enraptured Joy ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of Enraptured Joy ? A: Mind satisfied by enraptured joy enters Tranquillity ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of calm Tranquillity ? A: Serene Happiness follows such calm Tranquillity ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of Serene Happiness ? A: Absorbed Concentration is caused by Serene Happiness ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of Absorbed Concentration ? A: Understanding subtle phenomena is an effect of Concentration ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of profound Understanding ? A: Fading of Attraction & Aversion is enabled by Understanding ! Q: What is the purpose & advantage of Fading of Attraction & Aversion ? A: Mental Release through vision & direct knowledge of Nibbana !!! In Happy Peace dwells the Freed Mind. Even among the uneven... Source: Anguttara Nikaya: The numerical saying of the Buddha: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=204050 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132552 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ With all his attachments cut, with the mind's urge all stilled, calm, serene and happy is he, for he has attained peace of mind. Samyutta Nikaya I, 212 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wonderful it is to train the mind, so swiftly moving, seizing whatever it wants. Good is it to have a well-trained mind, for a well-trained mind brings happiness. Dhammapada 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <....> 43801 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:31am Subject: Bangkok report jonoabb Hello All Just to report on the day's discussion with Acharn Sujin. Present were dsg-ers Christine and Azita (from Australia) and Sukin and Ell (Bangkok). Also present were Vince and Nancy who were on their way back to Australia from Tibetan retreats in Dharmsala and Bodh Gaya and who just happened (again) to coincide with our visit, having arrived in Bangkok earlier this morning. Ken O was present briefly by phone during lunch, and we all enjoyed saying hello to him. The discussion was, as usual, interesting and most useful. Vince brought up a number of familiar topics such as techniques for coping with defilements, the luminous nature of the mind, the value of kusala deeds helping others, etc. We also had lots of discussion on the importance of awareness of the presently arising dhammas. Another similar session to look forward to tomorrow;-)) Jon PS for KenH: Lots on sila and precepts too. Perhaps Chris will report back on this. 43802 From: connie Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:45am Subject: Re: New view on satipatthana 2 nichiconn Hi, AL, What kind of programming? I'm still thinking wrong view of self is the biggest example of wrong view. Elements. See ADL ch 18. I like this from 'Discourse on the Manyfold Elements' (Middle Length Sayings III, 115): "There are these two elements, Ananda: the element that is constructed and the element that is unconstructed." The Commentaries on Puggalapannatti are supposed to say: "Making strenuous efforts in insight-meditation with the strength of implicit faith in it, an individual can realize the knowledge of the Path and its Fruition while walking, standing, sitting, lying down, or taking light food or heavy meals. No instances exist where he fails to attain wisdom when he so practises it." Postures mislead us into seeing wholes when it's imposed on elements. Maybe like your friend saying, "wrapped up in things". Dhatu-Vibhanga. In the potter's shed, The Blessed One said that earth, liquid, fire, wind, space, consciousness, each "should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the [...] property and makes the [...] property fade from the mind." This is mine (etam mama) fulfills craving; this I am (esoham asmi), conceit; this is myself, ditthi. So this is elemental in lessening grasping, I guess. "'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is called a sage at peace." peace, connie 43803 From: "Larry" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry, > just about the first answer: concept is not a dhaatu, it is not real. Only > realities are dhatus. B.B. corrected this, we had some discussion before. > Nina. > op 29-03-2005 06:22 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > > > > Hi Geoff, > > L: Nama, rupa, and concept are all included in dhammadhatu (mind > > object). Hi Nina, Thanks for bringing this up. I had thought dhatu was different from ayatana but they are the same. So the 'dhammadhatu' classification only includes cetasikas, subtle rupa, and nibbana, even though consciousness, 'gross' rupa, and concept are also objects of consciousness. See chart in "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", p.288. Larry Larry 43804 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sense of hhumor, James. nilovg Hi Howard, James, :-)) :-)) :-)) I like James' sense of humor. Lodewijk said: tell James to fly to Bgk himself, we shall really be glad to welcome him there. Nina. op 28-03-2005 20:57 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > Howard: > Omigod!! Say not!! 8>( > Gosh, that will surely make me do an about-face on the matter!! I > mean: "Hey, whatever the facts might be, just don't 'sound' like certain > folks!!" > ;-)) > James. more seriously: I couldn't care less who I sound like. I will > agree with a person on one thing and utterly disagree with him/her on another. > I certainly don't base positions on the positions (or "sound") of others. 43805 From: "Larry" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:58am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Nina: "Cetasika is nama and it does not change its nature when it is an object of another nama. Cetasika experiences the same object as the citta it accompanies and when it has just fallen away its namic characteristic can be known by a citta with mindfulness and understanding that arises afterwards." Hi Nina, This presents some problems for satipatthana. If the object of desire is a concept then mindfulness of that desire would be mindfulness of that concept. Similarly, there would be no way to experience desire because you would always be experiencing its object. Or else you would experience both object and desire at the same time, which is impossible. Larry 43806 From: "Larry" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] stopping thoughts, jhana. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Just one comment on this interesting topic: Nina: "Kusala citta is completely different from akusala citta." L: If you take away the cetasikas and the objects, what is the difference? Larry 43807 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry nilovg Hi Larry, op 29-03-2005 19:42 schreef Larry op LBIDD@...: concept is not a dhaatu, it is not > real. > Thanks for bringing this up. I had thought dhatu was different from > ayatana but they are the same. N: The confusion is somewhere else. Some people confuse dhammaarama.na (includes also concepts) and dhamma dhatu. Aayatana is a different classification, and as I said, dhatus can be classified in many ways. See also Connie's post. L:So the 'dhammadhatu' classification > only includes cetasikas, subtle rupa, and nibbana, even though > consciousness, 'gross' rupa, and concept are also objects of > consciousness. See chart in "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", > p.288. N: So the concepts should be left out here. When we take into account eighteen dhatus, citta is under the sense cognitions, mano-dhatu and mano-viññana-dhatu (as we had in the Vis study). Dhammadhatu: those dhammas that are the remaining realities (not under the other previously mentioned dhatus) and that can be experienced through the mind-door only. Nina. 43808 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg]Lokuttara cittas nilovg Dear LK, You have very good questions, do not worry at all! op 29-03-2005 13:39 schreef lokuttaracitta op lokuttaracitta@...: > > How do you say for sure Color arises and falls away when it is not > seen? > > Is it possible to explain that without saying "because it is said > as such in Sutta and Abhidhamma pitaka" ? N: You know, even when it is seen, and it is seen now, there is no pañña that realizes its arising and falling away. Your question is deep. The thrid stage of vipassana ñaa.na begins to see the arising and falling away of dhammas, and the first stage of principal insight sees it clearly. I only know by inference that what arises because of conditions must fall away. I have confidence in the Tipitaka that teaches us the way leading to realize the truth of impermanence of all that is conditioned. It must be by beginning to investigate the visible object right at this moment, or the sound at this moment. It cannot be at a moment other than this moment. I am glad you remind me. Thank you, Nina. 43809 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] citta nilovg Hi Larry, op 29-03-2005 20:05 schreef Larry op LBIDD@...: > Just one comment on this interesting topic: > > Nina: "Kusala citta is completely different from akusala citta." > > L: If you take away the cetasikas and the objects, what is the > difference? N: Citta cannot arise without an object and without cetasikas, thus, there would be no citta. But I think I know what you mean. You are thinking of the nature of just citta: clearly knowing an object. Rob M also explained this. And Kh Sujin said: actually we could count citta as an additional cetasika and then there would be fiftythree cetasikas. Nina. 43810 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nama and rupa nilovg op 29-03-2005 19:58 schreef Larry op LBIDD@...: > > > Nina: "Cetasika is nama and it does not change its nature when it is > an object of another nama. Cetasika experiences the same object as > the citta it accompanies and when it has just fallen away its namic > characteristic can be known by a citta with mindfulness and > understanding that arises afterwards." > L: This presents some problems for satipatthana. If the object of desire > is a concept then mindfulness of that desire would be mindfulness of > that concept. N: mindfulness of that desire would be mindfulness of desire, that is all. We have to consider: what characterstic presents itself, what *characteristic* of reality? It is lobha that grasps an object. That is what matters, it does not ineterest us what object lobha took, the point is: knowing lobha as lobha, as a conditioned nama, not self. That leads to detachment, to liberation. Not: finding out what object lobha clings to, we may think of that later on, but this does not lead to detachment, to seeing realities as non-self. L: Similarly, there would be no way to experience desire > because you would always be experiencing its object. N: Indeed, that happens if we start speculating about its object. This does not interest us, it is of no use. L:Or else you > would experience both object and desire at the same time, which is > impossible. N: Impossible and unnecessary. Nina. 43811 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 3/29/05 1:11:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Nina: "Cetasika is nama and it does not change its nature when it is > an object of another nama. Cetasika experiences the same object as > the citta it accompanies and when it has just fallen away its namic > characteristic can be known by a citta with mindfulness and > understanding that arises afterwards." > > Hi Nina, > > This presents some problems for satipatthana. If the object of desire > is a concept then mindfulness of that desire would be mindfulness of > that concept. Similarly, there would be no way to experience desire > because you would always be experiencing its object. Or else you > would experience both object and desire at the same time, which is > impossible. > > Larry > > ======================= As I see it, whenever the "object" of awareness or of any mental operation such as desire or aversion or remembering or thinking is (said to be) a concept, one has to understand that 'object' doesn't have the same meaning as when an object is a true object - a paramattha dhamma. In the case of a "concept-object", there is no actually present object (IMO), but there is the seeming of such, and we *say* there is an object and that it is a "concept". So, when hardness is experienced, an actual felt-hardness is present. But, for example, when we say that we remember a hardness, all that means is that a mental event of a particular sort, conditioned by an actual prior occurrence of a hardness sensation, is occurring. There is the *operation* of remembering-the-hardness conditioned by and related to the earlier occurring hardness, but there is no present thing that is the hardness itself, nor a replica of it, nor a "memory" of it. There is just the mental operation. 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) 43812 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:08pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon - > > Thank you for asking. > > I am honored that you have asked for my thought on the subject of > Buddha Nature and the Primal Mind (A. Mun's word). I hope that after > reading this post you may not be too disappointed. Since mine is just > a thought of a worldling, it is yet free from confusion and > misunderstanding. Dear Tep, You are active with Buddhism in a very sincere way. I appreciate the way you developed your ideas about Buddha Nature. I'm asking myself what criterium there can be to decide if you are right on wrong in your statement: "The Primal mind was originally a single citta - a pure consciousness with no associated cetasikas, then it was defiled by incoming defilements {I,v,9}. …" I think that somebody who takes the primary orthodox Theravada texts shouls say that such a citta doesn't exist. I doubt if you can use Bhikkhu Bodhi as a source for your statement, I do not see a real connection. I use not only these texts but also my 'Buddhistic intuition'. Than my problem is what you mean with 'originally' ? You mean origin of mankind, of life on earth; or of a human individual at the moment of his/her birth? Or every moment again and again? The last days I read some texts about 'gnosis' and I do get the impression your statement can be called gnostic: starting by the idea that everybody has a devine spark in him. I prefer to be an agnostic to such ideas: we cannot know it. And more important: I think I do not need the opinion that one is born with a innate goodness. You think you need such ideas ? And do you need to call it 'Buddhistic' or 'Theravada'? Some days ago I said about the Pabhassara Sutta ("Luminous is the mind …") that I don't understand it. All I know different interpretations are possible. Is there one right one, or are there more than one right ones? With metta Joop 43813 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles Hi Jon and TG TG wrote: {There are two ways to look at the teachings. As knowledge states (mental formations) that arise and cease due to conditions. Or as principles that don't actually exist as "things." I think Charles is talking from the point of view of the former, and Jon from the point of view of the latter. And I think you're both right.} Good points, but I was actually trying to get Jon to post what he actually believed. I was not trying to make any claims points other then getting Jon to state his belief/view considering ... . Thanks for posting your view/belief. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 27 March, 2005 19:33 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times In a message dated 3/26/2005 9:31:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, jsabbott@... writes: Charles DaCosta wrote: >So is the Abidharma and other teachings Nibbana, or do they not really exist? > Sorry, but I haven't caught your point here. No, the teachings are not Nibbana, and nor are they 'dhammas' as in the 5 khandhas, etc. They are truths about dhammas. Jon ....................... Hi Jon and Charles {.} above TG 43814 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles I have to laugh, Matthew, you hit my funny bone. I would have never thought to make that connection. I guess this proves that Mind is not infinite in knowing and connecting, at lest mine is not. CharleD ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Miller To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 28 March, 2005 01:51 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times > > > > There are two ways to look at the teachings. As knowledge states > > (mental formations) that arise and cease due to conditions. > > Or as principles that don't actually exist as "things." > > Thanks for this summary. Yes, you are right > about my point of view here. > Jon Curious. That sounds a lot like Plato's idealism -- the material world (which is impermanent and transitory) is merely a reflection of a changeless realm of Eternal Principles or Ideas (Dhamma with a capital D). Do you consider this to be the Buddhist position? Matthew 43815 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles ... But, Matthew, if I were to post my opinion I would have to say "no". I believe the Dharma (Buddha's teachings) has changed over time and will continue to change. TG, that was a very good point, you got me thinking and back on track. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 28 March, 2005 04:12 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times In a message dated 3/27/2005 3:52:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, bupleurum@... writes: > > > > There are two ways to look at the teachings. As knowledge states > > (mental formations) that arise and cease due to conditions. > > Or as principles that don't actually exist as "things." > > Thanks for this summary. Yes, you are right > about my point of view here. > Jon Curious. That sounds a lot like Plato's idealism -- the material world (which is impermanent and transitory) is merely a reflection of a changeless realm of Eternal Principles or Ideas (Dhamma with a capital D). Do you consider this to be the Buddhist position? Matthew 43816 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles Hi Jon, I got the same impression {"... the Buddha ... said ... through the body door only hardness etc is experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. "} Good point for me to remember. However, to a non-Pali speaker (me) the Pali term 'dhammas' can convey a misleading impression (I am never sure what the writer means until they define). CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 28 March, 2005 14:53 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: ... > Hi Jon, All > > We're basically two for two today (so far). :-) Yea, I agree with the > above. > > With all honesty though, I don't like the use of the word 'dhammas.' > It > sort of gives the impression (I think more than just an impression) that > there is > some kind of substantial underlying basis separate from the > "conventional > things" (as you put it). I see the so called "conventional things" as > being the > 'dhammas' (ouch). A "conventional thing" or 'dhamma' are not different, > the > only difference is in how we perceive them. That is, the difference is > merely > subjective. I don't quite see how the Pali term 'dhammas' can convey a misleading impression to a non-Pali speaker ;-)) Nor do I follow your point about conventional things and dhammas not being different. All in all, you seem to be saying the Buddha was talking about the world at a purely conventional level. Is this how you see it? > Separating 'conventional things' and 'dhammas' might be useful ploy to > gain > sure footing away from normal everyday delusion. But it just becomes > another > basis for delusion if the mind does not rise above it by integrating it > into a > single whole. > > When I see the closet door, I can quick as a finger snap change > perspective > so that the "closet door" is seen as predominantly the > Earth/hardness/firmness > element. The so called "conventional thing" and the so called 'dhamma' > are > the same thing, the only difference is perspective. To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact hardness. What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. Jon 43817 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Hi Ken, K: Our discussion seems to have narrowed down to 'acceptance and non-acceptance of the Abhidhamma.' I have been saying that my own faith and doubt are not important when it comes to study of the Dhamma. But you disagree. ..................................... I don't disagree with you when you mean, "Ones own faith and doubt should not be important when it comes to study of the Dhamma." This is essential for any good study. They, faith and doubt, should not be considered important because they can cloud your mind and block you from seeing the truth, a new truth. To learn/grow we often have to look beyond our faith and doubt. All that I have been trying to set you up for is this: for you to give yourself the freedom to go beyond the Abhidhamma and not to be limited by it. I was afraid that you are so attached to the Abhidhamma that you would develop clinging, when you should be open to ... A case in point: The Buddha claimed that experience is the truth you should accept as real (Ref: kalama Suttra). However, scientist today have proven that the senses can be fooled, therefore what you experience may not be real. This is a contradiction, and you should be asking your-self, "So what can be relied on as Truth/real?" That is the issue of faith and doubt. When it comes to Truth, faith and doubt are important because we often try to live by truth, but in reality we live by faith and doubt. If you are open, to the possibilities that you may have faith or doubt in the wrong thing, you are also open to change/importance. ******************************************* C: > do you believe it to be true, even when you don't perfectly understand it or it conflicts with other teaching (science, other religions, sutra, etc...)? ------------------ K: Science and other religions have no bearing on the Dhamma, and there are no conflicts between suttas and Abhidhamma that know of. Even so, until I reach Stream-entry, moments of wrong view and moments of doubt will be scattered throughout my daily life. So the conditioned dhammas known as miccha-ditthi and vicikiccha need to be studied and understood along with all the others. ......................................................... Science and other religions do have a bearing on the Dhamma, if you view Dhamma as a science or the sciences. ***************************************************** KH: > > there is no way I could single out one of those fleeting dhammas, let alone measure its duration. --------------------------------- C: > This is good, but do you even try to? -------------------------------- K: I am saying there is no point in trying (to single them out). However, dhammas can be known by other dhammas. Samma-sati and panna can experience a dhamma with right mindfulness and right understanding. They will be conditioned to do this when the Buddha's teaching has been heard, discussed and wisely considered. ...................................................... To say, "there is no point in trying (to single them out)." Is so very true, if you believe this point in the Abidharma is a side track from the rest of the Dharma (which is about freedom from suffering). ****************************************************************** C: > But the problem comes when you are closed to other views, especially when you do not clearly understand the one you "accept" as your own. This is one of the reasons why the Buddha dictated the Kalama sutra and a few other suttras that deal with attachments to views or knowledge. Now, I think you would agree that this is not really an issue now. -------------------------------- K: I notice you are discussing faith in other threads, so I will be following them with interest. .......................... good! and don't be shy about challenging what you doubt, and supporting what you already have faith in. Just remain open to the fact that "When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter aligns with mars, and ..." We could be wrong. I am grateful for knowing, especially where I was wrong. CharlesD 43818 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times dacostacharles Ha ha ha :-) ----- Original Message ----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 28 March, 2005 19:34 Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times In a message dated 3/28/2005 3:57:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: If the Sun is the giver of life on earth, and the time comes when the earth ceases to exit; would you still say/think: "Sun is the giver of life on earth"? I would not. I would say the Sun is ... (some thing else). Or if the earth becomes barren and desolate like mars, ... some thing else -- "The potential giver of life"? or "the giver with no taker." ;-) TG 43819 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions dacostacharles Yes, I was keeping them separate; however it is because of consciousness there is feelings, perceptions, and formations (I Think). The aggregates that ... are feed by consciousness. And since consciousness can by-pass them, it could be useful to say, "the consciousness that thinks." I just prefer the consciousness that triggers/gives rise to thinking. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 27 March, 2005 07:36 Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >In Buddhist thought/teachings, "the consciousness that thinks" would be very unclear because it is the aggregates of feelings and intellect that thinks. The aggregate of consciousness senses only. > > Yes, I think I see what you are saying here. However, when I refer to "consciousness that thinks" I refer to the citta and its accompanying mental factors collectively. That is, I am not distinguishing between the different functions performed by the citta and the mental factors. In any event, as I think you know, all 4 nama khandhas are dhammas that experience an object, and co arising members of the different khandhas all experience the same object*. In the case of a moment of thinking, that object is a concept. Jon *Thus at a given moment of consciousness, the citta (vinnana-khandha) and its co-arising mental factors comprising the other 3 nama khandhas, namely vedana kh (feeling), sanna kh (perception) and sankhara kh (formations), all experience the same object. 43820 From: "Evan Stamatopoulos" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:31pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Peak Advantages...!!! Evan_Stamatopou... Ven. Samahita, It is not clear whether the book in the first link you give is a complete translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. I assume from the price that it is not. Do you know of any full English translations apart from the PTS version? I have the anthology translated by Nyanaponika Thera and Bhikkhu Bodhi. I live in hope that Bhikku Bodhi will one day decide to translate the full Anguttara Nikaya. Do you know if he is going to do this? The PTS version is too dated and I can't justify spending that amount of money on this translation. I would, however, spend it on a translation by Bikkhu Bodhi. The translations he has done for Wisdom Publications are inspired, well thought out works. Kind Regards, Evan Stamatopoulos Source: Anguttara Nikaya: The numerical saying of the Buddha: http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=204050 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132552 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/index.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Friendship is the Greatest ! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <....> Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain privileged or confidential information and/or copyright material of Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited or third parties. Copying, distributing, disclosing, commercialising or otherwise acting in reliance on this e-mail and any attachments is strictly prohibited unless you are the addressee of this e-mail and have written permission to do so. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete this e-mail (including any copies and attachments) and contact Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited by return e-mail or by telephone on + 61 3 9835 5400. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of or be a commitment by the organisation, except where the individual sender has the authority and expressly states them to be so. Whilst we have taken all reasonable care to ensure that neither our system, this email nor any attachments has a virus, it is impossible to guard against every possible virus. We advise you to scan the email and any attachments with your anti virus software prior to use. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise from receipt of this email or any attachments. 43821 From: "phamdluan2000" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:32pm Subject: Neither stay in place nor advance phamdluan2000 Dear everyone, I want to find the Sutta in which the Buddha talks about a man crossing a river: he neither stays in place nor advances. Thanks in advance. Metta, KKT 43822 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nama and rupa lbidd2 Nina: "mindfulness of that desire would be mindfulness of desire, that is all." Hi Nina, Exactly. When desire is the object of satipatthana that desire is not experiencing an object. When desire is in javana the experience is of the object of javana, not the experience of desire. I am tempted to say when desire is the object of satipatthana there is not only not the expeience of object of desire, there also is not the experience of sati. Is there a difference in the precise experience between the experience of an object by ignorance and the experience of the same object by wisdom? I am thinking the difference comes after this exerience when that ignorance or wisdom is an object of consciousness. Larry 43823 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 4:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Howard: "As I see it, whenever the "object" of awareness or of any mental operation such as desire or aversion or remembering or thinking is (said to be) a concept, one has to understand that 'object' doesn't have the same meaning as when an object is a true object - a paramattha dhamma. In the case of a "concept-object", there is no actually present object (IMO), but there is the seeming of such, and we *say* there is an object and that it is a "concept". " Hi Howard, I agree. All seemings are concepts, plus there are symbol type concepts like names and numbers. But a basic principle of contact (phassa) is that every consciousness 'contacts' an object. We seem to be interpreting this to mean every consciousness experiences an object. How is a concept experienced? This is a delicate question. According to the texts concept is not an object of satipatthana, but I think we can (and must) know concept with wisdom. When I wish I had more money what _really_ is the object of that wish? Larry 43824 From: "mnease" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance mlnease Hi Pham, Do you mean Oghatarana Sutta? http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/nalavagg.htm#1 Nice to hear from you! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "phamdluan2000" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance > > > Dear everyone, > > I want to find the Sutta > in which the Buddha talks > about a man crossing a river: > he neither stays in place > nor advances. > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > > KKT 43825 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:57pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature buddhistmeditat... Dear Friend Joop (and Jon, ...) - Thank you for your kind words. And I do like your attitude of a learner very much -- you ask sincere questions in order to explore into the subject matter. I'll try to respond as much as I possibly can. Some readers may think that I stuck out my neck a little too far beyond my turtle shell, when I tried to present my view (a hypothesis, if you will) on the Primal Mind You said that there was no "real connection" to Bhikkhu Bodhi's writing in "The Noble Eightfold Path". Bhikkhu Bodhi actually says, "Since consciousness in itself is just a bare experiencing of an object, it cannot be differentiated through its own nature but only by way of its associated factors, the cetasikas." So you might agree with me that there is some "bare" connection, but enough for me to state that the original citta is a bare consciousness without the sankhara khandha. The idea of the Primal Mind(thitibhutam) from the A. Mun's School is given in "A Heart Release", from which is the following paragraph to be used for our discussion. "Acts of mental fashioning -- the conditions of the mind -- are what is inconstant. Mental fashionings are simply conditions of the mind, like mirages. As for living beings, they have been a constant feature of the world all along. When you know both sides -- i.e., that living beings are simply the way they are, and that mental fashionings are simply a condition of the mind that supposes them -- then thitibhutam, the primal mind that has no conditions, can gain release. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/mun/released.html A Heart Released. The Teachings of Phra Ajaan Mun Bhuridatta Thera Translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu So you see that A. Mun did not say very much. I have to draw my own conclusion as follows: Primal Mind is the original citta that is not contaminated by mental fashionings, it is an inherent nature of living beings waiting to be released through Enlightenment. Then you asked, "Then my problem is what you mean with 'originally' ? You mean origin of mankind, of life on earth; or of a human individual at the moment of his/her birth? Or every moment again and again? " The origin of living things, that's what I meant. There has to be "the beginning" of everything, I suppose. I think the "divine spark" in every living being, that you were talking about, is what you called Buddha Nature. Right? You also asked, "I think I do not need the opinion that one is born with a innate goodness. You think you need such ideas ? And do you need to call it 'Buddhistic' or 'Theravada'?" Do I need such the Buddha Nature idea to help me penetrate the Four Noble Truths? No, I do not. Name calling is not important or necessary, I guess, because it does not lead me to the Path. All I know is that I am a no-nonsense Buddhist who has very strong saddha in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Ariya Sangha, on top of unbroken Five Precepts. And that is a good basis for the patipada toward Sotapatti. The luminous property of any mind should be clear, there should not be more than one interpretation. It is the property of the unreleased citta that renders its development possible -- i.e. an instructed worldling can become ariyan because of such inherent property. Pure gold is luminous, but it is not shining when there are impurities. Yet, we cannot say that the gold, that has been contaminated by impurities, has lost its shine. I hope my reply above is useful to some extent. Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > ( snipped) > > > Dear Tep, > > You are active with Buddhism in a very sincere way. I appreciate the > way you developed your ideas about Buddha Nature. > I'm asking myself what criterium there can be to decide if you are > right on wrong in your statement: "The Primal mind was originally a > single citta - a pure consciousness > with no associated cetasikas, then it was defiled by incoming > defilements {I,v,9}. …" > I think that somebody who takes the primary orthodox Theravada texts > shouls say that such a citta doesn't exist. I doubt if you can use > Bhikkhu Bodhi as a source for your statement, I do not see a real > connection. > > I use not only these texts but also my 'Buddhistic intuition'. Than > my problem is what you mean with 'originally' ? You mean origin of > mankind, of life on earth; or of a human individual at the moment of > his/her birth? Or every moment again and again? > > The last days I read some texts about 'gnosis' and I do get the > impression your statement can be called gnostic: starting by the idea > that everybody has a devine spark in him. > I prefer to be an agnostic to such ideas: we cannot know it. And more > important: I think I do not need the opinion that one is born with a > innate goodness. > You think you need such ideas ? And do you need to call > it 'Buddhistic' or 'Theravada'? > > Some days ago I said about the Pabhassara Sutta ("Luminous is the > mind …") that I don't understand it. All I know different > interpretations are possible. Is there one right one, or are there > more than one right ones? > > > With metta > > Joop 43826 From: "Evan Stamatopoulos" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:10pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Evan_Stamatopou... Tep, Sorry if I but in here but the Buddha himself said that there is no discernible beginning. I'm not sure of the sutta but possibly it was during the night of his enlightenment when he surveyed his past lives going back many aeons. Kind Regards, Evan Stamatopoulos Tep said: The origin of living things, that's what I meant. There has to be "the beginning" of everything, I suppose. Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain privileged or confidential information and/or copyright material of Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited or third parties. Copying, distributing, disclosing, commercialising or otherwise acting in reliance on this e-mail and any attachments is strictly prohibited unless you are the addressee of this e-mail and have written permission to do so. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete this e-mail (including any copies and attachments) and contact Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited by return e-mail or by telephone on + 61 3 9835 5400. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of or be a commitment by the organisation, except where the individual sender has the authority and expressly states them to be so. Whilst we have taken all reasonable care to ensure that neither our system, this email nor any attachments has a virus, it is impossible to guard against every possible virus. We advise you to scan the email and any attachments with your anti virus software prior to use. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise from receipt of this email or any attachments. 43827 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/29/05 7:58:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree. All seemings are concepts, plus there are symbol type concepts > like names and numbers. But a basic principle of contact (phassa) is > that every consciousness 'contacts' an object. We seem to be > interpreting this to mean every consciousness experiences an object. How > is a concept experienced? This is a delicate question. According to the > texts concept is not an object of satipatthana, but I think we can (and > must) know concept with wisdom. When I wish I had more money what > _really_ is the object of that wish? > > Larry > ======================= Talking about an object in that context is just a manner of speaking. What's going on is a whole, complex thinking process involving a host of mindstates that project various situations involving what could be done with a lot of money, and that thinking process generates pleasure. There are no actual objects of that thinking - only apparent objects, only concepts, but such projection is enough to produce pleasant feeling. There are no actual objects experienced as pleasant. There is a thinking process only, and that process seems to be involved with things we call objects, but are not actual phenomena that arise and cease. They are merely imagined. The error that we make in listening to Abhidhammic theory is to think that feeling pleasantness requires an actual object. It does not - the imagining of an object is sufficient. But, leading ourselves astray, we don't talk of object-imagining; we talk instead of "imaginary objects" or "concepts" as though they were existents. 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) 43828 From: "Evan Stamatopoulos" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:39pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Evan_Stamatopou... Howard, Sorry, but I am making a habit of butting in on other peoples' conversations. Surely a thought can be an "object" whose beginning, existence and ending can be discerned. When in jhana one can discern these objects quite clearly. Just because we don't have the ability to do this in everyday thought processed it doesn't mean that they are not there and cannot be discerned as "objects" with clear beginnings and endings? Kind Regards, Evan Stamatopoulos ======================= Talking about an object in that context is just a manner of speaking. What's going on is a whole, complex thinking process involving a host of mindstates that project various situations involving what could be done with a lot of money, and that thinking process generates pleasure. There are no actual objects of that thinking - only apparent objects, only concepts, but such projection is enough to produce pleasant feeling. There are no actual objects experienced as pleasant. There is a thinking process only, and that process seems to be involved with things we call objects, but are not actual phenomena that arise and cease. They are merely imagined. The error that we make in listening to Abhidhammic theory is to think that feeling pleasantness requires an actual object. It does not - the imagining of an object is sufficient. But, leading ourselves astray, we don't talk of object-imagining; we talk instead of "imaginary objects" or "concepts" as though they were existents. With metta, Howard Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain privileged or confidential information and/or copyright material of Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited or third parties. Copying, distributing, disclosing, commercialising or otherwise acting in reliance on this e-mail and any attachments is strictly prohibited unless you are the addressee of this e-mail and have written permission to do so. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete this e-mail (including any copies and attachments) and contact Product Lifecycle Management (Australasia) Pty Limited by return e-mail or by telephone on + 61 3 9835 5400. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of or be a commitment by the organisation, except where the individual sender has the authority and expressly states them to be so. Whilst we have taken all reasonable care to ensure that neither our system, this email nor any attachments has a virus, it is impossible to guard against every possible virus. We advise you to scan the email and any attachments with your anti virus software prior to use. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage which may arise from receipt of this email or any attachments. 43829 From: "phamdluan2000" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance phamdluan2000 Dear Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: Hi Pham, Do you mean Oghatarana Sutta? http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/nalavagg.htm#1 Nice to hear from you! mike KKT: Exactly, this is the Sutta I'm looking for. I forgot that this is the Buddha Himself who crossed the river :-)) Thanks, Mike. BTW, was this Sutta discussed on the list? Metta, KKT ============= ----- Original Message ----- From: "phamdluan2000" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 4:32 PM Subject: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance > > > Dear everyone, > > I want to find the Sutta > in which the Buddha talks > about a man crossing a river: > he neither stays in place > nor advances. > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > > KKT 43830 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry sunnaloka Hi Larry and Nina, Just wanted to thank you both for your timely and clear responses to my questions. Seem that the basic relationships amongst, and basic definitions of khandhas and dhatus is uniform throughout the various abhidhamma/dharma systems, which I guess only stands to reason. I still remember though, coming across this notion of non-mind- associated fabrications (sankhara) listed under the sankhara khandha is one of the abhidhamma systems--either Sarvastivada, Cittamatra/Yogacara, or Theravada, but can't remember where I read it. No doubt, as you seem to imply Larry, it would be difficult from the Thera p.o.v. to consider a 'tomato plant,' when not being experienced by visual or tactile, etc., consciousness, to be anything more than a mere conceptual fabrication. I guess one could still infer the presence of the four material dhatus even when one isn't actually experiencing said 'tomato plant' as either visible or tactile, etc., rupa. Of course such speculation and inference is (I believe) beyond the necessary scope for discerning the four noble truths, and as such doesn't really interest me much. I'm still wondering though, if anyone knows if this non-mind associated sankhara idea is a Theravadin notion? Geoff 43831 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Howard: "The error that we make in listening to Abhidhammic theory is to think that feeling pleasantness requires an actual object. It does not - the imagining of an object is sufficient. But, leading ourselves astray, we don't talk of object-imagining; we talk instead of "imaginary objects" or "concepts" as though they were existents." Hi Howard, Hmmm, many problems here. Abhidhamma certainly doesn't say concept is reality. But concept is a dhamma and an object of consciousness. The question is, what is the experience of one concept? When my team wins I experience pleasant mental and bodily feelings, one after another. What is the experience of wining? If there is no one experience of wining like there is one experience of feeling, what does it mean for one concept to be an object of one consciousness? I agree there is no experience of feeling experiencing an object, that is, feeling experiencing something else. But there isn't an experience of any dhamma experiencing an object. If there were, there would have to be two experiences in one, the object and the subject. Whatever is going on here begins with contact (phassa). Larry 43832 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry lbidd2 Geoff: "I'm still wondering though, if anyone knows if this non-mind associated sankhara idea is a Theravadin notion?" Hi Geoff, I've never heard of this expression but rupa is 'non-mind associated sankhara', although some rupas are consciousness produced or kamma produced. I guess that would count as an association. All five khandhas are sankhara. All of sankhara khandha is nama. Larry 43833 From: "mnease" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance mlnease Hi Again Pham, ----- Original Message ----- From: "phamdluan2000" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance > Do you mean Oghatarana Sutta? > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/nalavagg.htm#1 > > KKT: Exactly, this is > the Sutta I'm looking for. > I forgot that this is the Buddha > Himself who crossed the river :-)) > > Thanks, Mike. > > BTW, was this Sutta discussed on the list? It has come up several times but I'm not sure that the sutta per se has ever been a subject of discussion. Do you have a particular interest in it now? mike 43834 From: "phamdluan2000" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance phamdluan2000 Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "mnease" wrote: > Do you mean Oghatarana Sutta? > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/nalavagg.htm#1 > > KKT: Exactly, this is > the Sutta I'm looking for. > I forgot that this is the Buddha > Himself who crossed the river :-)) > > Thanks, Mike. > > BTW, was this Sutta discussed on the list? It has come up several times but I'm not sure that the sutta per se has ever been a subject of discussion. Do you have a particular interest in it now? mike KKT: I have a vague idea that this Sutta is related to the problem of Free-Will (my favorite subject :-)) When the Buddha said: __By neither remaining still nor putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood. I understand it means: __By by neither not making effort nor putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood. But how to translate this meaning into actual practice is not evident :-)) KKT 43835 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > > > KKT: I have a vague idea > that this Sutta is related > to the problem of Free-Will > (my favorite subject :-)) > > When the Buddha said: > > __By neither remaining still > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > I understand it means: > > __By by neither not making effort > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > But how to translate this meaning > into actual practice is not evident :-)) ========== Dear KKT, How about by understanding the present moment. Robert 43836 From: "phamdluan2000" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance phamdluan2000 Dear RobertK, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > KKT: I have a vague idea > that this Sutta is related > to the problem of Free-Will > (my favorite subject :-)) > > When the Buddha said: > > __By neither remaining still > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > I understand it means: > > __By by neither not making effort > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > But how to translate this meaning > into actual practice is not evident :-)) ========== Dear KKT, How about by understanding the present moment. Robert KKT: I'm not sure what you means by << understanding the present moment >> If you means << living, experiencing and understanding the present moment >> then the present moment is a fleeting moment. It is too quick to form any concept about it. If I stay with the present moment then it is just stillness for me. In such stillness there is neither effort nor not effort. But it's impossible to remain more than one or two minutes in such stillness. You will be eventually distracted by discursive thoughts. KKT 43837 From: "ingafrankie" Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:37pm Subject: I am new and Learning ingafrankie Group For someone who is very new and wanting to learn more. What would you suggest for myself to read and study. Thanks for any help Inga 43838 From: bernard.vital@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dear friends vital_moors Dear friends, I am still in Bangkok. This evening at 18.30 the bus leaves to Thaton. It is more than 12 hours. So I will arrive in the morning of 31 of March in Wat Thaton. I thank you very much for your support. It was a hard tiome for me to leave everthing I had and I was in The Netherlands. I think it is a litlle bit like dying. The ego dies a little bit. I know now I have to praktize still a lot. I hope some of you will join me for a meditationcourse in Wat Thaton (www.wat-thaton.org) some day.... The best to all of you and thanks for everything. If you want to stay ion touch with me mail me at: sahmkan@... You have to think that I will become a monk and will spend most of the time at meditation. So it will not be possible for me in the futur to answer your mail promptly. I hope you can inderstand that. Om Mani Padme Hum Vital Citeren rjkjp1 : > > > --- > Dear Bernard, > I just had a look at your link- what a great site the temple is at! > > Best wishes > Robert <......> 43839 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Evan - In a message dated 3/29/05 10:40:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, evan.stamatopoulos@... writes: > Howard, > > Sorry, but I am making a habit of butting in on other peoples' > conversations. > > Surely a thought can be an "object" whose beginning, existence and > ending can be discerned. When in jhana one can discern these objects > quite clearly. Just because we don't have the ability to do this in > everyday thought processed it doesn't mean that they are not there and > cannot be discerned as "objects" with clear beginnings and endings? > > Kind Regards, > > Evan Stamatopoulos > ====================== I don't deny there are what we conventionally call "mental objects". I am only saying that most, and probably all, of them are mentally projected seemings and are not of the same nature as the sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and bodily sensations we observe. This is most clearly true of memories. When we "recall a pain", there is no pain - but there is a mental activity, a simulation of experiencing pain when there actually is no experienced pain. The "objects" that are "seen," for example, in a jhana - say brilliant light extending throughout infinity - are not actually present. That is, there is no brilliant light in reality. But there is mental functioning that provides brilliant-light-experiencing, providing the seeming of a visual object. The excitement and the enormous joy accompanying this experincing is quite "real," however, in the sense that it is no different in kind from the excitement and joy experienced while having awareness of pleasant objects that are not mere mind-projections. Likewise, in dreams there are what seem to be not only the obvious conventional trees, people, walls, tables etc, but also apparent sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and so on. But none such are there. There is just mental activity projecting a seeming of all that. By the way, some Mahayanists, the Tibetans especially who are influenced by the Cittamatra school, would go further than this, and say that there are no paramattha dhammas at all, and that all there is are karmically conditioned mental operations projecting a world of entirely imagined experience. I don't go that far, because I think that it is indeed possible to distinguish actual from apparent, but there is a great temptation in that direction for me. One thing clear to me is that all experience is ultimately kamma-based. As I see it, namas are mental operations. That includes even pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings. When an itch arises it is normally felt as unpleasant. When we become aware of that "unpleasantness" a moment later, the unpleasant feeling that is the apparent object is already passed (the operation was completed), and it cannot be the current "object," at least not literally. Now, you might say that there is now a fresh memory of that unpleasant feeling which is the current object. But if there is some actual phenomenon that is a "memory" of a pleasant feeling of an itch, is a mental Xerox copy of the itch there as well, so that now there are two objects, the replicated itch plus the replicated feeling of it as pleasant? What I suspect is that there is no "memory" present. There is no itch clone, and there is no feeling-as-pleasant clone. There is just a remembering event conditioned by the mindstate in which the object was an in itch, and there was the simultaneous operation of feeling it as unpleasant - and the remembering event does indeed have a beginning, middle, and end. Now, I coud be wrong in all this. Perhaps there are actual phenomena such as memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. But I don't think so. What I think is that there are conditioned mental operations of remembering, thinking, emoting, etc. The mind is a magician. 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) 43840 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:29am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 jonoabb Hi Charles Thanks again for another useful analysis of different aspects of faith. I pretty much agree withy your conclusion where you say: <> except that, to my understanding, only faith (confidence in the teachings) that is based on what has been experienced and verified to date can be soundly based and hence kusala, and this is the 'saddha' spoken of in the texts. (Confidence based on hope for the future does not to my understanding lead to more right view, less wrong view.) Jon --- Charles DaCosta wrote: ... > To help you better understand Faith: > > > I have Faith in the Buddha (I have not meet him, so I don't know for a > fact that he Was even real). > I have faith in the usefullness of the teachings attributed to him (I > was not there when the Buddha wrote or Dictated the teachings, so I > don't know for a fact that the teachings are the Buddha's). > > I have found that many of the "Buddha's teachings", are that logical and > useful -- therefore my Faith in the Buddha, and his teachings, has > developed and is strengthened. The more my faith is strengthened, the > more I tend to dig and understand the teachings. > > So what really is Faith: "... confidence in the value of ..." not > because you have experienced it, but because it ... your hope. > > > CharlesD 43841 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: > TG Nope, just the opposite. The things that people are labeling as > "conventional: are not. Its just their perspective being applied to the > Buddha's > teaching which are only about overcoming suffering. You've lost me here. This does not seem to be an explanation of what the Buddha said/taught, but a comment on what people do/think. I would be interested to know how you read the references to seeing and visible-object etc in passages such as the one RobK quoted recently (see below). Do you see these as referring to conventional objects in any sense? > To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact hardness. > What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is > experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. > > TG Buddha never said any such thing. That's merely an Abhidhamma > interpretation. > > The Buddha talked about the solid aspects of the Earth element ... > things > like bones, finger-nails, hair, etc. He does not talk about them in the > context > of experience or from a phenomenological point of view. OK, let me modify my previous statement a little and say that the Buddha did not teach us to see closet door as hardness, but to see/know hardness appearing through the body-door as (only) hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing through the eye-door as (only) visible-object. Again, see the passage below regarding the sense doors and their specific objects. Jon Samyutta Nikaya (salayatana vagga ) 27(5)Bodhi p1142 "Bhikkhus without directly knowing and understanding the all..one is incapable of destroying suffering. And what is the all? The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear consciousness... (repeats for all six doors)." 43842 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - As reply to this post, so as not to be repetitive, I think you might look at the recent reply I made to Evan's post to me. That includes the content that would constitute a reply to this post of yours as well. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/29/05 11:24:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > Howard: "The error that we make in listening to Abhidhammic theory is to > think that feeling pleasantness requires an actual object. It does not - > the imagining of an object is sufficient. But, leading ourselves astray, > we don't talk of object-imagining; we talk instead of "imaginary > objects" or "concepts" as though they were existents." > > Hi Howard, > > Hmmm, many problems here. Abhidhamma certainly doesn't say concept is > reality. But concept is a dhamma and an object of consciousness. The > question is, what is the experience of one concept? When my team wins I > experience pleasant mental and bodily feelings, one after another. What > is the experience of wining? If there is no one experience of wining > like there is one experience of feeling, what does it mean for one > concept to be an object of one consciousness? > > I agree there is no experience of feeling experiencing an object, that > is, feeling experiencing something else. But there isn't an experience > of any dhamma experiencing an object. If there were, there would have to > be two experiences in one, the object and the subject. Whatever is going > on here begins with contact (phassa). > > Larry > /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) 43843 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > >> > I understand it means: > > > > __By by neither not making effort > > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > > I crossed the flood. > > > > But how to translate this meaning > > into actual practice is not evident :-)) > ========== > > Dear KKT, > How about by understanding the present moment. > Robert > > > > > KKT: I'm not sure what you means by > << understanding the present moment >> > > If you means << living, experiencing > and understanding the present moment >> > then the present moment is a fleeting > moment. It is too quick to form any > concept about it. If I stay with the > present moment then it is just stillness > for me. In such stillness there is > neither effort nor not effort. > > But it's impossible to remain more than > one or two minutes in such stillness. > You will be eventually distracted by > discursive thoughts. ============== Dear KKT, At the moment you think you are distracted by discursive thoughts then there is struggling ('strenuous effort' in the sutta). Discursive thoughts are normal and arise because they are conditioned to arise.They should be insighted. Robertk 43844 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry nilovg Hi Geoff, Larry, op 30-03-2005 06:43 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > > Geoff: "I'm still wondering though, if anyone knows if this non-mind > associated sankhara idea is a Theravadin notion?" L:. All five khandhas > are sankhara. All of sankhara khandha is nama. N: Right, sankharakkhandha are 50 cetasikas, thus, nama. We have to make a differentiation. Sankhara has different meanings in different contexts. Sankhaara dhammas are all conditioned dhammas, thus the five khandhas are included. Sankhaarakkhandha is only one khandha as stated above. Nina. 43845 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nama and rupa nilovg Hi Larry, op 30-03-2005 02:39 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: When desire is the object of satipatthana that desire is not > experiencing an object. N: I understand your question. It is, because it is nama. That desire that experienced an object has just fallen away and its namic characteristic appears to the sati. The sati is only aware of the desire, it does not think about what object that desire just had, this is irrelevant. Pañña has to know the difference between nama and rupa, not just in theory. They have different characteristics and gradually one can become familiar with these, but not by thinking about them. Visible object appears, and this does not know anything. It could not appear of there were no seeing that experiences it. Seeing is different from visible object, it is nama, it experiences. When sati is aware of seeing, it is not aware of visible object which is experienced by seeing. Reasoning does not help us here. When we have listened enough and considered the truth, there can be conditions for the arising of a moment of awareness of just one dhamma at a time. L: When desire is in javana the experience is of the object of javana, not the experience of desire. N: Desire always arises with javanacittas and it experience the object all javanacittas experience. It may be a pleasant sound or visible object. L: I am tempted to say when desire is the object of satipatthana there is > not only not the experience of object of desire, there also is not the > experience of sati. N: As you say here, paññaa can have only one object at a time. When sati has just fallen away it can be the object of another citta accompanied by sati and paññaa arising in another process that has sati as object, then sati is the object of mindfulness. Anything that is real, citta, cetasika and rupa, can be the object of mindfulness and right understanding. Actually, we should come to know when there is sati and when there is no sati, so that sati and paññaa can be developed. If there never is awareness of sati we take it for self. However, so long as we do not discern the difference between nama and rupa there cannot be clear understanding of nama as nama. L: Is there a difference in the precise experience between the experience > of an object by ignorance and the experience of the same object by > wisdom? N: You have very good questions. When an object is experienced by ignorance, there is a black curtain. The object is not illuminated by pañña. L: I am thinking the difference comes after this exerience when that > ignorance or wisdom is an object of consciousness. N: When they are objects of pañña their difference will be clearly understood. We have to emphasize pañña here. We have to remember Vis. XIV, 143: Text Vis.: 'Non-delusion' has the characteristic of penetrating [things] according to their individual essences, The Tiika explains that amoha (or paññaa) penetrates any dhamma according to its own nature. Text Vis.: or it has the characteristic of sure penetration, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilful archer. Tiika: sure penetration, penetration without fail. Text Vis.: Its function is to illuminate the objective field, like a lamp. N: Illumination of the object means, the destruction of the darkness of delusion which conceals that, as the Tiika explains. Text Vis. : It is manifested as non-bewilderment, like a guide in a forest. N: It is the opposite to delusion with regard to the object. It penetrates the characteristic of the object that appears, it knows it as it is. ... The Atthasalini states further on (in the same section) that understanding has as characteristic illuminating and understanding. It states (123) that just as a clever surgeon knows which food is suitable and which is not, understanding knows states as "moral or immoral, serviceable or unserviceable, low or exalted, black or Pure..." ....The Book of Analysis (Vibhanga, Ch 12, § 525) gives many synonyms of sampajañña, here translated as awareness, such as: Nina. 43846 From: "mnease" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance mlnease Hi Pham, ----- Original Message ----- From: "phamdluan2000" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance > KKT: I have a vague idea > that this Sutta is related > to the problem of Free-Will > (my favorite subject :-)) > > When the Buddha said: > > __By neither remaining still > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > I understand it means: > > __By by neither not making effort > nor putting forth strenuous effort, > I crossed the flood. > > But how to translate this meaning > into actual practice is not evident :-)) In practice I think this refers to the cultivation of jhaana bhavana as a basis for insight. Also, «Evameva.m kho, So.na, accaaraddhaviiriya.m uddhaccaaya sa.mvattati, atisithilaviiriya.m kosajjaaya sa.mvattati. Tasmaatiha tva.m, So.na, viiriyasamata.m adhi.t.thaha, indriyaana.m ca samata.m pa.tivijjha, tattha ca nimitta.m ga.nhaahii»-ti. "Indeed in the same way, Sona, over-exertion leads to agitation, too little exertion leads to idleness. Therefore here, Sona, practice evenness of energy, acquire an evenness of faculties, and take up your object of concentration". A.N. 6.6.1. So.nasutta.m http://www.tipitaka.net/pali/palidd/paliload.php?page=b06 So speaking conventionally I think it has to do with the yogi exerting energy evenly (I guess 'will' ('chanda') would be a part of that, not so sure that 'free' applies). Ultimately though it seems more like an explanation of an aspect of right effort--of course with no one exerting the effort or willing anything. So it seems to me, anyway--It would be interesting to see what the Abhidhamma texts say. Cheers, mike 43847 From: Ken O Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance ashkenn2k Hi KKT > > But it's impossible to remain more than > > one or two minutes in such stillness. > > You will be eventually distracted by > > discursive thoughts. k: It is impossible to remain in stillness and still thoughts because they are anatta. It is not the thought that matter, it is the understanding of it as anatta that matters. Even Buddha cannot still his thoughts, he only eradicate underlying tendency of the three roots that cause discursive thoughts. It is not the stillness discursive thoughts that is the gist of the teachings, it is about insight into the nature of the discursive thoughts as the three characterisitics that matters Ken O 43848 From: "mnease" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance--Ken O mlnease Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance > > > But it's impossible to remain more than > > > one or two minutes in such stillness. > > > You will be eventually distracted by > > > discursive thoughts. > > k: It is impossible to remain in stillness and still thoughts > because they are anatta. It is not the thought that matter, it is > the understanding of it as anatta that matters. Even Buddha cannot > still his thoughts, he only eradicate underlying tendency of the > three roots that cause discursive thoughts. It is not the stillness > discursive thoughts that is the gist of the teachings, it is about > insight into the nature of the discursive thoughts as the three > characterisitics that matters This is good I think, I assume by 'thoughts' you mean sankappa rather than pa.n.natti?? mike 43849 From: Matthew Miller Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:28am Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma bupleurum So what is the brain doing when it "practices dhamma"? According to traditional, introspective descriptions, dhamma practice aims at a realization of anatta (no-self), such that we can "see things as they are" without the filters of "wrong" self-view and attachment. Through modern brain research, we now know that this probably involves learning to cause different regions of the brain to disengage from each other. Specifically, it involves turning off the orientation association area in the brain. With no information from the other brain centers arriving, the left orientation area cannot find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the brain has no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything," as Newberg and d’Aquili wrote in their book "Why God Won’t Go Away." The right orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched infinity or nibbana or God or whatever their tradition labels this state. (See my previous post for more on the brain science here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/43610) Vipassana and other forms of meditation could be considered introspective, biofeedback techniques to directly alter one's own brain chemistry and turn off these areas. Why would we want to do this? Well, for one thing, it tends to be a pleasant experience (though for some people, it may lead to psychotic episodes). Many people who go through such experiences feel that they have been vouchsafed some kind of special knowledge about reality. These experiences may affect the whole subsequent course of their lives. They may devote themselves to the pursuit of "enlightenment." If pursued over the course of a lifetime, meditation seems to make many people less attached to things, more mellow and less stressed-out by life. This is probably because they learn to slightly disengage their orientation association area in *all* situations of daily living (they become less "attached"). The world becomes dream-like or, as the Diamond Sutra puts it, like "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." Of course, this is not always the case. A lifetime of tinkering with one's own brain chemistry may cause some people to become withdrawn, anti-social or even delusional. Arguably, the Buddha himself suffered from delusions such as possessing omniscience and superpowers, seeing all of his former "rebirths," visiting alternate universes and meeting Devas. So how can we safely turn off the orientation association area of our brains? First of all, we can starve it of sensory input. Hence, most forms of meditation involve intense concentration: focusing all the attention on the breath or a mantra or an image or something else. Or, if we are disinclined to sitting meditation, we can mentally grind up all of the richness of our sensory experience in the mill of nama-rupa: in one end go conventional objects like flowers, tables, love, death, sex, art, food, etc and out the other end come the broken-down "chemical" components of nama-rupa-nama-rupa-nama-rupa. It's like sitting so close to a televsion set that all of the "conventional realities" of the TV program (characters, faces, scenery) dissolve into flashing dots of color, little rupas of magenta, yellow, and cyan. Without the orientation of conventional realities, the orientation association center of the brain eventually shuts down, sheds its "attachment" to sensations and -- nibbana! Of course, it's not that easy. Using the crude, traditional technology of introspection, chanting, anapanasati, philosophical reflection on nama-rupa and so forth is a tedious, time-consuming process. People spend their entire lives in monasteries without arriving at Enlightenment. The standard encouragment is that they are accumulating merit or good karma which will bear fruit either in this lifetime or a later one. But a scientist looking at this situation can't help but wonder -- couldn't this all be done much more efficiently? Once we isolate the involved brain chemistry, couldn't science help us catalyze the nibbana reaction? Thoughts? Matthew 43850 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:00am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature buddhistmeditat... Hi Evan - You're more than welcome to jump in and out of this discussion anytime! Thank you for the comment - you're right, I also have read the same sutta you are referring to. But the key word is "discernible beginning". And just like any hypothesis, the researcher must make some reasonable assumptions in order to make the problem well defined. A troble here with the "citta" is that it is still not well defined for most people. Warm regards, Tep Dear Friend Max, U Han Tun, U Htoo Naing, Michael, Robert, Howard and Every One - Your intention to translate the Samacitta Sutta from Chinese is highly commendable -- it is a kusala cetana that I know all of our members here appreciate. May I ask U Han Tun and U Htoo Naing for their knowledgeable contribution to Max's project? May I ask Michael, Robert and Howard to help check the English translation? I myself will participate as a reviewer and will provide comments and suggestions, whenever it is necessary. What do I think? I think it is great, Max. Please proceed right away and post your first draft for all of us to look at, as soon as you have it ready. You'll be pleasantly surprised how we respond to your request. Kindest regards, Tep May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused; your mind centered and unified. AN III.40: Adhipateyya Sutta ====== ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Stamatopoulos" wrote: > Tep, > > Sorry if I but in here but the Buddha himself said that there is no > discernible beginning. I'm not sure of the sutta but possibly it was > during the night of his enlightenment when he surveyed his past lives > going back many aeons. > > Kind Regards, > > Evan Stamatopoulos > > > Tep said: > > The origin of living things, that's what I meant. There has to be "the > beginning" of everything, I suppose. > 43851 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:08am Subject: Re:Buddha Nature jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Some days ago I said about the Pabhassara Sutta ("Luminous is the > mind …") that I don't understand it. All I know different > interpretations are possible. Is there one right one, or are there > more than one right ones? I forgot to look at 'Useful Posts' Under the heading 'Luminous Mind' one kind find: 7296, 7792, 8281, 8336, 8337, 8374, 8386, 8408, 10218, 10222, 10268, 10364, 10469, 10484, 10645, 10719, 10770, 10782, 10785, 11360, 16496, 16771, 27567, 27795, 33608, 39758 If this give me reason for a new message, I will do Metta Joop 43852 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry & Evan - I've been thinking further about the "object" business, and I realize that I'm not really so sure of my previously stated "position". It is not that I am wavering as to the issue of there being remembering but no memories, thinking but no thoughts, and "emotioning" but no emotions. I'm fairly satisfied with that. What I'm wondering is whether that sort of thing is not *also* the case for seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and bodily sensing as well. That is, I'm wondering whether the Cittamatrins might not be right! It seem to me that experiencing, as it *really* is, is non-dual, without an actual subject/object split. (I got to directly experience that non-duality once for a brief time.) When we "feel hardness", I believe there is actually just the non-dual operation of hardness-feeling, without a knowing subject, and without a known object, even though there usually *seem* to be both. In actuality, I think there is just the experiential operation. Any such operation usually seems to have a subjective aspect (the knowing, or feeling, or recalling, etc, depending on the particular mental function), and an objective aspect (the known, felt, or recalled, etc), but these are just conceptually-separated-out facets of the experiential diamond. It *is* possible to distinguish between mental experiencings and physical experiencings. The operations of touching, seeing, and hearing, etc. seem to lie together in a "physical basket" of operations, while the operations of feeling, being angry, and craving, etc. seem to lie together in a "mental basket" of operations. What is the basis for the distinguishing isn't clear to me. It is not a matter of directness versus remoteness. Some mental operations such as feeling and "emotioning" (though not thinking or recalling) have at least as much directness to them as do seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. I used to hold a subjectivist view, influenced most likely by Advaita Vedanta, with consciousness a reality and the objects of consciousness unreal. Then, over a long period of time, my perspective migrated to pretty much the diametrical opposite, with objects of consciousness (sights, sounds tastes, smells, tactile sensations, feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc) viewed as actual experiential phenomena, and with consciousness being their mere experiential presence. I'm now strongly considering the posibility that each of these perspectives is actually an erroneous extreme, and that the reality is that of a flow of experiential activities actually free of both subject and object, but which have a seeming subject-object split imposed or imputed upon them by avijja. 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) 43853 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] I am new and Learning nilovg Dear Inga, welcome to the list. The mods are now in Bgk but after a while when they are back, they will give you more info and links. Meanwhile, a good way to begin is to ask a question, any question. Then others will know what interests you. Best wishes, Nina. op 30-03-2005 03:37 schreef ingafrankie op ingafrankie@...: > For someone who is very new and wanting to learn more. What would you > suggest for myself to read and study. > Thanks for any help > Inga 43854 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma Inquiry nilovg Hi Geoff and Larry, I would just like to add something to no 6. op 29-03-2005 06:22 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > Question (6): Does Theravada have system worked out for what is/isn't > valid cognition (sanskrit: pramana), which includes a distinction > between inferential valid cognition (resulting from logic) and direct > valid cognition? > > L: Yes, "Concept and Reality". N: Inferential cognition can also be called intellectual understanding. It can be understanding of paramattha dhammas and of concepts. We begin to understand the difference and this is important. It can become clearer that the object of sati and pañña is not a concept but a paramattha dhamma. Through insight, developed in stages, there can be, as you call it, direct valid cognition. I am inclined to just call it direct understanding of realities. Nina. 43855 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 0:40pm Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma kelvin_lwin Send IM What you described in your post seem to me is akin to mundane jhanic experiences. When one is so detached from sensory input then it's basically arupa experience. Fundamentally it just affects thing on the surface and doesn't go down to the roots. The process you describe of modifying the brain chemistry to me increase ignorance only. From my view, the brain is just a mind-caused rupa and not the mind itself. Plus I don't see how the observational knowledge of science can lead to a solution because the casuation isn't proven, just a correlation. - kel 43856 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:05am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Jon, When it comes to accepting something as truth, the Buddhist text (Kalama sutra mainly) say not by faith, but by experience. However, when it comes to truths, like Buddhism, gaining the experience is often a goal way out of reach. But we can still have faith in it. Now the real problem with the post is the word HOPE. Hope implies clinging. But I always ask: "How can one have hope/clinging without suffering when the hope goes unfulfilled?" Often, hope is all a desperate person has. So I ask you, "How can one have hope/clinging without suffering when the hope goes unfulfilled?" When you can answer that, "I think" you will have the Right View. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, 30 March, 2005 14:29 Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles Thanks again for another useful analysis of different aspects of faith. I pretty much agree withy your conclusion where you say: <> except that, to my understanding, only faith (confidence in the teachings) that is based on what has been experienced and verified to date can be soundly based and hence kusala, and this is the 'saddha' spoken of in the texts. (Confidence based on hope for the future does not to my understanding lead to more right view, less wrong view.) Jon 43857 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:24pm Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma sunnaloka Hi Matthew, You ask: > So what is the brain doing when it "practices dhamma"? *Who* cares?...with the emphasis on *who*. Is it the brain that cares or is it consciousness that cares ... or what? It seems to me that you are a very faithful disciple of scientific materialism who sees matter as being more inherently real than consciousness. If this works for you that's fine, but as I tried to express in my previous thread, such a philosophical position is both nihilistic and naive, and as such, doesn't account very well for the interior richness of reality, nor is it very functional as a basis for transcending the madness of samsara. The relevant portion of my last thread: Matthew, what Wilber's saying (as I understand it), is that when we see the correlation between brain and consciousness, we should also recognize that the interior subjectivity and exterior brain are *experientially* and *qualitatively* unique and distinct phenomena (not dualistically but interdependently), and as such represent the interior and exterior richness of 'reality.' This leads to the recognition that it's just as great a cognitive error for the materialist philosopher to collapse the richness of consciousness into the brain as it is for the idealist philosopher to collapse the richness of the material brain into consciousness. The integral approach recognizes and appreciates (values) the full richness of both interior and exterior domains, and therefore doesn't attempt to make one more valuable, more important, more inherently 'real,' i.e. the 'first cause' of, or prior to the other. Of course this is predicated upon the experiential realization of the prior nondual unity of all apparently relative duality, but this nondual discernment is in no way based upon any fuzzy-minded mystical/magical/wishful thinking, nor any abstruse dialectics. Rather it is ascertained through what the Tibetan traditions term 'direct valid cognition,' which isn't inferential (dialectical) nor faith-based (??fuzzy-minded??), but immediate and uncompromising. The full thread is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/43623 You then go on to say: > According to traditional, introspective descriptions, dhamma practice > aims at a realization of anatta (no-self), such that we can "see > things as they are" without the filters of "wrong" self-view and > attachment. > Through modern brain research, we now know that this probably > involves learning to cause different regions of the brain to > disengage from each other. Specifically, it involves turning off the > orientation association area in the brain. With no information from > the other brain centers arriving, the left orientation area cannot > find any boundary between the self and the world. As a result, the > brain has no choice but "to perceive the self as endless and > intimately interwoven with everyone and everything," as Newberg and > d'Aquili wrote in their book "Why God Won't Go Away." The right > orientation area, equally bereft of sensory data, defaults to a > feeling of infinite space. The meditators feel that they have touched > infinity or nibbana or God or whatever their tradition labels this > state. So you're quite positive that what is happening in the brain (which I acknowledge is the valid exterior correlation of the interior subjective experience) is fundamentally more *real* than the correlative interior experience of unconditional freedom. Again, if that works for you, fine, but to me this materialistic approach seems to offer not only an inadequate description of the total causal process resulting in said experience of unconditional freedom (because it only respects exterior phenomena, which are surface phenomena devoid of *meaning* and *qualitative value*, and not interior phenomena, which have interior depth of *meaning* and *qualitative value*), but also a poverty stricken interpretation of the existential value of experiencing unconditional freedom. You conclude by asking: Once we isolate the involved brain chemistry, > couldn't science help us catalyze the nibbana reaction? Sure, why not. We already know that by listening to slightly offset frequencies we can alter brain waves accordingly, and thereby experience greater relaxation, etc.. The same change in brain waves is what happens to experienced meditators while meditating. But nibbana is a result of full experiential cognition of temporal/nontemporal nonduality, and as such, requires a much more radical realization of anatta/sunnata than what is commonly found in commentarial tenant system approaches (whether Theravada or Mahayana). As for whether or not science could alter brain chemistry to bring this about, I don't know. They haven't yet. But contemplatives succeeded to do so thousands of years ago. And my experience has been that while there is much ignorance and misinformation regarding nibbana and how to experience this unconditional freedom, ethical conduct, meditation, and correct discernment are highly efficacious if understood rightly, and will lead to this experience (intermittently at first) without any strenuous effort or hardship. So while there's nothing wrong with continuing to explore the brain correlations of reality, why not do so while also engaging in contemplative practice? Geoff 43858 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 3:58pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhistmeditat... Hi Joop and any interested members- Thank you for pointing to several past messages. The first was from Anders Honoré (in # 7296): > "Luminous, monks, is the mind, and it is defiled by incoming defilements. > "Luminous, monks, is the mind, and it is free'd from incoming defilements." > > That seems to be a mind pretty much unconditioned conditioned factors, as it > retains its luminousity in spite of conditioned circumstances. >and this pretty much accords with the Tathagatagarbha > doctrine: That Nirvana is always present in us, Regardless of it is > realised or not. Tep: Do you see that such luminosity is a characteristic of the inherent 'Buddha Nature', Joop? By the way, what do you think about Nina's interpretation of luminous mind as the bhavanga-citta? < N: The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an object through the doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense or mind.> By the way, do you notice the Bhikkhu Bodhi's note (quoted by Sarah) that Nibbana is the luminous consciousness? I guess you also might see the connection between the Buddha Nature and Nibbana in this message # 7296. Interesting, isn't it? Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Some days ago I said about the Pabhassara Sutta ("Luminous is the > > mind …") that I don't understand it. All I know different > > interpretations are possible. Is there one right one, or are there > > more than one right ones? > > > I forgot to look at 'Useful Posts' > Under the heading 'Luminous Mind' one kind find: > > 7296, 7792, 8281, 8336, 8337, 8374, 8386, 8408, 10218, 10222, 10268, > 10364, 10469, 10484, 10645, 10719, 10770, 10782, 10785, 11360, 16496, > 16771, 27567, 27795, 33608, 39758 > > If this give me reason for a new message, I will do > > Metta > > Joop 43859 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nama and rupa lbidd2 L: "Is there a difference in the precise experience between the experience of an object by ignorance and the experience of the same object by wisdom?" N: "You have very good questions. When an object is experienced by ignorance, there is a black curtain. The object is not illuminated by pañña." Hi Nina, Thanks for the many further elucidations from the texts. I'm still not clear on what experience is, so maybe I'll have another question later. Larry 43860 From: "Evan Stamatopoulos" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:09pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature Evan_Stamatopou... Tep, Thanks, I now see my mistake. I took "no discernable beginning" to mean "no beginning". However, if the Buddha cannot discern a beginning, and we take the Buddha (and all Buddhas of the past and future) to be perfectly enlightened beings whose "perfection" cannot be surpassed by any other beings, then no other being will be able to discern a beginning. In that case, to speculate whether there is a beginning or not is probably one of those questions that cannot be answered and servers no purpose in the path to enlightenment. Or maybe I am saying that I need to think/research this a little more. Kind Regards, Evan Hi Evan - You're more than welcome to jump in and out of this discussion anytime! Thank you for the comment - you're right, I also have read the same sutta you are referring to. But the key word is "discernible beginning". And just like any hypothesis, the researcher must make some reasonable assumptions in order to make the problem well defined. A troble here with the "citta" is that it is still not well defined for most people. Warm regards, Tep 43861 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 kenhowardau Hi Charles, --------------------- C: > I don't disagree with you when you mean, "Ones own faith and doubt should not be important when it comes to study of the Dhamma." This is essential for any good study. They, faith and doubt, should not be considered important because they can cloud your mind and block you from seeing the truth, a new truth. --------------------- I see what you mean, however, the conditioned dhamma known as faith (saddha) is not blind faith, it is confidence in wholesomeness. Saddha could never 'block out the Truth.' The point I was making was different from yours. I was saying it was not important to differentiate between 'faith' and 'my faith' 'doubt' and 'my doubt' etc. The Anattalakkhana Sutta reads in part, "Is it justifiable to think of these (body, feelings, perceptions, mental factors, and consciousness) which are impermanent, painful and transitory, "This is mine, this am I, this is my self?" "Certainly not, Lord!" (end quote) Therefore, it is not justifiable to think of faith or doubt (which are mental factors) in those ways. To think of either of them, "This is mine," is to have attachment (lobha); "This am I" is to have conceit (mana), and, "This is my self," is to have wrong view (miccha-ditthi). They are unwholesome (akusala) misconceptions. I would suggest that other disciplines (e.g., music, science, sport, religion) could be effectively studied and practised with unwholesome (as well as wholesome) consciousness. The Dhamma, however, requires purely kusala study and purely kusala practice. -------------- C: > To learn/grow we often have to look beyond our faith and doubt. --------------- I'm sorry to be argumentative, but to learn and develop the Eightfold Path we have to know the present five khandhas (body, feeling, perception, mental factors and consciousness). Therefore, when faith, doubt, or any other dhamma, becomes the object of consciousness we should not look beyond it. ------------------------ C: > All that I have been trying to set you up for is this: for you to give yourself the freedom to go beyond the Abhidhamma and not to be limited by it. I was afraid that you are so attached to the Abhidhamma that you would develop clinging, when you should be open to ... ------------------------- Thanks, but the way I see it is; there are only dhammas, and the Abhidhamma (and only the Abhidhamma) tells us everything we need to know about dhammas. -------------- C: > A case in point: The Buddha claimed that experience is the truth you should accept as real (Ref: kalama Suttra). However, scientist today have proven that the senses can be fooled, therefore what you experience may not be real. This is a contradiction, and you should be asking your- self, "So what can be relied on as Truth/real?" ------------- I like that, and I agree entirely. The Buddha taught the Kalamas, firstly, how to choose a teacher. In effect, they were advised to recall their own experiences, to discuss them, and to consider them wisely. That would enable them, to the best of their ability, to choose the right teacher. If they were to chose the Buddha as their teacher, they could then hear, discuss, and consider the Dhamma. And they could apply the Dhamma, to the best of their ability, to the present moment. -------------------- C: > That is the issue of faith and doubt. When it comes to Truth, faith and doubt are important because we often try to live by truth, but in reality we live by faith and doubt. -------------------- Yes, and I would say the mistake lies in "trying." The Middle Way is followed, first and foremost, by right understanding (of the present reality). Right effort follows from - and always accompanies - right understanding. --------------------------------- C: > If you are open, to the possibilities that you may have faith or doubt in the wrong thing, you are also open to change/importance. --------------------------------- Hmmm. I think the Kalamas were advised to choose a teacher and then to follow his teaching. As you said, the mind 'can be fooled' and what we experience 'may not be real.' That is why we need a teacher to show us what is ultimately real. I don't believe the Kalama Sutta tells people, who have taken refuge in the Buddhadhamma, to be open to other, contrary, teachings. ---------------------------- C: > Science and other religions do have a bearing on the Dhamma, if you view Dhamma as a science or the sciences. don't be shy about challenging what you doubt, and supporting what you already have faith in. Just remain open to the fact that "When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter aligns with mars, and ..." We could be wrong. I am grateful for knowing, especially where I was wrong. ---------------------------- If you think the Dhamma has been made obsolete in some way by science, religion or the 'dawning of the Age of Aquarius' then please say so, and we can discuss it on DSG. Ken H 43862 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Hi Howard, Regarding your "consciousness only" view, is the concept/reality distinction still applicable? Larry 43863 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:25pm Subject: Vism.XIV,149 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 149. (xxvi)-(xxvii) The straight state of the [mental] body is 'rectitude of body'. The straight state of consciousness is 'rectitude of consciousness'. They have the characteristic of uprightness of the [mental] body and of consciousness. Their function is to crush tortuousness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. They are manifested as non-crookedness. Their proximate cause is the [mental] body and consciousness. They should be regarded as opposed to deceit, fraud, etc., which cause tortuousness in the [mental] body and in consciousness.65 ----------------------- Note 65. 'And here by tranquilization, etc., of consciousness only consciousness is tranquilized and becomes light, malleable, wieldy, proficient and upright. But with tranquilization, etc., of the [mental] body also the material body is tranquilized, and so on. This is why the twofoldness of states is given by the Blessed One here, but not in all places' (Pm.489). 43864 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 3/30/2005 4:40:05 AM Pacific Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: > TG Nope, just the opposite. The things that people are labeling as > "conventional: are not. Its just their perspective being applied to the > Buddha's > teaching which are only about overcoming suffering. You've lost me here. This does not seem to be an explanation of what the Buddha said/taught, but a comment on what people do/think. TG I don't believe the Buddha ever speaks at a "conventional level." The sorting out between conventional and "higher conventional" is something students of Buddhism have done to try to organize it in their own minds. All of the Buddha's teachings are "conventional;" if someone wants to look at it that way. Its just a matter of degree. (I don't look at his teachings that way though.) All of his teachings are aimed at Nibbana ... even if progressively. I would be interested to know how you read the references to seeing and visible-object etc in passages such as the one RobK quoted recently (see below). Do you see these as referring to conventional objects in any sense? TG I don't believe there is any such thing as a "conventional object." There are just different degrees of delusion. The so called "convention" is dependent on the delusion/perspective of the mind doing the perceiving. > To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact hardness. > What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is > experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. > TG Did the Buddha ever talk about a "body-door" or "eye-door"? If he did, its news to me. (Since I see the Abhidhamma as later analysis and systemization of the Sutta and Vinaya, I don't consider the Abhidhamma as completely authoritive and definitely not the word of the Buddha.) > TG Buddha never said any such thing. That's merely an Abhidhamma > interpretation. > > The Buddha talked about the solid aspects of the Earth element ... > things > like bones, finger-nails, hair, etc. He does not talk about them in the > context > of experience or from a phenomenological point of view. OK, let me modify my previous statement a little and say that the Buddha did not teach us to see closet door as hardness, but to see/know hardness appearing through the body-door as (only) hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing through the eye-door as (only) visible-object. Again, see the passage below regarding the sense doors and their specific objects. Jon Samyutta Nikaya (salayatana vagga ) 27(5)Bodhi p1142 "Bhikkhus without directly knowing and understanding the all..one is incapable of destroying suffering. And what is the all? The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear consciousness... (repeats for all six doors)." TG "The All" is just the "range" of what is possible to experience. If you look at the passages surrounding this Sutta, you'll see that "understanding the all" means to be aware of the impermanent, suffering, and no-self nature of these aspects. TG 43865 From: Matthew Miller Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:11pm Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma bupleurum Hello Kel & All, Kel: > From my view, the brain is just a mind-caused rupa I would argue that precisely the opposite is true. > Plus I don't see how the observational knowledge of > science can lead to a solution because the casuation isn't proven, > just a correlation. Evidence of causation is pretty overwhelming, and increasing. Mental states and brain states are not merely "correlated" in some vague way. An example of mere "correlation" would be a thermometer and the air temperature. These are "correlated," but if you destroy a thermometer, the air temperature won't change. However, if you were to destroy your brain... (Don't try that at home! Though it might be a great test of your theory that the brain is merely "mind-caused rupa"!) I addressed these issues in an earlier post. Here's an excerpt: > There is a specific, predictable, one-to-one, > *causal* relationship between activation or deactivation > of areas of the brain and corresponding subjective states. > Damage to specific areas of the brain *causes* very > specific, proportional and predictable changes in > cognitive function. See here for more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/43557 Matthew 43866 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/30/05 7:22:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Regarding your "consciousness only" view, is the concept/reality > distinction still applicable? > > Larry > =================== Quite possibly not! Your point is well taken. Perhaps, however, a concept/percept distinction is applicable. There still remains a difference between a hardness memory and a hardness experience. Also, while there are mindstates that involve hardness-experiencing, there are no single mindstates that constitute, say, tree-experincing. Tree-experiencing is a multi-state operation as far as I can see. As to "reality," I'm starting to think that there is but one ultimate reality, nibbana. Everything else fails to be self-existent, and is only artificially separated out as a "thing" of its own. With metta, Howard P.S. The term 'consciousness-only view' suggests a subjective perspective. The opposite might be termed an ''object-only view'. The position I'm suggesting might best be termed an 'experience-only view' which is intended to be a kind of middle-way between the other two that is a nondualistic, experiential-event position. /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) 43867 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - One more thought. A way to distinguish concept from "reality" under the experiential-event position, is that concept-states are constructs based on percept-states, and not vice-versa. A memory-state, for example, is constructively dependent on the original percept-state (e.g., the hardness recalling is dependent on the original hardness experincing). Likewise, tree-cognizing states are constructed from a variety of percept-states. So it is a matter of constructive dependence. 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) 43868 From: "Matthew Miller" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 6:41pm Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma bupleurum Geoff: > *Who* cares?...with the emphasis on *who*. > Is it the brain that cares > or is it consciousness that cares ... or what? I would argue that there is no "who." "Caring" is going on. "Caring" is itself a brain state. Here's a helpful way of thinking about this: consciousness is an emergent property of neural processes in the brain, just as "liquidity" or "wetness" is an emergent property of water. No individual H2O molecule is "wet," but at a higher level of organization, novel properties like "liquidity" emerge. Emergent properties are seen throughout nature. A molecule such as a protein has attributes not exhibited by any of its component atoms. A cell is more than a bag of molecules. Consciousness is more than a network of neurons -- although those are its parts (there is nothing "more" to consciousness, no "mind-stuff" or ghost in the machine), nevertheless its sum is greater than the individual parts. Complexity is not predictable from looking at the constituents, but put them together in certain ways, and you get really extraordinary properties. > doesn't account very well for the > interior richness of reality It accounts for this richness very well (read the quote from Carl Sagan concerning the astronomical complexity the brain here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/43546) When we talk about the "brain" and "consciousness", we're just looking at the same phenomenon from different levels of organizations. Imagine saying that the molecular structure of H20 does not account for the "richness" of the fluidity of water. It does. > It seems to me that you ... [see] matter as being > more inherently real than consciousness. No, certainly not. They are the same. Just as H20 molecules are no "more real" than a flowing river of water. > nor is [science] very functional as a basis > for transcending the madness of samsara. Not yet. But it has a good track record. Though it has been used for ill in the past, science has also helped us transcend a lot of madness. > Sure, why not. We already know that by listening to slightly offset > frequencies we can alter brain waves accordingly Ah, hemisync. Actually, that's based on rather dubious science. Neuroscience has already advanced way beyond mere brain waves. > So while there's nothing wrong with continuing to explore the brain > correlations of reality, why not do so while also engaging in > contemplative practice? Absolutely. We should do both. Matthew 43869 From: "lokuttaracitta" Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:59pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta lokuttaracitta Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Joop and any interested members- > > Thank you for pointing to several past messages. The first was from > Anders Honor?E(in # 7296): > > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind, and it is defiled by incoming > defilements. > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind, and it is free'd from incoming > defilements." > > > > That seems to be a mind pretty much unconditioned conditioned > factors, as it > > retains its luminousity in spite of conditioned circumstances. > >and this pretty much accords with the Tathagatagarbha > > doctrine: It is so natural that people tend to associate?@with Tatahgatagarbha?@ the famous verse ?gPabhassaramidam, Bhikkhave, cittam. Tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliţţhanti.?h ?gMonks, this mind is radiant. And, that mind is tarnished by the adventitious defilement . ----------------------------------- The similar in Sanskrit "prakrtiprabhasavaram cittam agantukair upaklesair upaklisyate" is quoted at second hand in "Ratnagotravibhaga"?@which has been considered for about 1500 years to be the most important systematized treatise on the Tathagatagarbha in Mahayana. The original Sanskrit ,its translated tibetan and chinsese versions are available. Must be there the English ,too. This is just for information . I will humbly refuse to go any futher into this topic,which I believe could cause something negative in and around us if I dig deep into. Metta from LK 43870 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Howard: "A way to distinguish concept from "reality" under the experiential-event position, is that concept-states are constructs based on percept-states, and not vice-versa." Hi Howard, I agree but I think we still need more understanding of what the experience of a concept is. If only one paramattha dhamma arises at a time then any *sense* of more than one dhamma is a nonarising, timeless concept. The tricky part is focusing on what that 'sense' is exactly. The reason I brought up the concept/reality question is that "no subject or object" might be considered an extreme view. Basically I think we have to show that it doesn't change anything with regard to kamma, etc. To my mind, "no subject or object" is a way of understanding anatta, kind of like "no doer" or "no control". Larry 43871 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the experience of objects. nilovg Hi Larry, Howard. op 31-03-2005 02:01 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > Thanks for the many further elucidations from the texts. I'm still not > clear on what experience is, so maybe I'll have another question later. N: Experience is the experience of an object. But it is understandable that there are different interpretations of object by different people. Or that one may think of subject and object. There are also different interpretations of the notion of memory. I do not know whether I can give any clarification on this matter, I try anyway. As I understand from the Tipitaka anything that is experienced, cognized, felt, remembered, clung to, disliked, imagined is an object. Thus, object can be what is real in the ultimate sense and also what is not real but imagined. Whatever is a mental phenomenon, be it citta, or cetasika such as feeling, remembrance, clinging, all these phenomena experience something that we call an object. I hesitate to call a mental phenomenon subject, because even these mental phenomena can in their turn be an object of another mental phenomenon. I believe that it is really difficult to compare the Abhidhamma with other philosophies that teach about duality of subject/object or non duality. Because as I said above: the notion of what object is is totally different for different people. Saññaa, this is also interpretated differently by different people. It may help to know that it accompanies each and every citta. When we are seeing now, seeing experiences visible object. Saññaa marks this object, that is all. It marks it so that it can be recognized. We may think of a concept of a thing on account of what is seen, and saññaa also marks that concept which is the object of thinking. That is its function. We remember that this thing is a table and that is a tree because of saññaa that accompanies all cittas and that is accumulated. Here are just a few thoughts, Nina. 43872 From: Ken O Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] stopping thoughts, Ken O ashkenn2k Hi Larry But in the end, can we live in such jhanas in for the rest of the human life. Eventually, the thoughts will have to move on, they are all anatta. No one be able to stop such a process, not even a Buddha Ken O 43873 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta nilovg Hi Tep and Joop, afterwards we had more discussions also about other texts. It appeared that in other contexts each citta is pure. Citta just experiences an object, that is its nature. Nina. op 31-03-2005 01:58 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@...: > By the way, what do you think about Nina's interpretation of luminous > mind as the bhavanga-citta? > > < N: The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an > object through the doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense or mind.> 43874 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:53am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta jwromeijn Dear Nina, Tep and 'Lokuttaracitta' (and all). Tep, I think I had to disappoint you; on two levels The first - and less important - is that I personal don't 'believe' in Buddha Nature, I really think the anatta-principle is the truth. I'm interested in this Mahayana-concept because it's so important for some of my (Zen-) friends. And I like and even 'believe' in others Mahayana-concepts, especially that of 'emptiness' (Heart Sutra, Nagarjuna. I still have problems with the ideological gap between me and people who believe in 'Buddha Nature', especiaaly because we have so much in common. The scond is that after study of some weeks I really don't think the concept Buddha-Nature can be translated or explained in Abhidhamma- words. Buddha-Nature is not a citta, not a cetasika, not a rupa and not nibbana. There are many words for expressing the same idea, 'devine spark' in or innate goodness' of a human being are just two of them. And not only sentient beings, even plants and rocks have Buddha-Nature, so say some Zen people (but not me!) And about the beautifull sutta: "Luminous, monks, is the mind, and it is defiled by incoming defilements." etc Or in the translation of LK: "Monks, this mind is radiant. And, that mind is tarnished by the adventitious defilement . … If the Buddha did mean Buddha-Nature with "this luminous mind" (citta): I don't know; so I do not believe the (Theravada-) commentatators like Bhikkhu Bodhi: they don't like suttas they don't understand so it's possible that they re-interpretate them because they understand tat interpretation.. So, to answer your questions: Tep: "Do you see that such luminosity is a characteristic of the inherent 'Buddha Nature', Joop?" My answer: no, giving light is a metaphore that can used with the concept Buddha-Nature, but 'Buddha- Nature' and the Abhidhamma-frame of reference with citta etc are different ways of thinking. And Tep: "By the way, what do you think about Nina's interpretation of luminous mind as the bhavanga-citta?" My answer: I don't know, but I don't think so: saying that it is a bhavanga-citta is making this sutta harmless and less incomprehensible, less 'mystical'. But without more proof for any interpretation a honest answer (with a scientific attitude) should say: we don't know what this sutta means. And LK: I understand you do not want to hurt faithfull DSG- Theravadins and I understand your agenda in participating in DSG. But still I don't agree with your statement "I will humbly refuse to go any futher into this topic,which I believe could cause something negative in and around us if I dig deep into." I think it's always possible to say in a careful way what you think. Otherwise we come in the direction of a esoteric, a secret Buddhism. Buddhism and esoterics is (to me) a contradictio in terminis. Nina, you wrote: > Hi Tep and Joop, > afterwards we had more discussions also about other texts. > It appeared that in other contexts > each citta is pure. Citta just experiences an object, that > is its nature. Joop: I agree, but 'pure' is not the same as 'Buddha Nature' and not the same as 'luminous'. To me 'pure' is that is has no properties, that it is empty itself. Metyta Joop 43875 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:58am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Howard: Howard and Larry I don't understand what your duscussipon has to do with the topic 'Buddha Nature' What in fact in your opinion (or information) about this topic? Joop 43876 From: nina Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:31am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 149 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 149 and Tiika. Text Vis. Ch XIV, 149: (xxvi)-(xxvii) The straight state of the [mental] body is 'rectitude of body'. The straight state of consciousness is 'rectitude of consciousness'. They have the characteristic of uprightness of the [mental] body and of consciousness. Their function is to crush tortuousness in the [mental] body and in consciousness. They are manifested as non-crookedness. N: The Tiika explains that it also causes the manifestation of non-crookedness, uprightness, in the accompanying dhammas. Text Vis: Their proximate cause is the [mental] body and consciousness. They should be regarded as opposed to deceit, fraud, etc., which cause tortuousness in the [mental] body and in consciousness.[note 65] **** N.: The Tiika explains that deceit (maaya) has the characteristic of concealing existing corruptions and that fraud (saa.theyya) has the characteristic of showing non-existing good qualities. We read in the ³Book of Analysis" (Ch 17 §804): We read in its Commentary, the Dispeller of Delusion (II, Ch 17, 2422): Uprightness or sincerity is indispensable for each kind of kusala. If there is no truthfulness one will deceive oneself into believing that one performs kusala whereas in reality one has selfish motives. For the development of insight it is necessary to know what one has understood and what one does not understand yet. If one deludes oneself naama and ruupa cannot be known as they are. The Tiika summarizes the six pairs of tranquillity, lightness, mallleability, wieldiness, proficiency and rectitude. They all assist sobhana citta and its accompanying cetasikas so that citta and cetasikas are alert, healthy and efficient in performing kusala. They are classified as six pairs, one pertaining to citta and one pertaining to the mental body, cetasikas. The Tiika gives another reason why they are classified as twofold. ----------------------- Note 65, taken from the Tiika: 'And here by tranquilization, etc., of consciousness only consciousness is tranquilized and becomes light, malleable, wieldy, proficient and upright. But with tranquilization, etc., of the [mental]body also the material body is tranquilized, and so on. This is why the twofoldness of states is given by the Blessed One here, but not in all places' (Pm.489). N: Thus we see that the good qualities of tranquillity, lightness etc. also condition bodily phenomena. **** Nina. 43877 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 6:43am Subject: Buddha Can Still His Thoughts: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance abhidhammika Dear Ken O, Mike, KKT, Nina, Sarah, Christine, Robert K and all How are you? Ken O wrote: "Even Buddha cannot still his thoughts, ...." What do you mean by "thoughts"? If you meant the Pali term "vitakka, thinking", the Buddha taught us that we can remove it by entering the second Ruupa Jhaana. So if you meant vitakka (thinking) and vicaara (rethinking) by "thoughts", the Buddha can not only still them, but also remove them by entering the second Ruupa Jhaana. With regards, Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi KKT > > > > > But it's impossible to remain more than > > > one or two minutes in such stillness. > > > You will be eventually distracted by > > > discursive thoughts. > > k: It is impossible to remain in stillness and still thoughts > because they are anatta. It is not the thought that matter, it is > the understanding of it as anatta that matters. Even Buddha cannot > still his thoughts, he only eradicate underlying tendency of the > three roots that cause discursive thoughts. It is not the stillness > discursive thoughts that is the gist of the teachings, it is about > insight into the nature of the discursive thoughts as the three > characterisitics that matters > > Ken O > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 43878 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/31/05 1:59:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > Howard: "A way to distinguish concept from "reality" under the > experiential-event position, is that concept-states are constructs based > on percept-states, and not vice-versa." > > Hi Howard, > > I agree but I think we still need more understanding of what the > experience of a concept is. If only one paramattha dhamma arises at a > time then any *sense* of more than one dhamma is a nonarising, timeless > concept. The tricky part is focusing on what that 'sense' is exactly. > > The reason I brought up the concept/reality question is that "no subject > or object" might be considered an extreme view. Basically I think we > have to show that it doesn't change anything with regard to kamma, etc. > > To my mind, "no subject or object" is a way of understanding anatta, > kind of like "no doer" or "no control". > > Larry > ======================= I'm far from clear on this, Larry. You are raising quite valid and important points. I'm going to "think out loud" for a bit right now to see where it takes mw. It seems to me that, for starters, there is never at any time any of the following: a) a separate, self-existent knowing, b) a separate, self-existent known, and c) separate, self-existent, concomitant operations. What there is at any given time, as I see it, is a multi-faceted mindstate whose facets are inseparable aspects of a single experiential event. These facets are objective content (arammana), experiencing (vi~n~nana), feeling (vedana), etc. None of these ever occurs on its own. None of these is a "thing" of its own. Moreover, these mindstate-events flow one into the next without gap, as momentary states/snapshots in an experiential stream. A basic functioning within that experirntial stream is a fundamental error operation of interpreting all the various facets of the mindstates as separate, self-existent entities, and, more than that, of projecting objective contents as "things" external to the experiential stream, and of projecting the vi~n~nana or various cetasikas (especially cetana and vedana) as an overarching, knowing "self". All such projecting, plus the grosser projecting of all the "story elements" that constitute our conventional world of trees, buildings, butterflies, and bandwagons, occur, it seems to me, over many, many mindstates, and never at any single moment are any of these fully present. For example, with regard to "a tree". there is a long and complex sequence of mindstates involvinf sights, memories, recognitions (identifications), and external projecting which constitute "seeing a tree". This is about the best I can do with this at the moment, Larry. With metta, Howard P.S. As I completed writing this, I received a news alert that Terri Schiavo has died, a wave of sorrow (and anger) went through me, and I realized how relatively unimportant is this technical discussion we are having. /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) 43879 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 3/31/05 8:01:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > > Howard and Larry > > I don't understand what your duscussipon has to do with the > topic 'Buddha Nature' > What in fact in your opinion (or information) about this topic? > > Joop > ====================== It has nothing obvious to do with it. As happens so often, subject-matter changes but subject-title remains. 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) 43880 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:05am Subject: Vipassana htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Vipassana is the observation of physical phenomena or mental phenomena that arises within our accessible field of attention, which is our body or our mind in order to know them as they really are. Purification of moral conduct has to be built up by observing 8 precepts, considerate utilisation of things, living on pure livelihood, and continuous watching out of all 6 doors so as not to commit any unwholesome act. Purification of mind has to set up by following what The Buddha said in 'Dighanikaaya 22 Mahasatipatthana Sutta'. Sammavayama or right effort is essential. Purification of moral conduct does need to be built up and then one has to go to a forest or to at the foot of a tree or to where there is quiet like a cave or deserted house or building. Sit in with a posture, which will support the body for a long time, during which sati or mindfulness and panna or wisdom might develop. Viriya or effort support both of these good characters (sati and panna). 1. The body has to be observed continuously. (Kaayaanupassana satipatthana) When eyes are shut, ears ignore sounds, nose ignores inconspicuous smell, tongue ignores inconspicuous taste the only door which perceive sense will be body-door. In this body-door there are many many sites that the mind can be attended. But breathing is a natural and continuous phenomena and it is quite natural to attend the breath. The Buddha used the breath as meditation. The breath causes continuous movement. There are 2 sites where movement can be observed. The first site is where incoming air or wind hit the body. This may be any of nostrils, lips, nose hairs or anywhere where the air comes in. The second site is where this incoming air causing distension. This movement may be a) on the chest or b) on the abdomen. Whichever is chosen, the main theme is 'movement' or vayo-dhatu or element of motion. The Buddha said, 'When bhikkhu breathes in long, he knows his breath as a long breath'. This is what the Sutta (Mahasatipatthana says). Bhikkhu will know when the breath is long as long because there is a prolonged incoming of breath-air and as he knows through out the whole breath he knows it as long. If he is thinking something else he will not know his breath as long. By the same token; 'When bhikkhu breathes in short, he knows his breath as a short breath'. Here there must not take mental note of 'This breath is long..this breath is short.. and so on'. What The Buddha said is, 'Bhikkhu knows the breath is long when it is long and short when it is short'. The Buddha did not say anything regarding noting of 'long breath' or 'short breath'. Continous mindfulness will make this clear when satipatthana is practised accordingly. The Buddha continued, 'He practises/ exercises/ trains so as to know all the phenomena through out the whole breath'. Here 'Sabba kaaya' means 'the whole phenomenon of breath' and not to the hair-head-neck- chest-abdomen-limbs-toes or head-to-toe body. There is no reason to spread the mind over the fingers, toes, necks, and the whole physical body. It is 'the whole breath'. Vipassana is observation of physical phenomena (movement around nose, chest, abdomen). Vipassana is not the observation of unreal things like words. For example 'this breath is long' 'this breath is short'. Breath is not an ultimate reality. But when vipassana is ongoing 'Bhikkhu knows the breath as long when long and short as when short'. Suttas are pannatta-desana or conventional teachings. Everyone knows 'he knows when his breath is long as long and knows when his breath is short as short'. But what Bhikkhu is directing is not the word 'breath' but 'the phenomenon of movement' or vayo-dhatu which is ultimate reality. Bhikkhu is breathing mindfully and he knows his breath from the start to the end and he knows the whole breath. When Bhikkhu breathes, he has not to breath forcefully or very very gently. But he has to breathe naturally. Some practitioners would say this as 'bare attention'. The Buddha said, 'Thus Bhukkhu trains/ exercises/ practise breathing not forcefully, not very gently but calmly and as naturally as he can. This does not mean 'Bhikkhu relaxes his whole body' or 'Bhikkhu let the tension go'. When forced breathing happens to arise, just note it as forced- breathing. Actually, before this forced-breathing there was a mind which has some forms of defilement and causing forced-breathing. This tetrad concentrates on the phenomenon of breath which cause physical movement at nose/lip or chest or abdomen. These all 4 things may be performing when sitting, when standing, lying. All of these 3 postures are static postures and help Bhikkhus to concentrate on movement. But as human body has limitation, alteration of postures is essential. Just before changing of the posture there arises a mind which wants to change the existing posture. Just note it as 'wanting to change' or 'wanting to stand' or 'wanting to sit' or 'wanting to lie down'. Because of these changes, The Buddha continued to noting of postures (iriyaapatha pabba). When want to stand up, just note 'want to stand'. Then through out the whole movement just note every possible movement. Now sitting has been changed to standing up position. Between these 2 postures there are many movements like bending, stretching, flexing, extending etc etc. All these are just movements and there is nothing personal. The Buddha continued, 'When going, Bhikkhu knows he is going', 'standing as standing' 'lying as lying' 'sitting as sitting'. All these are real phenomena and ultimate realities (movements, heat, hardness-firmness-softness). So these are noting of bodily events (kaayaanupassana satipatthana). Meditation may be disturbed from outside (environment) or from inside (loss of mindfulness and switching on wandering). To thresh kaama raaga or sexual desire, body ( 32 parts of the body) is a useful tool. Going through 32 parts of the body stops such inappropriate thinking. As 32 parts are part of body, it is also kaayaanupassana. As soon as dies, the body starts its changes because of utu or temperature. This finally leads to bone-dust in many years. This is also related to body and it is also kaayaanupassana satipatthana. The physical body has 'liquid fat''urine' 'gastric juice' 'intestinal juice' 'saliva' etc etc and these are water-element or apo-dhaatu. The body has 'bones' 'teeth' 'flesh' 'solid organs' etc etc and these are pathavi-dhaatu or earth-element. The body has 'air-filled lungs' 'air sinuses' 'air-filled intestine' 'air-filled stomach' etc etc and these are vayo-dhaatu or wind-element. The body has a temperature and different organs have a bit different temperature. Digestion produces heat and stomach, intestine, arteries etc etc have different temperature. These are tejo-dhaatu or fire- element. These are body related and kaayaanupassana. But Bhikkhu is mostly taking 'movement' that arises from breathing and he will be concentrating on that. Because of concentrating and long staying in a posture there arise many different physical feelings as well as feelings in the mind. Vedanaanupassana or noting of feeling should also be done as they arise. When bad, note that feeling as bad. Sometimes especially when jhana is obtained, there may be physical ease. If the feelings are good just note them as good. When not conspicuous note them as not conspicuous. When there are bad physical feeling like pain, mind may wander aggressively. Cittaanupassana is then continued. If wanders, just note it as 'wandering' 'wandering'. If stills, note it as stilling. If it bears greediness note it as greedy-mind and if without it note it as without greediness. If with anger note it as with anger and if not as not with anger. If ignorant as ignorant mind and if not, note it as not ignorant. At a time there may arise 'a well concentrated mind'. Note it as 'concentrated mind'. This may be followed by wandering because of lust. At that time note the mind as 'un-concentrated mind' and etc etc. When Bhikkhu has a long practice on vipassana, he starts to see 'different dhammas' and at that time 'Dhammaanupassana satipatthana' may be developed. If there arise 'sensuous thinking' or 'aversive thinking' or 'wandering-thinking/ worrying-thinking' or 'sloth-torpor' or 'suspicious thinking' then just note that ''there arises hindrances or nivarana'. There always are disturbance. There are sounds, smells, tastes, touches, lights and forms, and thinking-mind. There are many other phenomena and they are just noted as 'dhamma' or just 'them'. Bhikkhu should stay in such a long and persistent noting on the phenomena whenever they arise. This has to be from the first consciousness till the last consciousness just before going into deep sleep. Depending on maturity, 7 years,6-5-4-3-2-1 year, 7 months, 6-5-4-3-2- 1 month or even half a month will surfice to develop insight wisdom if these instructions are followed accordingly. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 43881 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:10am Subject: Renunciation htootintnaing RENUNCIATION Tiresome are they, mind comes to still Trying done are days, shrine comes to will. Dirtsome are frail, mind comes to still Trying done are days, applying comes to will. HTOO NAING PS: I will be on top of a mountain for 9 days. One day for preparation and one day for leaving take 2 extra days beyond a week. I will be sinking in for the whole week. Htoo -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- After deeply ramifying with 8 precepts, intensive effort was produced. The first consciousness came. It was 4 am. Mindfulness approached. Mindfully got out of bed. Mindfully stood up. Mindfully cleaned. Triplegem was paid homage. Mind started to travel with continuous picking up of all mental pictures. Tiredness was reduced by alternating an hour sitting with an hour walking. After 2 sessions, fastness was broken mindfully. Further sessions went on till 11 am, when the lunch was mindfully taken. Alternating sessions of sitting with walking continued till 10 pm and then retired. With Metta, Htoo Naing 43882 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:44am Subject: Dhamma Thread (286) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Yahoo's new format at Yahoo Groups made me thinking. And I just noted my thinking as thinking. As all conditioned phenomena are changing, changing should not cause very great shock to anyone who train their mind. Anyway Dhamma Thread 285 summarised on how Dhamma Threads are going. Currently cittas that arise in rupa brahma bhumis or realms are being discussed. There are 89 total cittas that may arise in a 'typical being'. Among these 89 cittas, 5 rupavipaka cittas or resultant-consciousness of rupa-brahmas and 4 arupavipaka cittas or resultant-consciousness of arupa-brahmas can never arise in human beings including The Buddha. So maximum cittas that can arise in a 'typical human being' is 80 cittas. Among these 80 cittas, 2 ghanavinnana cittas, 2 jivhavinnana cittas, and 2 kayavinnana cittas do not arise in any brahmas of rupa or arupa. 80 - 6 = 74 cittas left. Again, 8 mahavipaka cittas, which are bhavanga cittas of human beings do not arise in brahmas. 74 - 8 = 64 cittas left to arise in brahmas. Abhidhammatthasangaha says 'catu chatthi' or 64 cittas can arise in brahmas. But there is an extra citta for each brahma except asannisatta brahmas. This extra citta is their bhavnaga cittas, which are rupavipaka cittas. 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. 43883 From: "Andrew Levin" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:01am Subject: Spoke with Bhikkhu Bodhi last night Re: insight knowledges lone_renunciant Hi all, Last night at our local temple, the New York Buddhist Vihara, we had the good fortune of having Bhikkhu Bodhi present to give a dharma talk and answer questions. This is not the first time he has done something like this, at some point last year he had also come and I got to ask him a question personally about the dhamma. (I hear he used to spend a lot of time doing work in our reference library, too). He is a very strong character, he maintains his composure and strength of presentation through all happenings even though the audience he was talking to might be uncertain on many things. After the service, which was based on Samyutta Nikaya 75-77 (I don't have a copy so I don't know if this is enough to identify the sutta, but it was regarding a deity asking the Buddha about the nature of things in the world.), I waited for a spot, and got down on my knees in front of him, told him I'd been reading his book, "The Noble Eightfold Path," and had gotten most of the supplementary reading. Now he had written that volume not in exhaustive detail, (the reason for the recommended reading was added in the back), and I was unclear on the best way to proceed with mindfulness of breathing, specifically towards acheiving the insight knowledges. I asked if he had any ideas on what to read further on that or any alternative ideas than described in either his book or the others, and he told me that mindfulness of breathing is *not* the only contemplation that will elicit the insight knowledges. So I take this to mean that other contemplations, like the contemplation on the repulsive nature of the body, or the contemplation on the four elements, could yield the desired result, too. In addition, he told me to continue with mindfulness of breathing, even though it is a difficult meditation subject. I think it is possible that I can practise some or most of the rest of the path, but getting the desired insights from mindfulness of breathing has been a problem. I have read numerous articles on it, including one at aimwell.org, which suggests a lot of solitude to quiet the mind, which is not always possible for me, and I have thought I might take a cue from a practise guide I have (Matthew Flickstein's "Swallowing the River Ganges") and use the section on mindfulness of breathing for that part of my practise (although still, I have not had success in acheiving any insight knowledges with that). But the rest of the four foundations of mindfulness seem workable. Now he has said in the book that the acheivement of nibbana WILL come, even if it seems distant in the beginning, as the natural result of practising the path. He does suggest a teacher can be helpful, especially in the advanced stages of concentration and insight. So I take it that we should be able to acheive some insights on our own, at the very least one or the first few of them. I suppose when the time comes, I will proceed practising the four foundations of mindfulness including mindfulness of breathing as outlined in the works I have that are recommended by his book. Any constructive thoughts or ideas would be welcome. peace, a.l. 43884 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:41am Subject: Re: Renunciation buddhistmeditat... Dear Htoo - I wonder what "renunciation" means to you. Is it from the Pali 'nekkhamma' or 'sankappa'? Happy dwelling in seclusion! Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > > > RENUNCIATION > > Tiresome are they, mind comes to still > Trying done are days, shrine comes to will. > > Dirtsome are frail, mind comes to still > Trying done are days, applying comes to will. > > HTOO NAING > > PS: I will be on top of a mountain for 9 days. One day for > preparation and one day for leaving take 2 extra days beyond a week. > I will be sinking in for the whole week. Htoo > -------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------- > > After deeply ramifying with 8 precepts, intensive effort was produced. > > The first consciousness came. It was 4 am. Mindfulness approached. > Mindfully got out of bed. Mindfully stood up. Mindfully cleaned. > > Triplegem was paid homage. > > Mind started to travel with continuous picking up of all mental > pictures. > > Tiredness was reduced by alternating an hour sitting with an hour > walking. > > After 2 sessions, fastness was broken mindfully. > > Further sessions went on till 11 am, when the lunch was mindfully > taken. > > Alternating sessions of sitting with walking continued till 10 pm and > then retired. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 43885 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:35am Subject: Spoke with Bhikkhu Bodhi last night Re: insight knowledges buddhistmeditat... Hi Andrew and all - Thank you a whole lot for the report of your dhamma talk with Bhikkhu Bodhi. Whenever you have a conversation with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi again next time, please also tell us about it. I have a few questions, concerning cittanupassana in Chapter VI of "The Noble Eightfold Path". I would greatly appreciate it if you could ask him the following 2 questions for me, whenever you have a chance to talk to him again. The second paragraph of the excerpt below states that the stable mind, after the "apparent observer" disappears, "dissolves into a stream of cittas". What was that "stream of cittas" called by the Buddha? Is it beyond the 15th kind of citta, i.e. "the freed mind"(vimutti citta)? "When a particular citta is present, it is contemplated merely as a citta, a state of mind. It is not identified with as "I" or "mine," not taken as a self or as something belonging to a self. Whether it is a pure state of mind or a defiled state, a lofty state or a low one, there should be no elation or dejection, only a clear recognition of the state. The state is simply noted, then allowed to pass without clinging to the desired ones or resenting the undesired ones. "As contemplation deepens, the contents of the mind become increasingly rarefied. Irrelevant flights of thought, imagination, and emotion subside, mindfulness becomes clearer, the mind remains intently aware, watching its own process of becoming. At times there might appear to be a persisting observer behind the process, but with continued practice even this apparent observer disappears. The mind itself -- the seemingly solid, stable mind -- dissolves into a stream of cittas flashing in and out of being moment by moment, coming from nowhere and going nowhere, yet continuing in sequence without pause. [end quote] Anyone who understands the venerable's writing, please feel free to give me your answers to the above questions. Thank you much in advance. Kindest regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Levin" wrote: > > Hi all, > (snipped) > > Any constructive thoughts or ideas would be welcome. > > peace, > a.l. 43886 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta nilovg Dear Joop, op 31-03-2005 14:53 schreef Joop op jwromeijn@...: > And LK: I understand you do not want to hurt faithfull DSG- > Theravadins and I understand your agenda in participating in DSG. But > still I don't agree with your statement "I will humbly refuse to go > any futher into this topic,which I believe could cause something > negative in and around us if I dig deep into." I think it's always > possible to say in a careful way what you think. Otherwise we come in > the direction of a esoteric, a secret Buddhism. Buddhism and > esoterics is (to me) a contradictio in terminis. N: I agree with Joop. No need to be afraid to hurt people on this list by another opinion. Here we have free exchanges and one can always learn from this. J: Nina, you wrote:... >> It appeared that in other contexts >> each citta is pure. Citta just experiences an object, that >> is its nature. > Joop: I agree, but 'pure' is not the same as 'Buddha Nature' and not > the same as 'luminous'. To me 'pure' is that is has no properties, > that it is empty itself. N: The accompanying akusala cetasikas condition the citta to be akusala. Pure, luminous, long ago Sarah gave the Pali words. It must be in U.P. She took it up in Bgk. Nina. 43887 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:thinking processes. nilovg Hi Howard, Yes, your thinking aloud is good. And what you said at the end may help people to understand that saññaa accompanies each citta and performs its function of marking. Since there is no gap between cittas, impressions are accumulated and as you say, it takes many processes to see a tree, and define: this is a tree; even if we do not say this, we just recognize a tree. I think it is also in the case of insight. Firm saññaa is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn again and again about nama and rupa, about their different characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, it can be immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need to say it or define it. Nina. op 31-03-2005 17:01 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > All such > projecting, plus the grosser projecting of all the "story elements" that > constitute our conventional world of trees, buildings, butterflies, and > bandwagons, > occur, it seems to me, over many, many mindstates, and never at any single > moment are any of these fully present. For example, with regard to "a tree". > there > is a long and complex sequence of mindstates involving sights, memories, > recognitions (identifications), and external projecting which constitute > "seeing a > tree". 43888 From: "Andrew Levin" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 1:49pm Subject: Re: Spoke with Bhikkhu Bodhi last night Re: insight knowledges lone_renunciant --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Andrew and all - > > Thank you a whole lot for the report of your dhamma talk with Bhikkhu > Bodhi. Whenever you have a conversation with Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi again > next time, please also tell us about it. > > I have a few questions, concerning cittanupassana in Chapter VI of > "The Noble Eightfold Path". I would greatly appreciate it if you could > ask him the following 2 questions for me, whenever you have a chance > to talk to him again. Tep, At NYBV we start off with a meditation session of 40 or 60 minutes, including opening and/or closing with metta. Then we have a tea break for 15 minutes or so, before we read from scripture and have the dharma talk. If it is possible, next time he is there, I will see if I can discuss that with him and get you some answers during that time when he should be free. If I cannot ask him then, it would be difficult for me to ask him two questions (after the service), usually I ask one of the monks I am more friendly (Bhante Nanda) with if I can ask the Venerable a question, and he says yes, but make it quick. So of course I may have a question of my own and yours seems a little more complex, so it may be difficult to get that all in there. I will see what I can do. I consider it an amazing opportunity to have the good fortune of being able to speak with such a great dharma teacher as Bhikkhu Bodhi and so of course any time speaking to him is valuable. I hope you can understand this. So try to find your answer elsewhere, even reasoning it out yourself, because I can't guarantee I can get it for you. (Your two questions seem to be one in the sense that it's on the same issue, so maybe that bodes well for your chances of getting a clarification.) Of course, I would still welcome any ideas about the matter I discussed with Venerable Dr. Bodhi last night. peace, a.l. 43889 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:39pm Subject: Re:thinking processes. buddhistmeditat... Dear Nina and Howard - The complicated implications of sanna (perception) are fascinating to me. Nina wrote: N: Firm sanna is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn again and again about nama and rupa, about their different characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, it can be immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need to say it or define it. T: Does it follow that we have to develop sanna first as the condition for sati to arise? If it does, then which kinds of sanna are needed? The Visuddhimagga shows that perception(sanna) is the proximate cause of mindfulness: 'Its function is not to forget...its approximate cause is strong perception, or its approximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness.' VM. XIV, 141. We know that contact (phassa) is a cause of perception, according to AN VI.63, Nibbedhika Sutta: 'There are these six kinds of perception: the perception of form, the perception of sound, the perception of aroma, the perception of flavor, the perception of tactile sensation, the perception of ideas. And what is the cause by which perception comes into play? Contact is the cause by which perception comes into play'. There are several kinds of sanna that are in the class of the "perception of ideas" discussed in the Nibbedhika Sutta. For example, in AN X.60, Girimananda Sutta, 10 perceptions are defined: 'Which ten? The perception of inconstancy, the perception of not-self, the perception of unattractiveness, the perception of drawbacks, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion, the perception of cessation, the perception of distaste for every world, the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications, mindfulness of in-&-out breathing'. These 10 perceptions have to be developed (bhavana). For instance, the training to establish the perception of impermanence (anicca-sanna) is given as follows: "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk --having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy". Ven. Nyanatiloka suggests that the ten perceptions are 'ideas that are objects of meditation'. What is your thought on the ten perceptions? Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Howard, (snipped) > I think it is also in the case of insight. Firm saññaa is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn again and again about nama and rupa, about their different characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, > it can be immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need to say it or define it. > Nina. > op 31-03-2005 17:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > All such projecting, plus the grosser projecting of all the "story elements" that constitute our conventional world of trees, buildings, butterflies, and bandwagons, occur, it seems to me, over many, many mindstates, and never at any single moment are any of these fully present. For example, with regard to "a tree". there is a long and complex sequence of mindstates involving sights, memories, recognitions (identifications), and external projecting which constitute "seeing a tree". 43890 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature lbidd2 Joop: "Howard and Larry I don't understand what your duscussipon has to do with the topic 'Buddha Nature' What in fact in your opinion (or information) about this topic?" Hi Joop, As with many of these conversations it is difficult to say how we got to where we ended up, but I think we can find common ground in Buddha Nature if we regard it as anatta. Larry 43891 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:36pm Subject: Vism.XIV,150 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 150. (xxviii) 'Zeal' (desire) is a term for desire to act. So that zeal has the characteristic of desire to act. Its function is scanning for an object. It is manifested as need for an object. That same [object] is its proximate cause. It should be regarded as the extending of the mental hand in the apprehending of an object. 43892 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:43pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhatrue Hi Nina, Nina: I agree with Joop. No need to be afraid to hurt people on this list by another opinion. Here we have free exchanges and one can always learn from this. James: I really don't think this description accurately portrays the dynamics of this group. True, one can express his/her opinion, but if that opinion contradicts the opinion of other members (most specifically the leaders) then that `blasphemer' will find him or herself bombarded and bullied with opposing posts. The `blasphemer' then has no choice but to continue the fight or to give up, which it is usually the latter. The leaders and supporting members NEVER admit defeat or the possibility that they could be wrong. They single out certain members as their *favorites* and consistently heap praise on them, while they dish out condescending comments or empty praise to those they disagree with and then refer them to the U.P. section for further remediation. Those who refuse to be reformed and continue to fight are summarily dismissed as being emotionally unstable or deranged (which they just may be for putting up with all of this crap in the first place!) Take care, James the Deranged 43893 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 2:02am Subject: Dhamma Thread (287) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 64 possible cittas in rupa brahmas. But any of these cittas do not arise in asannasatta brahmas, who always dwell with physical body only. That is only rupa-dhamma and there is no nama-dhamma at all as long as these brahmas are in that realm. This happens. Because of 4th jhana's power. Just before die in the previous life, where 4th jhana was attained and still jhana is arising near death as marana-asanna-javana cittas. The special power in that 4th jhana is that those jhanalabhii who attained 4th jhanas detach from nama-dhamma as they thought that nama-dhamma is the chief source of akusala and unhappy rebirth. Because of the power of 4th rupa jhana, these beings who were developing 4th rupa jhana with detachment from nama are reborn with rupa only and they are called rupa-patisandhi. That pure body which is very very very fine also continues to exist as rupa-bhavanga even though each rupa last only its lifespan. When they die that rupa become rupa-cuti and as soon as rupa of asannasatta brahma disappear there arise both nama and rupa because of unpaid kamma. As there was no nama, there is no marana-asanna-javana in asannasatta brahmas. So from where does nama arise? Before asannasatta's life there was 'marana-asanna-javana cittas'. These javana cittas are rupakusala cittas or 4th jhana. So next life of asannasatta is 4th jhana rupa brahmas. They can not go directly down to niraya or hell. Again after 4th rupa jhana brahmas' life, beings are not directly reborn in niraya because they are tihetuka sattas. The story of pig talks about a lady, brahma, and a pig. But a pig is not directly reborn from the life of brahma. 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. 43894 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 2:24am Subject: Dhamma Thread (288) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, After discussion on cittas that can arise in rupa brahmas and talking on asannisatta brahmas, cittas in arupa brahmas will be discussed in this post. As there are beings who do not have any faculties of consciousness, there do exist beings who do not have any physical body or physical matters or any rupa. These beings are called arupa brahmas. Arupa brahmas are reborn because the power of arupa jhanas. As there are 4 arupa jhanas there are 4 different realms for 4 different arupa brahmas. These 4 arupa jhanas are 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana To avoid complaints, these terms will be explained here even though all these have been repeatedly explained in citta portion, cetasika portion, and bhumi portion. 'Aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana' This is simply translated as 'sphere of boundless space'. Aakaasaanancaayatana = Aakaasa + anca + aayatana Aakasa is 'voidness' 'emptiness' 'space'. Aayatana means 'place' 'dwelling' 'edifice' 'ground' 'building' 'home' or combination of all these. This ayatana is not aayatana of 12 which are 6 internal sense bases and 6 external sense bases. Deva bhumi or deva realms can be called as 'devaayatana' or 'place of deva' or 'country of deva'. Like that 'place where cittas that take space as their object' can be called 'aakaasananca ayatana'. But this space is not the space that we conventioanlly know where astronauts travel with space ships. But this space arises from 4th rupa jhana (5th rupa jhana). When all 4 rupa jhanas are obtained, jhanalabhii or jhana-owners have to practise one or more or all of 10 kasina kammatthana. For jhanalabhii this is quite easy. They will soon attain 4th jhanas with kasina objects. 4th rupa jhanas are so calm that there is nothing but ekaggata or one- pointedness. That ekaggata take the object kasina. That kasina is expanded and there is no other things but kasina object. Through jhana power, there see subtle drawbacks of rupa jhanas. Rupa jhanalabhii train themselves not to take rupa-related object. So they start to detach from the kasina object and when there is total detachment from kasina object there leaves empty space. Like kasina object which fill the whole domain of mind, this newly arisen space also occupies the whole domain of mind and it is boundless and limitless. As that space is the place where cittas dwell, it is called ''Aakaasaananca-ayatana'' and the jhana is called 'aakaasanancayatana arupa jhana'. 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. 43895 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 2:25am Subject: Re: Vipassana kenhowardau Dear Htoo, Thanks for this post on vipassana. I have added some comments to it, including a few points of disagreement. I hope you - or anyone else - will correct them where necessary. ---------------- H: > Vipassana is the observation of physical phenomena or mental phenomena that arises within our accessible field of attention, which is our body or our mind in order to know them as they really are. ----------------- And it should be made clear that "phenomena" refers to fleeting nama and rupa, as distinct from concepts (e.g., of postures or breathing). -------------------------- H: > Purification of moral conduct has to be built up by observing 8 precepts, considerate utilisation of Purification of mind has to set up by following what The Buddha said in 'Dighanikaaya 22 Mahasatipatthana Sutta' .------------------------------------------------ Vipassana must not be regarded as something to be put off until a future time (e.g., when moral conduct has been perfected). ------------------------------------------------------------------- H: > Sammavayama or right effort is essential. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samma-vayama should not be seen as a preparatory step. It exists in the actual moment of vipassana - co-arising with samma-ditthi, samma- sankappa, samma-sati and samma-samadhi. -------------------------------- H: > Purification of moral conduct does need to be built up and then one has to go to a forest or to at the foot of a tree or to where there is quiet like a cave or deserted house or building. Sit in with a posture, which will support the body for a long time, during which sati or mindfulness and panna or wisdom might develop. Viriya or effort support both of these good characters (sati and panna). -------------------------------- The only posture required for vipassana is the present posture - whatever (and wherever) that happens to be. ------------------------- H: > 1. The body has to be observed continuously. (Kaayaanupassana satipatthana) -------------------------- I'm not familiar with this aspect of vipassana. Are you saying there needs to be an unbroken stream of vipassana cittas (similar to the stream of jhana cittas)? Apart from that, I would reiterate that the real body - a single rupa - cannot be continuously observed. It can be observed by, at most, one process of cittas (lasting about one billionth of a second). --------------------------- H: > When eyes are shut, ears ignore sounds, nose ignores inconspicuous smell, tongue ignores inconspicuous taste the only door which perceive sense will be body-door. -------------------------- The sense doors are paramattha dhammas and should not be confused with concepts of eyes, ears, etc. When the Buddha taught "mindfulness of rupa" he was not referring exclusively to tactile rupa. There can be mindfulness of any rupa (at any of the six doors). I don't know why you are talking about 'closing down sense doors' in connection with vipassana. -------------------------------------- H: > In this body-door there are many many sites that the mind can be attended. -------------------------------------- Yes, although actually, there is only one body-door. It can be seen to correspond to any site on the conceptual body. --------------------------------------------------- H: > But breathing is a natural and continuous phenomena and it is quite natural to attend the breath. --------------------------------------------------- It should also be noted that vipassana does not require any *preparatory* attending (purposeful directing of attention). --------------------------- H: > Everyone knows 'he knows when his breath is long as long and knows when his breath is short as short'. But what Bhikkhu is directing is not the word 'breath' but 'the phenomenon of movement' or vayo-dhatu which is ultimate reality. ---------------------------- In amongst moments of body-door consciousness, there are moments of (five) other kinds of consciousness. All of those moments contain paramattha dhammas potentially suitable as objects for right understanding. ------------------------------------------------ H: > Bhikkhu is breathing mindfully and he knows his breath from the start to the end and he knows the whole breath. ------------------------------------------------ This seems to be another reference to "continuous vipassana." Surely it would be an extraordinarily advanced bhikkhu who could practice vipassana exclusively for billions of successive mind-moments (on billions of individual dhammas). (?) ----------------------------- H: > When Bhikkhu breathes, he has not to breath forcefully or very very gently. But he has to breathe naturally. Some practitioners would say this as 'bare attention'. ------------------------------- Any effort (gentle or forceful) to control the arising of vipassana would be wasted (wrong) effort. ---------------- H: > When forced breathing happens to arise, just note it as forced- breathing. Actually, before this forced-breathing there was a mind which has some forms of defilement and causing forced-breathing. --------------- The same applies to forced sitting, forced walking, forced concentrating etc. Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at any time in daily life. Ignorance (of the 4NT's) is the one thing that can prevent it. -------------------------------- H: > Just before changing of the posture there arises a mind which wants to change the existing posture. Just note it as 'wanting to change' or 'wanting to stand' or 'wanting to sit' or 'wanting to lie down'. Because of these changes, The Buddha continued to noting of postures (iriyaapatha pabba). -------------------- When concepts such as posture are experienced at the mind door there cannot be vipassana, however, panna can know those concepts as concepts. -------------------------------------- H: > When want to stand up, just note 'want to stand'. --------------------------------------- Only panna can note concepts as concepts. I think any ritualistic noting such as, "Want to stand," would be an indicator of wrong view. ----------------------------------------------------- H: > Then through out the whole movement just note every possible movement. Now sitting has been changed to standing up position. ----------------------------------------------------- I think only worldling meditation-teachers would teach this kind of noting. If it had any efficacy, the Buddha would have taught it ----------------- H: > The Buddha continued, 'When going, Bhikkhu knows he is going', 'standing as standing' 'lying as lying' 'sitting as sitting'. ----------------- And don't the meditation teachers seize upon those few words! To interpret them as prescriptions for ritualistic practice is to disregard the (voluminous) remainder of the Pali Canon. The ancient commentators were quick to explain that 'going' did not refer to the conventional meaning of 'going.' They pointed out that, not only uninstructed worldlings but also "dogs and jackals," could be mindful of 'going' in the conventional sense. -------------------------- H: > All these are real phenomena and ultimate realities (movements, heat, hardness-firmness-softness). So these are noting of bodily events (kaayaanupassana satipatthana). -------------------------- Yes, that is what the Buddha taught. Can we agree that no insight can possibly be gained from practising conventional mindfulness (of 'going' 'standing' lying' 'sitting' etc.)? -------------------------------- H: > Meditation may be disturbed from outside (environment) or from inside (loss of mindfulness and switching on wandering). -------------------------------- Jhana meditation can be disturbed because it requires a continuous stream of mind-door cittas. But vipassana involves only one moment at a time. The only citta processes that exclude the immediate possibility of vipassana are those in which concepts (such as posture or breathing) are the objects. Ken H 43896 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 2:28am Subject: Re: Vism.XIV,150 htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV > > 150. (xxviii) 'Zeal' (desire) is a term for desire to act. So that zeal > has the characteristic of desire to act. Its function is scanning for an > object. It is manifested as need for an object. That same [object] is > its proximate cause. It should be regarded as the extending of the > mental hand in the apprehending of an object. -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Dear Larry, Thank you very much for your clear message. But once I found a web site who wrote that this desire is tanha and The Buddha and arahats had tanha for nibbana. And the writer accuses that Theravadan invent a word called 'chanda'. Reference: Three cheers of tanha by someone. With respect, Htoo Naing 43897 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] I am new and Learning jonoabb Hi Inga Welcome to DSG from me. Thanks for posting your question. There are a number of reading and study suggestions in some earlier posts. Please go to the 'Files' section at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ then select the file 'Useful_Posts.htm', and scroll down to the heading 'New to the List and New to the Dhamma'. If you click on the message links there, I think you will find something to interest you. Please feel free to come in on any thread, or raise your own questions.I hope you enjoy your stay with us. Jon PS When posting, consider giving a short introduction of yourself and your interest in Buddhism. --- ingafrankie wrote: > > > > Group > For someone who is very new and wanting to learn more. What would you > suggest for myself to read and study. > Thanks for any help > Inga > > 43898 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 3:02am Subject: Update from your roaming moderators jonoabb Hello All We are having a few days at Koh Samui before heading back to Hong Kong. Arrived here this morning. Internet connection dodgy, so will keep this short. Sarah says hi and says to mention she has lots of material from the discussions in Bangkok to bring up when she resumes posting back in HK. Many DSG topics were covered in the talks (including some of the old standards such as luminous ;-)). We are enjoying the ongoing discussions on the list. Keep up the good work everyone. Jon PS Nina, do you remember the poster Matt? Well, he showed up at the discussions in Bangkok. 43899 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 4:13am Subject: Re: Vipassana htootintnaing Dear Ken H, Thanks for your comments. First I have to recollect who is Ken O and who is Ken H. Now, I am talking to Ken H. With regards, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Dear Htoo, Thanks for this post on vipassana. I have added some comments to it, including a few points of disagreement. I hope you - or anyone else - will correct them where necessary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am happy to deal with what should be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H:>Vipassana is the observation of physical phenomena or mental phenomena that arises within our accessible field of attention, which is our body or our mind in order to know them as they really are. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: And it should be made clear that "phenomena" refers to fleeting nama and rupa, as distinct from concepts (e.g., of postures or breathing). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your adding. But may I ask you 'is panatti phenomenon'? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H: > Purification of moral conduct has to be built up by observing 8 precepts, considerate utilisation of Purification of mind has to set up by following what The Buddha said in 'Dighanikaaya 22 Mahasatipatthana Sutta'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Vipassana must not be regarded as something to be put off until a future time (e.g., when moral conduct has been perfected). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: We can disagree. But let me air. I try to understand what were taught by The Buddha. Commentaries and subcommentaries help understanding. There are atthakathaa, tiikaa, anutiikaa etc. When people exclusively use pure English they misunderstand that commentaries are the works of later generations. I put these words to explain about visuddhimagga. No one says this is the step one, this is the step two etc. I said 4 kinds of siila. 1. patimokkhasamvara siila ( for lay people 8 precepts) But when vipassana is being practised there are actually more than 8 precepts. 2. aajiivapaarisuddhi siila ( living on pure living ) 3. paccayasannissita siila ( contemplation on utilization ) 4. indriyasamvara siila ( all vipassana movements help this ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Sammavayama or right effort is essential. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Samma-vayama should not be seen as a preparatory step. It exists in the actual moment of vipassana - co-arising with samma-ditthi, samma- sankappa, samma-sati and samma-samadhi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: What I see here is 'it has jumped to magga-citta'. What I stressed is that loose practice is not a good effort. Example is someone is thinking logically and happy with his or her own thinking power. Here I would like to say a Myanmar saying that 'Snakes see the feet of snakes'. Vipassana practitioners know vipassana practitioners. When happy with own logic may assumed as a kusala, on the other hand, it might well be a subtle lobha. I wrote this topic 'Vipassana' to help people who have potentials. I also posted to this DSG group. Because this is a group where 'formal sitting' is not accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Purification of moral conduct does need to be built up and then one has to go to a forest or to at the foot of a tree or to where there is quiet like a cave or deserted house or building. >Sit in with a posture, which will support the body for a long time, during which sati or mindfulness and panna or wisdom might develop. Viriya or effort support both of these good characters (sati and panna). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: The only posture required for vipassana is the present posture - whatever (and wherever) that happens to be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I was just going through 'what The Buddha said'. 'Arinnagato va rukkhamulagato va sunnagato va...' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > 1. The body has to be observed continuously. (Kaayaanupassana > satipatthana) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: I'm not familiar with this aspect of vipassana. Are you saying there needs to be an unbroken stream of vipassana cittas (similar to the stream of jhana cittas)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am not thinking. I was going through practical instructions. Sabbe dhamma anattaa. So it is totally impossible to do unbroken stream of vipassana cittas. Even jhana cittas are anatta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H continued: Apart from that, I would reiterate that the real body - a single rupa - cannot be continuously observed. It can be observed by, at most, one process of cittas (lasting about one billionth of a second). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I was talking practical matter. I was not discussing abhidhamma. The Buddha talked in Suttas using conventional language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > When eyes are shut, ears ignore sounds, nose ignores > inconspicuous smell, tongue ignores inconspicuous taste the only > door which perceive sense will be body-door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: The sense doors are paramattha dhammas and should not be confused with concepts of eyes, ears, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again, I am not talking abhidhamma or theory here in this post of 'Vipassana'. I am talking practical matters. The above sentence is my comment. I am not thinking on paramattha dhamma. When sitting meditation is carried out, eyes are closed. Mind is initially directed to bodily movement of breath. That is why I said other 4 doors are shut. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: When the Buddha taught "mindfulness of rupa" he was not referring exclusively to tactile rupa. There can be mindfulness of any rupa (at any of the six doors). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Which sutta says 'above sentences'? I was just going through Mahasatipatthana Sutta and giving my comments. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: I don't know why you are talking about 'closing down sense doors' in connection with vipassana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am commenting rather than 'talking to close down'. When vipassana practitioners sit in and practise according to mahasatipatthana sutta, He will choose a quiet place. ( Arinnagato va rukkhamulagato va sunnagato va nissidi..) It is yes, possible to know paramattha dhamma in the middle of daily activities. Someone who want to do so can do according to their wish. But I am talking on vipassana, mahasatipatthana and giving comments on mahasatipatthana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > In this body-door there are many many sites that the mind can > be attended. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Yes, although actually, there is only one body-door. It can be seen to correspond to any site on the conceptual body. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Conceptual body is much much more complex. Conceptual sense organs are endless in the body. What Dhamma will call 'pathavi' have many many sense receptors. These sense receptors do have nerve firbes which have different speeds of conduction and different destination inside the brain. But mind-watchers will see the mind goes through eye door, ear door, nose door, tongue door, and body door and finally mind-door. The Buddha is not a reductionist but One who discovered the way of liberation. The Buddha did preach 6 doors and one of them is kaya- dvara or body-door. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > But breathing is a natural and continuous phenomena and it > is quite natural to attend the breath. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: It should also be noted that vipassana does not require any *preparatory* attending (purposeful directing of attention). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Any learning need preparatory things. Aasevana paccaya. Many Buddhas in their past lives heard Dhamma from foregoing Buddhas. I would take 'purposeful' here as chanda. Without chanda, no one will practise vipassana. So purposeful directing of attention is needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Everyone knows 'he knows when his breath is long as long and > knows when his breath is short as short'. But what Bhikkhu is > directing is not the word 'breath' but 'the phenomenon of movement' > or vayo-dhatu which is ultimate reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: In amongst moments of body-door consciousness, there are moments of (five) other kinds of consciousness. All of those moments contain paramattha dhammas potentially suitable as objects for right understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again, I am talking practical vipassana. I am not citing abhidhamma. I do know different vithi varas and different cittas. And ordinary people will never see any single citta. I am going through mahasatipatthana. I am not discussing abhidhamma in 'Vipassana'. When vipassana is being practised in sitting, the mind initially concentrates on body-movement of breathing. This is the portion of kaayaanupassana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Bhikkhu is breathing mindfully and he knows his breath from the start to the end and he knows the whole breath. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: This seems to be another reference to "continuous vipassana." Surely it would be an extraordinarily advanced bhikkhu who could practice vipassana exclusively for billions of successive mind-moments (on billions of individual dhammas). (?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again, what I see here is 'it has jumped on abhidhamma'. I am talking on Vipassana in reference to mahasatipatthana and giving comments on mahasatipatthana with reference to my practical experience. Here I just quoted what The Buddha said. 'Sabba kaaya patisanvedii assassamiiti sikkhati'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > When Bhikkhu breathes, he has not to breath forcefully or very > very gently. But he has to breathe naturally. Some practitioners > would say this as 'bare attention'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Any effort (gentle or forceful) to control the arising of vipassana would be wasted (wrong) effort. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: May or may not be. Because some tradition instructs to breathe slowly and then slowly change to fast breathing and then very gently and then forcibly. This method may suit to some individual. But what I have been talking was what is described by The Buddha in Mahasatipatthana Sutta, which is preached at Kuruu. 'Passambhayam..' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > When forced breathing happens to arise, just note it as forced- > breathing. Actually, before this forced-breathing there was a mind > which has some forms of defilement and causing forced-breathing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: The same applies to forced sitting, forced walking, forced concentrating etc. Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at any time in daily life. Ignorance (of the 4NT's) is the one thing that can prevent it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Did The Buddha say so? If yes, please quote which sutta says this? Did The Buddha say 'Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at any time in daily life'? I did not say any force sitting, force walking, forced concentrating etc. I just quoted what The Buddha said in mahasatipatthana sutta. 'Arinnagato va rukkhamulagato va sunnagato va nissidi.m....' Even the most matured Sammasambuddha-to-be had ignorance of 4 NT before arising of asavakkhaya nana. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Just before changing of the posture there arises a mind > which wants to change the existing posture. Just note it as 'wanting > to change' or 'wanting to stand' or 'wanting to sit' or 'wanting to > lie down'. > > Because of these changes, The Buddha continued to noting of postures > (iriyaapatha pabba). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: When concepts such as posture are experienced at the mind door there cannot be vipassana, however, panna can know those concepts as concepts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am not talking abhidhamma in 'Vipassana' post. What I was saying is in mahasatipatthana sutta and these are The Buddha's words. Reference: Iriyapatha pabba of kaayaanupassana in mahasatipatthana sutta Digha nikaaya Mahavagga. Mahasatipatthana sutta contains materials for vipassana. When walk, know walk, when stand, know stand, when sit, know sit, when lie down, know lie down. My comment is that when Vipassana practitioners become mature they will most of the time at present and will know when walk as walk, sit as sit, stand as stand, lie as lie. These are my conventional words. If I use abhidhamma, they will be perceiving vayo-photthabbarammana. Walking ---> lift..raise..move & swing..land..foot..body-swing..stand on a foot..lift.. ( he will be perceiving vayo-photthabba). I am not talking any 'pannatti' or 'paramattha' dhamma in 'Vipassana' post. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > When want to stand up, just note 'want to stand'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Only panna can note concepts as concepts. I think any ritualistic noting such as, "Want to stand," would be an indicator of wrong view. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Do you mean all vipassana teachers in this world are teaching to their student 'wrong view'? Mogoke, Shwe Kyin, SunLun, Pa Auk, Way Bhu, U Ba Khin-SN Goenka all teach how to meditate. Are they teaching 'wrong view'? My vipassana teacher just says 'you do practise and do not waste time'. I am thinking to stop posting. But my wish to help other understand hinder not to leave communication. There was a Sayadaw. He was very very very good at Dhamma preaching. His teacher prohibited him not to preach anything for 10 years and to practise in those 10 years. Sayadaw did what his teacher suggested. I posted 'Vipassana' at this DSG especially. Because 'formal meditation' is denied here, I think. What I perceive is that The Buddha did not say any formal or informal. But later generations invented these 2 words to cover their laziness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Then through out the whole movement just note every possible > movement. Now sitting has been changed to standing up position. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: I think only worldling meditation-teachers would teach this kind of noting. If it had any efficacy, the Buddha would have taught it ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Suttas are summaries as Ananda summarised as he heard from The Buddha and arahats. 84000 is too many for ordinary lay people. If such inclusion is involved then there will not be no time to finish to recite and there will not be enough space to put texts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > The Buddha continued, 'When going, Bhikkhu knows he is > going', 'standing as standing' 'lying as lying' 'sitting as sitting'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: And don't the meditation teachers seize upon those few words! To interpret them as prescriptions for ritualistic practice is to disregard the (voluminous) remainder of the Pali Canon. The ancient commentators were quick to explain that 'going' did not refer to the conventional meaning of 'going.' They pointed out that, not only uninstructed worldlings but also "dogs and jackals," could be mindful of 'going' in the conventional sense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Meditation teachers are mostly bhikkhus. There are instructions, there is time for vipassana meditators to practise, there is time for preaching Dhamma, there is time for interview what Vipassana meditators discovered during meditation and discussion on obstacles and correction of misconcepts, misunderstanding and many other things. Meditators are not readers and not thinkers. They are meditators. They are not doing any rituals but they are following The Buddha's instructions through the media of The Sangha. Those who never meditates but goes for golf-playing, swimming, driving, horse-riding, having sex, reading, reflecting and thinking themselves as having right view are not staying what The Buddha wanted as he preached mahasatipatthana sutta. Mindfulness with wisdom attending on daily activities are good. Meditators are also doing daily activities. Meditators are following what The Buddha instructed in mahasatipatthana sutta and they are noting on daily activities.. such as 'holding the dressing' 'bending' 'stretching' etc. This is what The Buddha taught in 'sampajanna pabba of kaayaanupassana in dighanikaaya mahasatipatthana sutta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > All these are real phenomena and ultimate realities (movements, > heat, hardness-firmness-softness). > > So these are noting of bodily events (kaayaanupassana satipatthana). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Yes, that is what the Buddha taught. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Here you happily agreed. Because I used abhidhamma. But The Buddha did not teach in mahasatipatthana in this way. There are many other teachings on Dhamma. But methodwise 'mahasatipatthana is the only way to attainment of higher nana'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Can we agree that no insight can possibly be gained from practising conventional mindfulness (of 'going' 'standing' lying' 'sitting' etc.)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I can and equally I cannot. Because maturity in individual is not the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Meditation may be disturbed from outside (environment) or from > inside (loss of mindfulness and switching on wandering). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Jhana meditation can be disturbed because it requires a continuous stream of mind-door cittas. But vipassana involves only one moment at a time. The only citta processes that exclude the immediate possibility of vipassana are those in which concepts (such as posture or breathing) are the objects. Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: To be honest, I was talking on Vipassana, going through mahasatipatthana and discussing practical matters. I was not thinking. I was not discussing abhidhamma in 'Vipassana' post. Thank you very much for your kind comments on the post 'Vipassana' and anyone is invited if they wish to discuss Vipassana. And I will be looking forward to seeing further comments on remaining part of the post 'Vipassana'. With warm regards, Htoo Naing 43900 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 5:00am Subject: Dhamma Thread (289) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 4 arupa jhanas 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana Aakaasanancaayatana arupa jhana is discussed in the Dhamm Thread 288. 'Vinnaanancayatana' Vinnaana + anca + ayatana Here vinnaana the word means 'aakaasanancayatana arupa jhana citta'. Aayatana has been explained in Dhamma Thread 288. It means 'the place to live' 'the edifice to dwell' 'the ground to stand on'. Ca means related. Aakaasa is the object of 1st arupa jhana citta called aakaasanancayatana arupa jhana kusala citta. That akasa or space is not the conventioanl space that we know. That space is boundless space derived from the object of 4th rupa jhana of kasina origin. Thaana means 'place'. Thaanii means 'place dweller'. Thaana or the place aakaasa is boundless. Likewise the mind who takes that aakaasa as object can be assumed as boundless. When this is assume and aakaasa or space is detached from the arupa jhana there arise 2nd arupa jhana citta. It is boundless cittas or boundless-consciousness. As aakaasa is limitless, the cittas that see aakaasa is also limitless and boundless. As soon as 2nd arupa jhana citta arise aakaasa or space is no more the object of arupa jhana here. The object is 1st arupa jhana cittas. These 1st arupa jhana cittas are known or seen by 2nd arupa jhana cittas. 2nd arupa jhana citta is seeing the limitlessness and boundlessness of 1st arupa jhana cittas. As they are object, these object vinnaana (1st arupa jhana cittas) become the home of 2nd arupa jhana citta and this jhana is called vinnaananca-ayatana arupa jhana. 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. 43901 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 7:48am Subject: How to see the world htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, We are in this world. We can sense the world through our five senses. This is fact and not of anyone opinion. We have been in this world since we were born. And we will still be living in this world as long as our chance allows us to live. And we will definitely be leaving this world no doubt. The whole matter is clear and there is nothing to argue on this proposition. As we have been living, there were many many people who had lived in this world on this earth. When they were living they were striving for their lives and their continuing existence. Some merely did for their sake. But some left invaluable facts through their experience and their wisdom. There have been many many branches of science and arts that study their respective subject matters. Along with the advancement of technology there have been many recorded materials on each of selective subject. Some subjects are still going advanced and research is being performed on each subject matter. These subjects seem to be endless. But whatever these subjects are leading and behaving, everything will fall into one of the four dhamma unltimately. Any given fact will be one of these four dhamma or four ultimate realities. These four ultimate realities are also known as paramattha dhamma or paramattha sacca or ultimate truth or universal truth. Because these four dhamma or these four nature are always true at any given time and at any place and in any era. There are complex relations between these four ultimate realities. These relations can be studied in the Buddha Abhidhamma and the most complex and highly respectable dhamma among The Buddha Abhidhamma is patthana. To understand patthana, four ultimate realities or paramattha dhamma should first be understood in detail. Before going into some detail, it will be a good idea to have a bird- eye view on these four paramattha dhamma. Everything that we can see, we can hear, we can smell, we can taste, we can sense through our body and we can reason out through our working mind will fall into four categories. These four categories are 1. citta or consciousness or state of mind or state of consciousness or awareness, 2. cetasika or mental factor or mind conditioner, 3. rupa or matter or material or non-conscious nature, and 4. nibbana or absolute peace or total extinguishment of all fire including lobha or craving, dosa or hatred or aversion, and moha or ignorance or delusion. To remeber easily and to be simple, there are only these four things in the whole universe. They are citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana. There is nothing more than these four dhamma in terms of ultimate sense. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 43902 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 8:22am Subject: Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > Nina: I agree with Joop. No need to be afraid to hurt people on this > list by another opinion. Here we have free exchanges and one can > always learn from this. > > James: I really don't think this description accurately portrays the > dynamics of this group. True, one can express his/her opinion, but > if that opinion contradicts the opinion of other members (most > specifically the leaders) then that `blasphemer' will find him or > herself bombarded and bullied with opposing posts. ... Dear James Yes, you are hurt. I remember somebody said something not so nice to you but I thought that had only to do with a (temporary) temper, and not about things you said. But I have not paid enough attention to it. I'm too much an anarchist to see somebody as a leader (of DSG); there are moderators and some nestors and some devotees. OK, that's a kind of core that is rather orthodox Theravada and sometimes fundamentalists (I call them Buddhaghosians). But they are nice and can be trusted: today they say A as they say A yesterday and will say A tomorrow. Even if I write I don't believe in rebirth and not in 29 of the 31 realms, I'm not called a blasphemist. It's true that nearly every week again I think to end my participation because there is no dynamics at all in this group; but then I read one nice allinea or something inspires to to write my own thought about spirituality and than I continue. But maybe I have not understood you well; and in fact I don't know what are your unorthodox views, so your letter made me curious (and a little sad) Metta Joop 43903 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 8:23am Subject: Re:Buddha Nature And Skilful Means jwromeijn Dear all In an essay titled The Significance Of 'Tathagatagarbha' (=Buddha- Nature) Heng-Ching Shih explains: "The well-known motto of Ch'an Buddhism is that "perceiving the true self, one becomes a Buddha." The "true self" signifies the Buddha nature inherent in all sentient beings. The discovering of the "true self" has become the single most important pursuit of the Buddhist, especially in Sino-Japanese Buddhism. On the contrary, early Buddhism teaches that ultimately no substantial self (i.e., 'anatman') can be found, since the self is nothing but the union of the five aggregates. Modern Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been intrigued by the inconsistency that one single tradition teaches both that there is no self on the one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to discover the true self, on the other hand." One of his answers: "… the Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self ('atman'); rather, it is a positive language and expression of 'sunyata' (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In other words, the intention of the teaching of 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical." Some of this language may be to mahayanistic to some dsg-readers, but the word SOTERIOLOGICAL must be well known. Isn't it so that many things in the Sutta (in fact: everything) should not primarely be understood in a litteral way but in a soteriological way: to avoid the bad and do the good? For example the idea that rupa = matter so that the theory of rupa =physics, is naive; it's how perceiving rupa can lead to desire and attachment. In fact Theravada is using 'skilful means' (another very Mahayana word) too. It is for example admitted that the Abhidhamma-texts are to difficult for many of the followers of the Buddha. Perhaps readers know more (and better examples) Metta Joop 43904 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 9:09am Subject: Re: The Brain on Dhamma sunnaloka Hi Matthew, Good to see you carefully avoiding reductionist error in the following: > consciousness is an > emergent property of neural processes in the brain, just as > "liquidity" or "wetness" is an emergent property of water. No > individual H2O molecule is "wet," but at a higher level of > organization, novel properties like "liquidity" emerge.[...] > Consciousness is more than a > network of neurons -- although those are its parts. So far so good. I agree completely. But then you make two contradictory statements. This first statement: > (there is nothing > "more" to consciousness, no "mind-stuff" or ghost in the machine), contradicts: > nevertheless its sum is greater than the individual parts. The sum *is* greater than its parts. Consciousness as a phenomenon `is more than' its component material processes precisely because it has interior subjectivity/depth, which its parts could never have because they are of a lower level of organization. That is, they are exterior surface phenomena. No molecule or even complex arrangement of molecules `possesses' consciousness. Consciousness is a higher order phenomenon, which in human beings is capable of not only appreciating the organic complexity of the human brain, but is also capable of employing fantastic qualitative measurements involving logic and truth status and ethical priority, etc.. But this doesn't (necessarily) make consciousness any more real than brain. Consciousness, because it is dependent upon it's parts, is therefore empty of any inherently existing own-nature (to use Madhyamika phrasing). Just as the brain is dependent upon cells. And cells are dependent upon molecules. Molecules on atoms. Atoms, quarks. Quarks ??? (Apparently though quarks are somewhat schizophrenic, sometimes behaving like waves, other times particles... but you probably know more about physics than I.) The point is that every emergent holon is dependent upon parts, and every emergent holon is also a part of a higher order holon, all the way up and all the way down. All phenomena are dependently originated, and therefore empty of inherent existence (i.e. own- being: sabhaava). Usually I'd be couching this discussion in Abhidhamma phenomenal terms, but the same principle is at work if we examine the workings of physics. And because every holon (i.e. phenomenon) is dependent upon parts, but is more than just the sum of its parts, it is `neither inherently the same as nor inherently different than' its parts. Consciousness is neither the same as nor different than the brain. It isn't inherently different because it depends on the brain. It isn't inherently the same because it has the emergent property of interior subjectivity/depth that its parts don't have. If it were `inherently' the same as its parts, that is, if it were intrinsic to its parts, it would remain with its parts even when those parts are dissected and laid out on the table. Another way of saying the same thing is that it would never exhibit emergent properties that its parts don't possess individually. Thus, as I've been trying to express all along, it's a reductionist error to assert that consciousness and the brain are the same phenomenon. They are not. Consciousness possesses interior depth phenomena: contemplative systems/ethics/logic/physics equations /etc./etc., while the brain possesses exterior surface phenomena: chemical secretions/electrical impulses/molecules/atoms/etc./etc.. These interior and exterior phenomena are interdependent, and there is a direct one-to-one correlation of functioning as you quite correctly assert, but they are not identical phenomena. And the sciences which deal with each (interior/exterior phenomena) have different units of measurement. The interior `soft sciences' use value systems (measurements) such as ethics, logic, psychology, and contemplation. These value systems define why compassion is an ethically higher (more valuable) social response than aggression for example. The exterior `hard sciences' use value systems (measurements) based primarily on mathematics. And while a neuroscientist can detect the exterior correlations of a discursive thought, and can probably detect whether the test subject believes that the thought is true or false, that neurologist, using all his/her machines and methodologies and measurements, will never be able to discern the logical truth status of the test subjects discursive thought, nor even the content of the thought. So while the hard sciences may make some welcome contributions to the contemplative sciences, I really don't think that they'll do a whole lot, because of the subjective phenomenological and psychological complexity of the enterprise regarding not only the regulation of 'mental states' (i.e. meditation), but much more importantly regarding ethics and discernment of truth status. Cognitive science would have a very difficult time either measuring the existential value of, or explaining the experiential discernment of, the Four Noble Truths. I'd like to go further with this conversation and discuss how refuting the reification of time, duration, and spatial location, after one has come to the conclusion stated above (that consciousness can't be reduced to brain), leaves open the rather counter-intuitive possibility of involution (consciousness to matter) as well as (and not in opposition to) the seemingly more rational possibility of evolution (matter to consciousness), but I'm off to a study/meditation retreat for a couple of weeks. It's been good conversing with you Matthew, take care. Oh, I almost forgot. You said: > I would argue that there is no "who." No self, no problem. We're finally in complete agreement:-)) Geoff 43905 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:thinking processes. nilovg op 01-04-2005 02:39 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@...: > > N: Firm sanna is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn > again and again about nama and rupa, about their different > characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and > intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, it can be > immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need > to say it or define it. > > T: Does it follow that we have to develop sanna first as the condition > for sati to arise? N: We can remember what we have understood, we do not forget. When we listen carefully, and consider the Dhamma we have heard, intellectual understanding grows, and this is accompanied by kusala sañña that performs its function. I sometimes say, it has to sink in. What we learn is accumulated. We do not need to do anything special to develop sañña. T: If it does, then which kinds of sanna are needed? N: Saññaa has different meanings in different contexts. Let us first go to the Vis text, I repost from my Vis studies: We know that contact (phassa) is a cause > of perception, according to AN VI.63, Nibbedhika Sutta.... > There are several kinds of sanna that are in the class of the > "perception of ideas" discussed in the Nibbedhika Sutta. For example, > in AN X.60, Girimananda Sutta, 10 perceptions are defined: 'Which ten? > The perception of inconstancy,.... N: In this case sañña is insight. It can stand for insight. The Co to the Mahaarahulovadasutta states: We have learnt the expressions attaa-saññaa and anattaa-saññaa. When there is attaa-saññaa, we think of ourselves as sitting, or our arms, legs, etc. Whereas when there is anattaa-saññaa, it means that one has learnt that what we take for self are only nama and rupa. Saññaa sometimes stands for citta. The asañña-satta plane : the plane where there is no nama, only rupa. Or the Co to the Mahaanidaana Sutta (transl by B.B.), My eye falls on your quote: of cessation, the perception of distaste for every world, the > perception of the undesirability of all fabrications,...> I heard this morning on MP 3 some reminders about lobha. Because I think we should realize the lobha right now before there can be perception of the undesirability of all fabrications. end quote. Nina. 43906 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,150 nilovg Dear Htoo, It depends on the context. It can be chanda raga. I am just studying the tiika that mentions tanhaa, but it can also refer to kusala viriya. In a day or so I shall come along with the Tiika text. Nina. op 01-04-2005 12:28 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > But once I found a web > site > who wrote that this desire is tanha and The Buddha and arahats had > tanha for nibbana. And the writer accuses that Theravadan invent a > word > called 'chanda'. 43907 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 0:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 matheesha333 Hello Mike, That is a very interesting quote. Sorry for not commenting earlier but life gets in the way :) What is this 'Dispeller'? metta matheesha 43908 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 4:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhistmeditat... Hi Joop, LK and Nina - This message answers the previous messages # 43869, 43873 and 43874. LK : I will humbly refuse to go any futher into this topic, which I believe could cause something negative in and around us if I dig deep into. T: When you write to me, please dig as deep as you'd like too; it is the only way to find out who knows or doesn't know. To know that we don't know something (that is important) is the first step towards fruitful learning. Nina: Afterwards we had more discussions also about other texts. It appeared that in other contexts each citta is pure. Citta just experiences an object, that is its nature. T: I think the Mahayana view also states that the original citta (or mind) was also a pure consciousness. It is interesting to notice that because of mental fashionings, which are simply a condition of the mind, it may appear that many cittas are arising and passing away. Joop: Tep, I think I had to disappoint you; on two levels The first - and less important - is that I personally don't 'believe' in Buddha Nature, I really think the anatta-principle is the truth. T: Anatta is also the Truth of the Mahayana Buddhism in which the only thing that is unconditioned is the Budha Nature. That is my understanding. Joop: The second is that after study of some weeks I really don't think the concept Buddha-Nature can be translated or explained in Abhidhamma-words. Buddha-Nature is not a citta, not a cetasika, not a rupa and not nibbana. Tep: Actually there is no contradiction between the Mahayana Buddhism and the Tipitaka (including the Abhidhamma Pitaka), because Mahayana Buddhism is based on the same Buddha's Teachings we know. The only difference is the concept of the Buddha Nature and its interpretation. Joop: There are many words for expressing the same idea, 'devine spark' in or innate goodness' of a human being are just two of them. And not only sentient beings, even plants and rocks have Buddha-Nature, so say some Zen people (but not me!) T: I must admit that such belief, i.e. the Buddha Nature is in all things, is beyond me too. This disbelief is a proof that I am not a Mahayana Buddhist, just a Buddhist without a label. By the way, Phra Ajaan Mun Bhuridatta Thera clearly explained the primal mind and luminosity as follows (§10 of "A Heart Released"). "The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits -- passing defilements -- come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds. Don't go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. "So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly, as explained in the strategies of clear insight, § 9. When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won't be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf ". [endquote] Thank you for the communication. Kindest regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Dear Nina, Tep and 'Lokuttaracitta' (and all). > > Tep, I think I had to disappoint you; on two levels 43909 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 5:02pm Subject: Re:thinking processes. buddhistmeditat... Dear Nina - Thank you very much for your excellent reply. N: The four Applications of Mindfulness include all naamas and ruupas that can be the objects of mindfulness. When they have become the objects or bases for sati they are the proximate cause of mindfulness. The four Applications of Mindfulness remind us that naama and ruupa occurring in daily life are the objects of mindfulness. We are reminded to be aware of naama and ruupa no matter whether we are walking, standing, sitting of lying down. Also when akusala citta arises it can be object of mindfulness, it is classified under the Application of Mindfulness of citta. One should learn to see citta in citta and not take akusala citta for self. N: We have learnt the expressions attaa-saññaa and anattaa-saññaa. When there is attaa-saññaa, we think of ourselves as sitting, or our arms, legs, etc. Whereas when there is anattaa-saññaa, it means that one has learnt that what we take for self are only nama and rupa. Saññaa sometimes stands for citta. The asañña-satta plane : the plane where there is no nama, only rupa. N: I heard this morning on MP 3 some reminders about lobha. ... T: This wonderful message clearly and effectively explains the essential relationships between sati, kusala sañña, nama&rupa as the objects of satipatthana, and the application of mindfulness of citta. I appreciate this Dhamma discussion also because it is verifiable by my own experience. Kindest regards, Tep May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused; your mind centered and unified. AN III.40: Adhipateyya Sutta ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 01-04-2005 02:39 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > > > > N: Firm sanna is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn > > again and again about nama and rupa, about their different > > characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and > > intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, it can be > > immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need > > to say it or define it. > > 43910 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Update from your roaming moderators jonoabb Hello again, All Just to add that we are using our time in Koh Samui to edit the recording of the discussions that took place in Bangkok, and will be uploading something to the website in due course. Jon PS For those who were concerned about loss of functions on the website, please note that all former options are now available again, including numbers for messages in 'Expanded' view, and the option to sort by ascending or descending date order (click on the 'Date' link at the top of the right -hand column). --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hello All > > We are having a few days at Koh Samui before heading back to Hong Kong. > Arrived here this morning. Internet connection dodgy, so will keep this > short. > > Sarah says hi and says to mention she has lots of material from the > discussions in Bangkok to bring up when she resumes posting back in HK. > Many DSG topics were covered in the talks (including some of the old > standards such as luminous ;-)). > > We are enjoying the ongoing discussions on the list. Keep up the good > work everyone. > > Jon > > PS Nina, do you remember the poster Matt? Well, he showed up at the > discussions in Bangkok. 43911 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 10:41pm Subject: Spoke with Bhikkhu Bodhi last night Re: insight knowledges kelvin_lwin Hi Andrew, I think it would bode well for you to check your attitude that you're meditating with. Seems a bit preoccupied with achieving insights and whatever your idea of them is. Of course any contemplation could lead to knowledge and wisdom. It's never about the object itself. BB's point about teacher is well taken but your conclusion is misleading. An experience teacher can prevent someone from getting sidetracked or get immersed in objects. It doesn't say anything about what insights one can achieve on their own or with a teacher. Everyone has to walk the path themselves anyway. - kel 43912 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta jonoabb Hi James Sorry you feel you've been 'victimised'. I know you'd like to be a 'favourite' instead ;-)) It's quite easy, really, just repeat after me: 'Seeing and visible object, ...'. Just kidding, of course. The problem is I think that we are discussing deeply held views about matters that we consider more important than anything else, so there is bound to be annoyance or frustration when those views are seriously questioned. Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Hi Nina, > > Nina: I agree with Joop. No need to be afraid to hurt people on this > list by another opinion. Here we have free exchanges and one can > always learn from this. > > James: I really don't think this description accurately portrays the > dynamics of this group. True, one can express his/her opinion, but > if that opinion contradicts the opinion of other members (most > specifically the leaders) then that `blasphemer' will find him or > herself bombarded and bullied with opposing posts. ... 43913 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance kelvin_lwin Hi KKT, I just heard a mp3 from a Burmese Sayadaw that recounts this story or related one in detail. I'm not claiming to be technically sound with references and all that but I'll give a translation as I understand it. Deva was originally thinking, I know the 4 noble truths and Buddha knows the 4 noble truths. I know you have to cross the ocean of samsara to arrive at nibbana and Buddha knows the same thing. The only difference between him and I is he knows how to swim. So soon as he tells me how to swim, I'll just do it and obtain nibbana. With this, he goes to ask Buddha how to swim. So Buddha replied that he didn't swim which pulled the rug from under the Deva. He was so sure that Buddha swam and all he need was how. His attitude before was one full of conceit as evident by comparing himself to Buddha. The reply took away the basis of that conceit and then he asked the followup question of how one crosses in a humble way. Then Buddha replied by neither standing still or swimming too strenuously. The commentaries go to enumerate what standing still means and swimming etc. Anyway I thought you might want to know how it's explained by one Sayadaw. - kel 43914 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Apr 1, 2005 11:22pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature And Skilful Means kelvin_lwin Hi Joop, I just take it to be more metaphorical than literal. I would say Buddhist religious life is to discover "the true nature". You can call it Buddha nature, true self or whatever but it'll still have to be anatta. It's only inconsistent in my mind to academics who don't understand the actual practice. - kel 43915 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 1:02am Subject: Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhatrue Hi Joop, Joop: Yes, you are hurt. James: Oh, I wouldn't go that far- not hurt in the way that you think of it. I was simply expressing the reality of the dynamics of this group as I see them. When Nina describes this group as being open to all ideas and interpretations of the Buddha's teaching, I consider that to be a joke. Am I fed up with this group? Yes. The reason I am fed is because I believe the moderators have turned it into their personal soap box, a stage for propagating their ideas and agendas (or maybe it was their personal soap box all along and I never really noticed until now). Am I hurt? Well, I feel like I have broken off a relationship that is no longer working for me- like when one breaks up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. I have come to the realization that DSG doesn't have my best interests at heart and that it would be better for me to move on. Does that involve some hurt? Yes, but not a deep hurt. In other words, I will get over it. ;-) Joop: OK, that's a kind of core that is rather orthodox Theravada and sometimes fundamentalists (I call them Buddhaghosians). But they are nice and can be trusted James: Yes, the `Buddhaghosians' are the ones I mainly refer to; and, no, they cannot be trusted. Whatever you do, don't trust them. They do not have your best interests at heart. Joop: today they say A as they say A yesterday and will say A tomorrow. James: Yes, and they will run over whoever says B. Joop: Even if I write I don't believe in rebirth and not in 29 of the 31 realms, I'm not called a blasphemist. James: No, I wouldn't suspect you would be: you are off their radar. (BTW, Buddhism doesn't make much sense without rebirth). Joop: It's true that nearly every week again I think to end my participation because there is no dynamics at all in this group; James: Yes, you are right. The posts have become increasingly monotonous and redundant. As I have said before, and I will say it again, the posts are much better in quality and depth when the leaders aren't around to control and overshadow things. Joop: But maybe I have not understood you well; and in fact I don't know what are your unorthodox views, so your letter made me curious (and a little sad) James: I don't think I really have `unorthodox' views, I just have anti-DSG views. And don't be sad; I am fine. I will survive! ;-). Metta, James 43916 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 nilovg Hi Matheesha, Mike is sometimes traveling and I do not know he can answer soon. op 01-04-2005 22:45 schreef matheesha op dhammachat@...: > Hello Mike, > That is a very interesting quote. What is this 'Dispeller'? N: The Co. to the Vibhanga, the Second Book of the Abhidhamma. It is the Sammohavinodanii, the Dispeller of Delusion, PTS translation. Very good, to be recommended. I lost the text but I gave some comments you may not have seen. It is about the three beginning stages of insight, and also about the development of understanding before these stages are reached. Understanding the four great elements, this is so basic, they pertain to daily life. See the Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint. Hradness, heat, motion or pressure, they appear all the time, also now. Then there are the coarse rupas such as visible object, eyesense, sound, earsense. Rupas are coarser than namas. This does not mean that there is a certain fixed order of objects of awareness. It is actually the order of teaching. When sound appears, there is also hearing, but hearing is more subtle. Still, if understanding of hearing is not developed, we take it for self: I hear, my hearing. The difference between the characteristic of rupa and of nama is to be developed first of all, so that the first stage of tender insight can be reached. It all shows that Abhidhamma is for practice, it teaches what the objects of insight are, just as the suttas. Visible object, seein, sound, hearing, clinging, aversion, the suttas speak about these time and again. These are not conventional notions, but ultimate realities. They are true for everybody, they have their own characteristics that cannot be altered. Nina. 43917 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Praise and blame. nilovg Hi James, You sign off with James the Deranged. Hey, so long as we are worldlings we are deranged, all of us. op 01-04-2005 09:43 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@...: True, one can express his/her opinion, but if that opinion contradicts the opinion of other members (most > specifically the leaders) then that `blasphemer' will find him or > herself bombarded and bullied with opposing posts. N: I do not know what to answer, but I understand that you wanted to air your feelings. We all have this now and then. Praise and blame, they alternate so fast and are conditioned by kamma. They last just for a moment and are then gone, but I find that I am involved in stories about: this person praises me and that one blames me. This is natural, but through understanding I can gradually unlearn such attitude. Understanding that there are only conditioned dhammas which are non-self. We read in the suttas: they welcome the gain, they have aversion towards loss. That happens all the time, but it is hard not to. This reminds me of something. Not so long ago you gave many sutta references and this was really appreciated. You have many gifts and a very good style of writing. Remember what Phil said to you: you should also show this side of yourself to our profit. I do not only think of your Starkid letters where you explained the Dhamma in a clear, simple way, but also your sutta threads which were very good. Keep up the good work! Nina. 43918 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,150 htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > It depends on the context. It can be chanda raga. I am just studying the > tiika that mentions tanhaa, but it can also refer to kusala viriya. In a day > or so I shall come along with the Tiika text. > Nina. > op 01-04-2005 12:28 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: ---------------------- Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. Tiika is good. Anutiika is also good to learn. With respect, Htoo Naing 43919 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:41am Subject: Dhamma Thread (290) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Among 4 arupa jhanas of 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana, the first two arupa jhana have been discussed in the previous posts. When 2nd arupa jhana or 'vinnaanancaayatana jhana' has been obtained, through the scrutinization (paccavakkhana vasi), this arupa jhana, which has the object 1st arupa jhana vinnana is still close to the danger of rupa. To overcome this possible danger, the new object that is 1st arupa jhana has to be dropped and the arupa jhana labhi has to practise without any object. But this seems impossible. Still there is possibility. That is the object become a concept, which is nothingness. When this new object, nothingness can be taken as an object and there is stillness with just ekaggata cetasika or one-pointedness with upekkha vedana then there arises the 3rd arupa jhana called aakincinnaayatana arupa jhana. Akincinnaayatana = akinci + inna + ayatana Akinci means 'nothing'. -inna means 'related' and aayatana here means 'dwelling place' 'housing' 'home' 'ground' or any combination of these meanings. 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. 43920 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:50am Subject: Dhamma Thread (291) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana When akincinnaayatana arupa jhana or 3rd arupa jhana has been obtained, the arupa jhana practitioner has to practise it to become proficient in 3rd arupa jhana. The citta which directs the object of 3rd arupa jhana is the 3rd arupa jhana citta or 3rd arupakusala citta. The object is 'nothingness', which is known as 'natthibho pannatta'. Natthi means 'nothing'. Bhava or bhavo means 'existence'. So 'natthibhavo' or 'natthibho' means 'nothing existed'. When the object of 2nd arupa jhana is dropped and when it is ready to develop 3rd arupa jhana there arises nothing. This citta is so subtle that without panna or wisdom its existence is hard to know. This is a point why one of the 2 teachers of Boddhisatta ceased to progress at that 3rd arupa jhana. 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. 43921 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 3:11am Subject: Re: Vipassana kenhowardau Dear Htoo, There are so many questions and comments arising from your vipassana posts, I will have to snip a lot out. ------- > > Ken H: And it should be made clear that "phenomena" refers to fleeting nama and rupa, as distinct from concepts (e.g., of postures or breathing). > > > Htoo: Thanks for your adding. But may I ask you 'is panatti phenomenon'? -------- KH: I am surprised that you would ask this. Perhaps you are having a joke with me. Pannatti is not a physical or mental phenomenon: it the illusion of phenomenon. I think you have agreed in other posts that an illusion cannot be the object of vipassana. An illusion has no inherent characteristics, so it cannot reveal mentality, physicality, conditionality, anicca, dukkha, anatta or any other aspect of ultimate reality. --------------- > > Ken H: Vipassana must not be regarded as something to be put off until a future time (e.g., when moral conduct has been perfected). > > > Htoo: We can disagree. But let me air. I try to understand what were taught by The Buddha. Commentaries and subcommentaries help understanding. There are atthakathaa, tiikaa, anutiikaa etc. When people exclusively use pure English they misunderstand that commentaries are the works of later generations. I put these words to explain about visuddhimagga. > -------------- KH: I am sure there have been commentaries since the very earliest days of the Buddha's teaching. The ones we have, have been translated from Pali to Singhalese and back to Pali, but there is good reason to believe they contain the genuine works of arahants living around the time of the Buddha. ------------------- > > Ken H: Samma-vayama should not be seen as a preparatory step. It exists in the actual moment of vipassana - > Htoo: What I see here is 'it has jumped to magga-citta'. ------------------- KH: I don't think so. Wouldn't you agree that vayama is called "samma" only when it arises in magga-citta or satipatthana- citta? Any other kusala vayama would be called simply, "kusala- vayama," would it not? --------------------------- H: > What I stressed is that loose practice is not a good effort. Example is someone is thinking logically and happy with his or her own thinking power. on the other hand, it might well be a subtle lobha. > --------------------------- KH: You should also have stressed that *strenuous* practice is not good effort. An example is someone sitting stoically and happy with his or her own sitting power. It might be subtle lobha and it might also be wrong view (of control over dhammas - belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual). ----------------------------------- H: > I wrote this topic 'Vipassana' to help people who have potentials. I also posted to this DSG group. Because this is a group where 'formal sitting' is not accepted. ------------------------------------ KH: According to the group's description on our home page, our objective is to study all three Pitakas and the ancient commentaries. It makes no mention of formal sitting being accepted or not accepted. If you believe formal sitting is taught in the texts then it is perfectly appropriate that you say so. You will have noticed that the majority of DSG members believe in formal sitting. Some also believe that the Abhidhamma is a counterfeit document, but no one objects to the participation by those people in DSG discussions. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Ken H: The only posture required for vipassana is the present posture - whatever (and wherever) that happens to be. > > > Htoo: I was just going through 'what The Buddha said'. 'Arinnagato va rukkhamulagato va sunnagato va...' > ------------------------------------------------------- KH: But you neglected to point out that some of the Buddha's disciples used jhana as a vehicle for vipassana, while others developed vipassana on its own. Isn't it true that sitting for long periods with a straight back while living in a cemetery or at the base of a tree applies only to jhana meditators? --------------- > Htoo: I was talking practical matter. I was not discussing abhidhamma. The Buddha talked in Suttas using conventional language. ---------------- KH: There is no inconsistency between the Abhidhamma and any other part of the Dhamma. The Suttas were spoken (mostly) in conventional language, but the meaning is still the same: there is always just the present citta with its cetasikas, object and base. Any interpretation that presents an apparent inconsistency with the Abhidhamma is simply incorrect. Some of the famous meditation teachers have said, "Put away your Abhidhamma books and the ancient commentaries, they will only hinder your meditation." I think all Dhamma students should be highly suspicious of that advice. ----------------- > > Ken H: When the Buddha taught "mindfulness of rupa" he was not referring exclusively to tactile rupa. There can be mindfulness of any rupa (at any of the six doors). > > > Htoo: Which sutta says 'above sentences'? ----------------- KH: Sorry, I am not good at references. There are, of course, the well known Sabbe and Loke Suttas, which deal with the six worlds and how they have to be known. Do you really doubt that visible object or audible object (for example) can be taken as objects of vipassana? I would have thought they were the most likely objects. ---------------------------- H: > I was just going through Mahasatipatthana Sutta and giving my comments. > ---------------------------- KH:I hope one day you will go through it again, describing all the main points in Abhidhamma terminology. I think you are making a big mistake by dividing the Dhamma into, 1) the study of absolute reality and, 2) conventional practice. ---------------------------------------- > Htoo: When vipassana practitioners sit in and practise according to mahasatipatthana sutta, He will choose a quiet place. ( Arinnagato va rukkhamulagato va sunnagato va nissidi..) > -------------------------------------- KH: You disagreed that vipassana should not be regarded as something to be put off until circumstances are more favourable. Then you wrote: ---------------------------- > It is yes, possible to know paramattha dhamma in the middle of daily activities. Someone who want to do so can do according to their wish. But I am talking on vipassana, mahasatipatthana and giving comments on mahasatipatthana. > --------------- KH: Does the following quote from the Mahasatipatthana-sutta describe waiting for quiet surroundings, or it does it describe satipatthana in the present moment regardless of circumstances? "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert." ------------------------------- > > Ken H: It should also be noted that vipassana does not require any *preparatory* attending (purposeful directing of attention). > Htoo: Any learning need preparatory things. Aasevana paccaya. Many Buddhas in their past lives heard Dhamma from foregoing Buddhas. I would take 'purposeful' here as chanda. Without chanda, no one will practise vipassana. So purposeful directing of attention is needed. > ------------------------------- KH: These discussions always come back to the same sticking point: You can't control dhammas! The idea that anyone can purposely make chanda (or sati or any other dhamma) arise is contrary to the doctrine of conditionality. This is a difficult fact for meditation teachers to get around. By insisting on formalised effort, they ignore the teaching of anatta, which is the one thing that makes the Dhamma profound and totally different from every other teaching. ----------------- > Htoo: Again, I am talking practical vipassana. I am not citing abhidhamma. I do know different vithi varas and different cittas. And ordinary people will never see any single citta. I am going through mahasatipatthana. I am not discussing abhidhamma in 'Vipassana'. When vipassana is being practised in sitting, the mind initially concentrates on body-movement of breathing. This is the portion of kaayaanupassana. > ------------------ KH: > I don't want to appear to be lecturing you on Abhidhamma: obviously, you know far more about it than I do. But why would the Buddha teach us to concentrate on a concept (the body-movement of breathing)? That would make sense to a person who knows only conventional reality, but, if you don't mind my saying, it makes no sense to an Abhidhamma student. --------------------- KH: > > Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at any time in daily life. Ignorance (of the 4NT's) is the one thing that can prevent it. > > > Htoo: Did The Buddha say so? If yes, please quote which sutta says this? Did The Buddha say 'Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at any time in daily life'? --------------------- KH: See my above quote from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Also, please give me one example of a moment in conscious life that is not fit to be known with right understanding. ------------------------------- > > Ken H: Only panna can note concepts as concepts. I think any ritualistic noting such as, "Want to stand," would be an indicator of wrong view. > > > Htoo: Do you mean all vipassana teachers in this world are teaching to their student 'wrong view'? Mogoke, Shwe Kyin, SunLun, Pa Auk, Way Bhu, U Ba Khin-SN Goenka all teach how to meditate. Are they teaching 'wrong view'? > -------------------------------- KH: Of those, I am familiar only with SN Goenka, and from what I know of his teaching (having attended one course), yes, it is contrary to the Dhamma. ------------------ H: > My vipassana teacher just says 'you do practise and do not waste time'. I am thinking to stop posting. But ------------------ KH: > When he said, "Do not waste time," was he saying do not engage in pariyatti (association with wise friends, hearing the true Dhamma, wise consideration of the true Dhamma)? Without pariyatti, there can be no right practice. ------------------------------ H: > What I perceive is that The Buddha did not say any formal or informal. But later generations invented these 2 words to cover their laziness. ------------------------------ What I perceive is that the Buddha described the cause of every conditioned dhamma. In none of those causes is there to be found a self (atta or controlling entity). But later generations could not handle such profound truth, and they tried to change the Dhamma into just another, conventional, religion. -------------------------- H: > Thank you very much for your kind comments on the post 'Vipassana' and anyone is invited if they wish to discuss Vipassana. And I will be looking forward to seeing further comments on remaining part of the post 'Vipassana'. =============-------------- Thank you. There is so much to discuss: after two very long replies I have still left half of your first message and half of your second message untouched! Ken H 43922 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 3:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 matheesha333 Hi Nina, I was curious where the quote came from - the text seems show the buddha saying this. I dont recall anything similar in the suttas, which doesnt necessarily mean anyinthing except just that! But it is interesting that the buddha felt that there would be people who would not be able to progress further. In a way experience seems to bear this out. Sometimes however much we try guide and coax others into further practice they do seem to come to a standstill. Maybe it is lack of good kamma or conditions for the arising of insight. I think you approach to no-self/Anatta is slightly different from the way my practice goes. You seem to contemplate everythgin which arises as no self (I think), while the system I pracice in leads to a an arising of this insight by gradual development of panna with one conclusion at the end. I think both are valid approaches. Those with less faith maybe better suited for the method which i practice! Any ideas as why magga-citta phala citta and exact mechanisms detailed in the abhidhamma arent prominent in the suttas? metta matheesha 43923 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 5:05am Subject: Dhamma in the City gazita2002 Hello All, Four days of dhamma discussion and association with good friends in dhamma, cna be a very uplifting time. it can also be a stressful time as "I" still have kilesa [and lots of] and problems arise bec. of kilesa, even with good friends. Quote: 'to know a reality is more beneficial than trying to have kusala' unquote. In fact, to know a reality is kusala. My understanding of the above, is that we can not really know when citta is kusala/akusala unless ther is a moment of awareness - Sati - and understanding to know. otherwise, its guess work - we can have an idea when kusala/akusala arises, e.g. when there is strong dosa, but we don't know the subtler moments of akusala when they arise e.g. liking the taste of a drink but not giving it much attention bec. we are busy talking. This happens many many times in a day and if there is no Sati then there is no knowing these moments. I have more confidence of the value of listening and contemplating what I hear/read in relation to the development of right understanding. Text Vis xiv 141 - It's [Sati] proximate cause is strong perception. I asked A. Sujin for clarification on this point and as Nina has already stated: if one hears over and over again about the nature of realities, and considers over and over again, ther can be firm rememberance of what is studied and this can be a condition for the arising of Sati. It has also become more obvious to me that unless Sati arises , it cannot develop. It, as with all kusala, develops bec it arises and therefore accummulates. We can't make it happen - it has to arise as naturally as seeing - do we make seeing happen, or does it just arise and see? More later, Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. ps. matt, if you are reading this, Atlanta is the name of that hotel. 43924 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Joop) - James, I have close to no psychic ability at all, so I can only make inferences, and my perspective on this is just that - a perspective. It seems to me that a significant part of what you are expressing below is based on your own internal state and is much overstated. I could be publically silent on this, leave the discussion to others, and speak with you about it offlist, but I think that would be a drop cowardly. So, I'll provide some comments below. I hope you understand that this is sent in sincere friendship. In a message dated 4/2/05 4:03:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > Hi Joop, > > Joop: Yes, you are hurt. > > James: Oh, I wouldn't go that far- not hurt in the way that you > think of it. I was simply expressing the reality of the dynamics of > this group as I see them. When Nina describes this group as being > open to all ideas and interpretations of the Buddha's teaching, I > consider that to be a joke. Am I fed up with this group? Yes. The > reason I am fed is because I believe the moderators have turned it > into their personal soap box, a stage for propagating their ideas > and agendas (or maybe it was their personal soap box all along and I > never really noticed until now). Am I hurt? Well, I feel like I > have broken off a relationship that is no longer working for me- > like when one breaks up with a boyfriend or girlfriend. I have come > to the realization that DSG doesn't have my best interests at heart > and that it would be better for me to move on. Does that involve > some hurt? Yes, but not a deep hurt. In other words, I will get > over it. ;-) > -------------------------------------- Howard: When someone has too much emotionally invested in something and also has a somewhat idealized picture of that thing, there is the likelihood of going to the opposite extreme when seeing that the original view wasn't real. That's what seems to me to be happening for you. Certainly this list grew out of the "Khun Sujin experience," and it is only to be expected that the owner-moderators of the list and the other members who have adopted the same (to my mind somewhat idiosyncratic) take on the Dhamma to be emphatic in their presentation of the Dhamma as they understand it. But look at my history here, James. I do not come out of the "Khun Sujin experience," and in fact rather unrelentingly question a great deal of it. Some of my own positions you, yourself, would consider most idiosyncratic, and they widely differ from what you probably consider the "DSG party line." I have been constantly, and quite vocally, disagreeing with Jon, Sarah, the two "Kens" especially ;-)), and others on a variety of matters, and I have not always done so gently, sometimes criticizing what I have called an attitude of "hopelessness and helplessness," a phrase which has been upsetting to some. Now, with all this doctrinal opposition that I have been putting forward, have I been mistreated here? Have I been treated like a "stepchild" or "second-class citizen" or an "outsider"? What has happened, and that is certainly to be expected, is that my understandings have been repeatedly challenged by a number of folks here. To the extent that I cling to my beliefs, this has been stressful for me. But it has also been *enormously* valuable, because it has led me to consider, and consider, and reconsider my positions, to think them out more fully, and to examine their consequences, and, most importantly, to turn within to try to see directly what the reality is. In the process it has become very clear to me that beliefs are just that, and must be held lightly. Also in the process, the most central of my beliefs have been modified slightly, actually making them clearer, more subtle, and more stable, but still radically different. ---------------------------------------- > > Joop: OK, that's a kind of core that is rather orthodox Theravada > and sometimes fundamentalists (I call them Buddhaghosians). But they > are nice and can be trusted > > James: Yes, the `Buddhaghosians' are the ones I mainly refer to; > and, no, they cannot be trusted. Whatever you do, don't trust > them. They do not have your best interests at heart. ----------------------------------------- Howard: It may seem so to you, James. I know that you have psychic insight, but is it perfect? I think there is wisdom in allowing for "uncertainty" in one's positions, and in allowing for the possibility that one's position is at least exaggerated and is somewhat due to one's own internal beliefs, inclinations, and, especially, wishes, and not just due to an objective reading of "external reality." ----------------------------------------- > > Joop: today they say A as they say A yesterday and will say A > tomorrow. > > James: Yes, and they will run over whoever says B. > ----------------------------------- Howard: I haven't been "run over". Are you sure that you have? To be challenged or questioned is not a "running over." It is just an engagement. ----------------------------------- > > Joop: Even if I write I don't believe in rebirth and not in 29 of > the 31 realms, I'm not called a blasphemist. > > James: No, I wouldn't suspect you would be: you are off their > radar. (BTW, Buddhism doesn't make much sense without rebirth). ---------------------------------- Howard: I completely agree with you that Buddhism makes little sense without rebirth! If this is our one and only "existence," then where is there a problem to be solved? Death becomes "nibbana" and suicide the ultimate means of liberation! --------------------------------- > > Joop: It's true that nearly every week again I think to end my > participation because there is no dynamics at all in this group; > > James: Yes, you are right. The posts have become increasingly > monotonous and redundant. As I have said before, and I will say it > again, the posts are much better in quality and depth when the > leaders aren't around to control and overshadow things. > > Joop: But maybe I have not understood you well; and in fact I don't > know what are your unorthodox views, so your letter made me curious > (and a little sad) > > James: I don't think I really have `unorthodox' views, I just have > anti-DSG views. And don't be sad; I am fine. I will survive! ;-). > > Metta, > James > ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 43925 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:04am Subject: Re: Vipassana buddhistmeditat... Hi KenH (Htoo and others) - I really like the dialogue between you and Htoo about vipassana in general -- there are several practical and conceptual issues that are always good for re-examination. For this mail I have just one concern about your opinion on the "jhana meditators". KH: Isn't it true that sitting for long periods with a straight back while living in a cemetery or at the base of a tree applies only to jhana meditators? Tep: I am very glad that you have raised this issue that indicates a few misunderstandings. What are such misunderstandings that I think I see ? -- Jhana meditators don't know vipassana. This misunderstanding is also seen in your other remark, "The idea that anyone can purposely make chanda (or sati or any other dhamma) arise is contrary to the doctrine of conditionality. This is a difficult fact for meditation teachers to get around". It almost sounds like some (jhana) meditation teachers are ignorant. -- Sitting meditation for long periods of time is a waste of time. Goenka's students might be offended. -- Dhutanga bhikkhus are pitiful. To me "pitiful" is full with Piti for dhutanga bhikkus, rather than sad, lost and lonesome like you have implied. In case you admit having the above misunderstandings, then you might consider restudying Buddhism, especially the Sutta Pitaka and the Visuddhimagga. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > > There are so many questions and comments arising from your vipassana > posts, I will have to snip a lot out. > > > KH: But you neglected to point out that some of the Buddha's > disciples used jhana as a vehicle for vipassana, while others > developed vipassana on its own. Isn't it true that sitting for long > periods with a straight back while living in a cemetery or at the > base of a tree applies only to jhana meditators? > > ------------------------------- > > KH: These discussions always come back to the same sticking point: > You can't control dhammas! The idea that anyone can purposely make > chanda (or sati or any other dhamma) arise is contrary to the > doctrine of conditionality. This is a difficult fact for meditation > teachers to get around. By insisting on formalised effort, they > ignore the teaching of anatta, which is the one thing that makes the > Dhamma profound and totally different from every other teaching. > > ----------------- > > Ken H 43926 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:34am Subject: Re: Dhamma in the City rjkjp1 Hi Azita, Sounds like you had a profitable time. To me The Matrix movie gives a analogy of what insight is. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > Quote: 'to know a reality is more beneficial than trying to have > kusala' unquote. In fact, to know a reality is kusala. > My understanding of the above, is that we can not really know when > citta is kusala/akusala unless ther is a moment of awareness - Sati - > and understanding to know. otherwise, its guess work - we can have an > idea when kusala/akusala arises, e.g. when there is strong dosa, but we > don't know the subtler moments of akusala when they arise e.g. liking > the taste of a drink but not giving it much attention bec. we are busy > talking. This happens many many times in a day and if there is no Sati > then there is no knowing these moments. > > I have more confidence of the value of listening and contemplating > what I hear/read in relation to the development of right understanding. > Text Vis xiv 141 - It's [Sati] proximate cause is strong perception. > I asked A. Sujin for clarification on this point and as Nina has already > stated: if one hears over and over again about the nature of realities, > and considers over and over again, ther can be firm rememberance of > what is studied and this can be a condition for the arising of Sati. > > 43927 From: Ken O Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:28am Subject: Re: Buddha Can Still His Thoughts: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance ashkenn2k Hi Suan I think we are discussing about stilling thoughts to decrease akusala and increase kusala which is not possible even for jhanas. Thoughts in this context we talking about cetasikas and cittas. decreasing of thoughts can only through panna, no other way. Ken O 43928 From: Ken O Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:28am Subject: Re: Buddha Can Still His Thoughts: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance ashkenn2k Hi Suan Oops should be decreasing of aksuala thoughts ;-) Ken O 43929 From: Ken O Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance--Ken O ashkenn2k Hi Mike for non-abhidhammist I think it should be in conventional term. for abhidhammist like us, we take it as the paramatthas ;-) Ken O 43930 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:33am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhatrue --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Joop) - > > James, I have close to no psychic ability at all, so I can only make > inferences, and my perspective on this is just that - a perspective. It seems > to me that a significant part of what you are expressing below is based on your > own internal state and is much overstated. I could be publically silent on > this, leave the discussion to others, and speak with you about it offlist, but I > think that would be a drop cowardly. So, I'll provide some comments below. I > hope you understand that this is sent in sincere friendship. Hi Howard, After reading this introduction I am not going to read the rest of your post. First, I didn't mention anything about psychic ability; it doesn't take any psychic ability to see the dynamics I have described. My only wish is that by pointing out these dynamics maybe those involved will lessen their actions. Second, I don't wish to be psychoanalyzed and don't believe that you have any insights to offer me in that area. As I told you off-list, I think that lately you have your priorities in the wrong places. I consider you a friend also. In the past I have looked up to you as a dhamma example, but, to be honest, I don't look up to you so much nowadays. Metta, James 43931 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:42am Subject: [dsg] Re:Praise and blame. buddhatrue Hi Nina, Nina: You sign off with James the Deranged. Hey, so long as we are worldlings we are deranged, all of us. James: Very good point! I'm glad you took my comment in the spirit in which it was meant. Nina: They last just for a moment and are then gone, but I find that I am involved in stories about: this person praises me and that one blames me. James: Personally, I don't blame you. You are just a sweet lady who does her own thing who doesn't browbeat anyone who disagrees. I have openly disagreed with you before and you have simply tried to understand my position, rather than belittle. However, the same can't be said for those members who are quick to "jump to your defense", as they see it. Anyway, thanks for writing. You keep up the good work! I will be reading, just not posting much. Metta, James 43932 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 4:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 4/2/05 11:34:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > After reading this introduction I am not going to read the rest of > your post. ------------------------------------- Howard: I am amazed at that, James. Not to even give what i have to say a reading is quite an affront, and not friendly as I see it. I think that were you to read what I have to say, you would not lilely be put off by it. But do as you wish. -------------------------------------- > First, I didn't mention anything about psychic ability; > it doesn't take any psychic ability to see the dynamics I have > described. My only wish is that by pointing out these dynamics > maybe those involved will lessen their actions. Second, I don't > wish to be psychoanalyzed and don't believe that you have any > insights to offer me in that area. As I told you off-list, I think > that lately you have your priorities in the wrong places. ------------------------------------ Howard: You misread my priorities, and I told you that. I am actually less involved with list-posting that ever, and much more involved with practice. But you will think as you wish. I can do nothing about that. -------------------------------------- > I > consider you a friend also. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Well, I hope so, but I think a friend gives a full hearing. ----------------------------------- In the past I have looked up to you as > > a dhamma example, but, to be honest, I don't look up to you so much > nowadays. > ---------------------------------- Howard: That's fine. I have no desire to be looked up to. ---------------------------------- > > Metta, > James > > =================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 43933 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 9:26am Subject: Re: Vipassana ( Ken H & Htoo 2nd discussion) htootintnaing Dear Ken H and interested members, Our discussion continues as 2nd part. The first part is my first reply to you. With respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Dear Htoo, There are so many questions and comments arising from your vipassana posts, I will have to snip a lot out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree there are many to be snipped. I still confuse you with Ken O even though, I think, we have talked at DSG some time ago. Like Sarah, you are good at guiding Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Thanks for your adding. But may I ask you 'is panatti > phenomenon'? -------- KH: I am surprised that you would ask this. Perhaps you are having a joke with me. Pannatti is not a physical or mental phenomenon: --- snip --- snip --- anicca, dukkha, anatta or any other aspect of ultimate reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Actually I asked because I am not good at English. I just checked my understanding on the word 'phenomena'. I was not joking. Serious. Now I am clear that pannatti is not a phenomena. My post 'Vipassana' was just going through mahasatipatthana sutta and my vipassana experience. When I saw the sentence 'Breathing in long, he knows he breathes in long', I was shocked. Like you I did not accept in my mind regarding that sentence. If you re-read 'Vipassana' post (the source of this discussion) you will see what I have written on the whole matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: I am sure there have been commentaries since the very earliest days of the Buddha's teaching. The ones we have, have been translated from Pali to Singhalese and back to Pali, but there is good reason to believe they contain the genuine works of arahants living around the time of the Buddha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I like the above whole paragraph. I agree. I believe that 'atthakathaa' were recorded by arahats (not simply learned bhikkhus). This is my belief. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ken H: Samma-vayama should not be seen as a preparatory step. It > exists in the actual moment of vipassana - > Htoo: What I see here is 'it has jumped to magga-citta'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: I don't think so. Wouldn't you agree that vayama is called "samma" only when it arises in magga-citta or satipatthana- citta? Any other kusala vayama would be called simply, "kusala- vayama," would it not? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. Samma has meanings of good, right, genuine etc. As Noble Eightfold Path, the only samma-vayama does arise at the time of magga citta as supramudane samma-vayama or lokuttara samma-vayama. Otherwise there are many many samma-vayama. They may be called as lokii samma-vayama. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: You should also have stressed that *strenuous* practice is not good effort. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Is Venerable Ananda's *strenuous* practice not good effort? He was already a sotapanna at that time while he was strenuously practising vipassana in order to rocket up to arahatta magga. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H continued: -- An example is someone sitting stoically and happy with his or her own sitting power. It might be subtle lobha and it might also be wrong view (of control over dhammas - belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I will leave this part. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: According to the group's description on our home page, our objective is to study all three Pitakas and the ancient commentaries. It makes no mention of formal sitting being accepted or not accepted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: My judgement was not on the description of the site. I have already read that. I just took the idea from the discussion posts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H continued: If you believe formal sitting is taught in the texts then it is perfectly appropriate that you say so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have said that there is no word like 'formal' and 'informal'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: You will have noticed that the majority of DSG members believe in formal sitting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: If so, I will be really happy. But what I noticed was some were in the middle of lokiiya mess like 'driving' 'swimming'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Some also believe that the Abhidhamma is a counterfeit document, but no one objects to the participation by those people in DSG discussions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I believe 'Abhidhamma' is what The Buddha taught. I am not in the society that believes 'Abhidhamma is counterfait one'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: But you neglected to point out that some of the Buddha's disciples used jhana as a vehicle for vipassana, while others developed vipassana on its own. Isn't it true that sitting for long periods with a straight back while living in a cemetery or at the base of a tree applies only to jhana meditators? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It sounds like that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: There is no inconsistency between the Abhidhamma and any other part of the Dhamma. The Suttas were spoken (mostly) in conventional language, but the meaning is still the same: there is always just the present citta with its cetasikas, object and base. Any interpretation that presents an apparent inconsistency with the Abhidhamma is simply incorrect. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. I am an Abhidhamma lover. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: Some of the famous meditation teachers have said, "Put away your Abhidhamma books and the ancient commentaries, they will only hinder your meditation." I think all Dhamma students should be highly suspicious of that advice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Again, I agree with you. I do not want to say who once said these words 'put away your abhidhamma books'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: Sorry, I am not good at references. There are, of course, the well known Sabbe and Loke Suttas, which deal with the six worlds and how they have to be known. Do you really doubt that visible object or audible object (for example) can be taken as objects of vipassana? I would have thought they were the most likely objects. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think you are talking 'daily life vipassana'. But when I wrote on 'Vipassana' post, I just went through mahasatipatthana sutta and just fit with my vipassana experience. In the later part 'sight and sound' will be involved. But what I discussed was that 'when concentrating on movement phenomena of the body all other sense doors are apparently shut. I did not say 'sight and sound' has to be thrown away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH:I hope one day you will go through it again, describing all the main points in Abhidhamma terminology. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am reading 'pure Pali of mahasatipatthana'. I do hope I have time to post it with abhidhamma language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H: I think you are making a big mistake by dividing the Dhamma into, 1) the study of absolute reality and, 2) conventional practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks. I think you are right. I may be making a big mistake. But I do notice the point you made. Thanks again for this reminder. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: Does the following quote from the Mahasatipatthana-sutta describe waiting for quiet surroundings, or it does it describe satipatthana in the present moment regardless of circumstances? "Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away... when bending & extending his limbs... when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl... when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring... when urinating & defecating... when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is sampajanna pabba. I know that. But in the introduction the sutta say 'going to a forest or going to the foot of a tree or going to a place of quietness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: These discussions always come back to the same sticking point: You can't control dhammas! The idea that anyone can purposely make chanda (or sati or any other dhamma) arise is contrary to the doctrine of conditionality. This is a difficult fact for meditation teachers to get around. By insisting on formalised effort, they ignore the teaching of anatta, which is the one thing that makes the Dhamma profound and totally different from every other teaching. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think, teaching methods differ. Because maturity differs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: I don't want to appear to be lecturing you on Abhidhamma: obviously, you know far more about it than I do. But why would the Buddha teach us to concentrate on a concept (the body-movement of breathing)? That would make sense to a person who knows only conventional reality, but, if you don't mind my saying, it makes no sense to an Abhidhamma student. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I think, I have talked above regarding this. It is 'The Buddha words'. First 'Venerable Ananda' introduced as 'Thus have I heard' and what followed are what The Buddha talked right in front of Venerable Ananda while they were all in Kuruu region of the country. In that, it is said 'When he breathes in long, he knows he breathes in long'. Here The Buddha did not say 'concentrate on pannatta' or 'do not conmcentrate on pannatta'. But The Buddha said 'the language that all bhikkhus would understand'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: > > Vipassana must be allowed to arise naturally at > any time in daily life. Ignorance (of the 4NT's) is the one thing > that can prevent it. > > > > > Htoo: Did The Buddha say so? If yes, please quote which sutta says > this? Did The Buddha say 'Vipassana must be allowed to arise > naturally at any time in daily life'? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: See my above quote from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. Also, please give me one example of a moment in conscious life that is not fit to be known with right understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You did not quote a sutta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: Of those, I am familiar only with SN Goenka, and from what I know of his teaching (having attended one course), yes, it is contrary to the Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Anaagam Saya Thet Kyi taught Sayagyi U Ba Khin. Sayagyi U Ba Khin taught SN Goenka. But I have no idea why you said 'it is contrary to the Dhamma'. Which words, which part of instructions or teachings are contrary to the Dhamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > My vipassana teacher just says 'you do practise and do not waste > time'. I am thinking to stop posting. But ---------------------------- KH: When he said, "Do not waste time," was he saying do not engage in pariyatti (association with wise friends, hearing the true Dhamma, wise consideration of the true Dhamma)? Without pariyatti, there can be no right practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I know the importance of pariyatti. His word 'do not waste time' is just a sign of good intention for me. He did not say any obstructing words to Dhamma learning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > H: > What I perceive is that The Buddha did not say any formal or > informal. But later generations invented these 2 words to cover their > laziness. ------------------------------ Ken H: What I perceive is that the Buddha described the cause of every conditioned dhamma. In none of those causes is there to be found a self (atta or controlling entity). But later generations could not handle such profound truth, and they tried to change the Dhamma into just another, conventional, religion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Anatta is good. Anatta is important. It is Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > Thank you very much for your kind comments on the > post 'Vipassana' and anyone is invited if they wish to discuss > Vipassana. And I will be looking forward to seeing further comments > on remaining part of the post 'Vipassana'. =============-------------- Ken H: Thank you. There is so much to discuss: after two very long replies I have still left half of your first message and half of your second message untouched! Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks again. I know as these are beneficial they should be engage one point after another. Sarah also does point by point. With warm regards, Htoo Naing 43934 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 9:45am Subject: What is citta? htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, From four realities, first, citta needs to be understood. It is the nature that is aware of its object. No other dhamma or no other nature can know anything including themselves. But citta can know everything possible including cittas. Citta always leads other nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. A citta arises, it passes away immediately after its arising. Another citta arises, and again it falls away. Next arises and dies out immediately. This kind of uninterruptedness is the manifestation of citta. There are immediate causes for arising of citta. They are cittas themselves, nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. There are 89 cittas in total. This means that when all cittas are analysed according to their own characteristic they will fall under these 89 different groups. This '89' is counted for 81 loki cittas or mundane consciousness with 8 lokuttara cittas or 8 supramundane consciousness. 81 cittas are mundane consciousness and 8 cittas are supramundane consciousness. At another time, citta can be counted as 121 cittas in total. This happens when 8 lokuttara cittas arise in connection with jhana. These are called lokuttara jhana cittas. As there are 5 jhanas, then there are 40 lokuttara jhana cittas. Together with lokiya cittas 40 and 81 will make 121 cittas in total. 81 lokiya cittas are 54 kamavacara cittas or 54 consciousness of sensuous plane, 15 rupavacara cittas or 15 consciousness of fine material plane, and 12 arupavacara cittas or 12 consciousness of non- material plane. Kama means sensual things that are related to 5 sense doors. Avacara means arising frequently. Kamavacara means frequently arising in kama bhumi or sensual sphere. So do other terms rupavacara is rupa brahma bhumi and arupavacara in arupa brahma bhumi or realm or plane of existence. Kamavacara cittas are 12 akusala cittas or 12 unwholesome consciousness, 30 asobhana cittas or 30 non-beautiful consciousness, and 24 sobhana cittas or 24 beautiful cittas. 12 akusala cittas are 8 lobha mula cittas or 8 greediness-rooted consciousness, 2 dosa mula cittas or 2 hatred/ aversion-rooted consciousness, and 2 moha mula cittas or 2 ignorance/ delusion-rooted consciousness. With Metta, Htoo Naing 43935 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 10:03am Subject: Dhamma Thread (292) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana These are 4 arupa jhanas. Or these are 4 arupakusala cittas. The first three arupa jhanas have been discussed in the previous posts. For simplicity all these 4 can be read as 1. non-material absorption in the sphere of boundless space 2. non-material absorption in the shpere of boundless consciousness 3. non-material absorption in the sphere of 'nothingness' 4. non-material absorption in the sphere of 'n-p-n-np' N-P-N-NP = Neither perception nor non-perception When in 4th rupa jhana, rupa jhana is close to sensuality as it is based on sensuous matter. The idea to cut up this obstacle is to drop the object which is related to rupa. The object of 4th rupa jhana is expanded and it is dropped and then there left 'aakaasa' or 'boundless space'. As explained in the previous posts, this space is not the space where astronauts are travelling with space ship. When 1st arupa jhana develops, the object is 'boundless space' and the citta is 1st arupa jhana citta or 1st arupakusala citta. Again this object 'boundless space is close to the original object kasina. So the boundless space is dropped and its holder '1st arupa jhana cittas' are directed. When 2nd arupa jhana develops, the object is 'boundless consciousness of that 1st arupa jhana cittas' and the object viewer or holder is 2nd arupa jhana citta. Again this 'boundless consciousness' is quite close to 'boundless space' which again is nearer to the original kasina object. To cut up the possibility of going down to lower jhana, the 'boundless consciousness' is also dropped and 'nothing' is directed. This 'nothing' is nothingness. It is 'natthi bhavo' or 'natthibho' pannatta or the concept or the idea of 'nothingness'. 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. 43936 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 10:31am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Kelvin), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 4/2/05 11:34:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > After reading this introduction I am not going to read the rest of > > your post. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > I am amazed at that, James. Not to even give what i have to say a > reading is quite an affront, and not friendly as I see it. I think that were you > to read what I have to say, you would not lilely be put off by it. But do as > you wish. > -------------------------------------- Okay, fine, I read the bloody thing! Are you happy now? ;-)) (just kidding- really). Howard, you are a different case because you write in a non-direct style and with such an elevated vocabulary, using complex-compound sentences, that very few even know what you are talking about! (Often I have to read your posts several times and even then I am sometimes unsure as to your exact meaning). Your posts are not hard-hitting or controversial, even when you disagree. And, as I suspected, you make a comment about my psychic ability not being perfect. Again, this has nothing to do with psychic ability! For over a year now I have seen outspoken members come and go, and they usually go because they are chased off. Right now, it seems to me that Kelvin is receiving the brunt of the frontal attacks (which he seems to take in stride) and hopefully he will stay because he has a lot to offer, but, he like so many others, may just get fed up with it and move on. Howard, I don't know why you are not seeing this- you seem to be judging everything from your own perspective (the same thing you are accusing me of). Anyway, we don't need to go on and on about this. Metta, James 43937 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Kel) - In a message dated 4/2/05 1:34:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > Hi Howard (and Kelvin), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James - > > > >In a message dated 4/2/05 11:34:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>After reading this introduction I am not going to read the rest > of > >>your post. > >------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I am amazed at that, James. Not to even give what i have to > say a > >reading is quite an affront, and not friendly as I see it. I think > that were you > >to read what I have to say, you would not lilely be put off by it. > But do as > >you wish. > >-------------------------------------- > > Okay, fine, I read the bloody thing! Are you happy now? ;-)) (just > kidding- really). > --------------------------------------- Howard: I am *very* happy that you were willing to read it and happy with your very friendly tone here. I am one who favors peace and loves friendship. ------------------------------------- Howard, you are a different case because you > > write in a non-direct style and with such an elevated vocabulary, > using complex-compound sentences, that very few even know what you > are talking about! (Often I have to read your posts several times > and even then I am sometimes unsure as to your exact meaning). > -------------------------------------- Howard: LOL!! Now I know that I should have been truly sorry for my ex-students at the College! ;-)) -------------------------------------- Your > > posts are not hard-hitting or controversial, even when you disagree. > > And, as I suspected, you make a comment about my psychic ability not > being perfect. Again, this has nothing to do with psychic ability! > For over a year now I have seen outspoken members come and go, and > they usually go because they are chased off. ------------------------------------ Howard: I don't see it that way. I see it that they found having their views being strongly challenged a difficult thing to deal with and/or that they so disliked the views of the "Khun Sujinites" that they didn't wish to remain. As to your description of them as outspoken, there is "outspoken" and there is "outspoken". Your recent no-holds-barred posts to Jon and about Jon were rather mildly responded to by him, it seems to me. Don't you think so? ----------------------------------- > Right now, it seems to > me that Kelvin is receiving the brunt of the frontal attacks (which > he seems to take in stride) and hopefully he will stay because he > has a lot to offer, but, he like so many others, may just get fed up > with it and move on. Howard, I don't know why you are not seeing > this- you seem to be judging everything from your own perspective > (the same thing you are accusing me of). Anyway, we don't need to > go on and on about this. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Probably none of us sees anything in a perfectly objective way. A statement made once by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that rings true with me is "Knowledge is structured in consciousness," which means to me that we tend to see what we are inclined to see. So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one, James. ------------------------------------ > > Metta, > James > > ===================== Thank you very much for replying further, James, and for doing so as a friend. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 43938 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma in the City nilovg Dear Azita, it is so nice to hear from you so soon. I was also glad that Matt was present too. I am looking forward to the sound tracks that Jon made. op 02-04-2005 15:05 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@...: "I" still have kilesa [and lots of] and problems arise bec. of kilesa, > even with good friends. N: We don't like that to happen, but we may easily compare ourselves with others. There are also many subtle moments of conceit we do not notice. A: Quote: 'to know a reality is more beneficial than trying to have > kusala' unquote. In fact, to know a reality is kusala. N: Yes, and another thing. We take that kusala for mine, and then, spoilt already. Or we think that we develop metta, but immediately there is also selfseeking, wanting sympathy and approval. If there is no understanding realities we cannot really develop the brahmaviharas. A: My understanding of the above, is that we can not really know when > citta is kusala/akusala unless ther is a moment of awareness - Sati - ... N: And this can only be known more precisely when nama has been realized as nama, not mixed with rupa, at the first stage of tender insight. > A: I have more confidence of the value of listening and contemplating > what I hear/read in relation to the development of right understanding. N: Such a session bolsters one's saddha each time. A: It has also become more obvious to me that unless Sati arises , it > cannot develop. It, as with all kusala, develops bec it arises and > therefore accummulates. We can't make it happen - it has to arise as > naturally as seeing - do we make seeing happen, or does it just arise > and see? N: We can't hear enough of such reminders. Thank you, looking forward for more, Nina. 43939 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,150 nilovg Dear Htoo, you make me hungry for anutiika, but where to get it? Can you add from it? Translating it from Burmese? That would be wonderful. Nina. op 02-04-2005 12:31 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > Thanks for your reply. Tiika is good. Anutiika is also good to learn. 43940 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 11:25am Subject: Re:Buddha Nature And Skilful Means jwromeijn Hallo Kel Thanks. But which academics and which actual practice of whom? Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > I just take it to be more metaphorical than literal. I would say > Buddhist religious life is to discover "the true nature". You can > call it Buddha nature, true self or whatever but it'll still have to > be anatta. It's only inconsistent in my mind to academics who don't > understand the actual practice. > > - kel 43941 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 11:28am Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta jwromeijn Dear LK Perhaps you were right. Metta Joop 43942 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 0:11pm Subject: Re:Buddha Nature And Skilful Means kelvin_lwin Hi Joop, I was thinking of the following in your original post **** "Modern Buddhologists as well as the Buddhists have been intrigued by the inconsistency that one single tradition teaches both that there is no self on the one hand, and that the goal of religious life is to discover the true self, on the other hand." 43943 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 0:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature / Luminous Citta kelvin_lwin Hi Howard and James, At first I was surprised to see my name included. I thought wow James picked out my vibes with his abilities! I don't see how non- Buddhas can help but see things from their own perspective. I'm reminded of the sutta James quoted recently in which each arahat described the way to enlightenment in different ways. I think the way we handle posts and responses can go a long way in showing how far we still have to go on the path. - kel 43944 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 1:53pm Subject: Nirvana and Consciousness buddhistmeditat... Hi, All - My friend Hugo just wrote to me about a new article written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Nirvana. I have found this article very interesting and would like to present a few extracted passages for you to read and discuss. Words in parentheses also belong to the author's. (I) "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process. ... neither samsara nor nirvana is a place. (II) "The second point is that nirvana, from the very beginning, was realized through unestablished consciousness — one that doesn't come or go or stay in place. There's no way that anything unestablished can get stuck anywhere at all, for it's not only non-localized but also undefined. (III) "Just as all phenomena are rooted in desire, consciousness localizes itself through passion. Passion is what creates the "there" on which consciousness can land or get established, whether the "there" is a form, feeling, perception, thought-construct, or a type of consciousness itself. ... If, however, the passion can be removed, there's no more "there" there. ... This doesn't mean that consciousness would be annihilated, simply that — like the sunlight — it would now have no locality. With no locality, it would no longer be defined. This is why the consciousness of nirvana is said to be "without surface" (anidassanam), for it doesn't land. "Because the consciousness-aggregate covers only consciousness that is near or far, past, present, or future — i.e., in connection with space and time — consciousness without surface is not included in the aggregates. [endquote] http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html A Few Questions for Discussion (if you don't mind): 1. Is this "unestablished consciousness" a lokuttara citta, since this consciousness can realize nirvana? 2. Is the "consciousness of nirvana" permanent but undefined? If so, does it contradict to the Buddha's Teachings of impermanence? 3. Since the "consciousness of nirvana" is not in the consciousness aggregate, then which one of the 4 Paramattha dhammas is it? 4. Does the whole writing make sense? I believe that the first three questions are not beyond the ability of our DSG members to answer, based on the Abhidhamma principles. Sincerely and respectfully yours, Tep ======== 43945 From: "mnease" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance--Ken O mlnease Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Neither stay in place nor advance--Ken O This is good I think, I assume by 'thoughts' you mean sankappa rather than pa.n.natti? > Hi Mike > for non-abhidhammist I think it should be in conventional term. for > abhidhammist like us, we take it as the paramatthas ;-) Yes--this makes sense to me. No need to discount either expression, I think. mike 43946 From: "mnease" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 mlnease Hi Mateesha, ----- Original Message ----- From: "matheesha" To: Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 12:45 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 > Hello Mike, > > That is a very interesting quote. Sorry for not commenting earlier but > life gets in the way :) Never a problem, Ma'am--sorry for my own late response. > What is this 'Dispeller'? Nina's already answered your question, I've just finished reading it and am re-reading all the places I'd marked. It's a truly wonderful book--now I must get the Vibhanga I think, which is referred to by page number throughout the commentary. Kinda pricey (US$56) but a great reference, I think. mike 43947 From: "Carl" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 2:50pm Subject: Re: Vipassana ( Ken H & Htoo 2nd discussion) c7carl --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Ken H and interested members, > > Our discussion continues as 2nd part. The first part is my first > reply to you. > > With respect, > > Htoo Naing Carl writes: I hope this discussion will continue. I very much appreciate Htoo posting "vipassana". The strong points being raised are very instructive to me as a lay student. I would wish for no one to become frustrated in views. It is good (for me) to see such learned Abhidhamists "butting heads" over something as important as vipassana "practice". Be cool and know that any sparks will be treated as sparks of potent wisdom. Thank you, Carl 43948 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 3:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 matheesha333 Thanks Mike, The dhamma is supposedly beyond gender but... M> Never a problem, Ma'am--sorry for my own late response. ..mister would be more appropriate :) metta matheesha 43949 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 0:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nirvana and Consciousness TGrand458@... Hi Tep In a message dated 4/2/2005 1:54:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, tepyawa@... writes: Hi, All - My friend Hugo just wrote to me about a new article written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Nirvana. I have found this article very interesting and would like to present a few extracted passages for you to read and discuss. Words in parentheses also belong to the author's. (I) "Samsara is a process of creating places, even whole worlds, (this is called becoming) and then wandering through them (this is called birth). Nirvana is the end of this process. ... neither samsara nor nirvana is a place. (II) "The second point is that nirvana, from the very beginning, was realized through unestablished consciousness — one that doesn't come or go or stay in place. There's no way that anything unestablished can get stuck anywhere at all, for it's not only non-localized but also undefined. (III) "Just as all phenomena are rooted in desire, consciousness localizes itself through passion. Passion is what creates the "there" on which consciousness can land or get established, whether the "there" is a form, feeling, perception, thought-construct, or a type of consciousness itself. ... If, however, the passion can be removed, there's no more "there" there. ... This doesn't mean that consciousness would be annihilated, simply that — like the sunlight — it would now have no locality. With no locality, it would no longer be defined. This is why the consciousness of nirvana is said to be "without surface" (anidassanam), for it doesn't land. "Because the consciousness-aggregate covers only consciousness that is near or far, past, present, or future — i.e., in connection with space and time — consciousness without surface is not included in the aggregates. [endquote] http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html A Few Questions for Discussion (if you don't mind): 1. Is this "unestablished consciousness" a lokuttara citta, since this consciousness can realize nirvana? 2. Is the "consciousness of nirvana" permanent but undefined? If so, does it contradict to the Buddha's Teachings of impermanence? 3. Since the "consciousness of nirvana" is not in the consciousness aggregate, then which one of the 4 Paramattha dhammas is it? 4. Does the whole writing make sense? I believe that the first three questions are not beyond the ability of our DSG members to answer, based on the Abhidhamma principles. Sincerely and respectfully yours, Tep The only question I find relevent to the Buddha's teaching is # 4 and the answer is no. I don't believe Thanissaro Bhikkhu's theories about Nibbana and consciousness hold any water. Take the following quote from the Samyutta Nikaya ... "...a Bhikkhu who is beyond training understands the six faculties -- the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty, the mind faculty. He understands: 'These six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder, and no other six faculties will arise anywhere in anyway.' " (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol 2, pg. 1697) TG 43950 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing with the Tongue dacostacharles Andrew T I know this was for Matt, so sorry. You asked: {Ven Dhammananda says that science "cannot offer moral control and guidance". That's also what Stephen Jay Gould used to say, isn't it (i.e. that it is a mistake to look for moral lessons in nature)? The Buddha said that saddha (faith/confidence) was a "treasure": doesn't that suggest to you that he was not involved in a purely scientific endeavour?} To say Science "cannot offer moral control and guidance" is wrong, just look at the sciences of psychology and sociology. And some of the drugs invented by biochemist are undoing violent tendencies in a lot of menially disturbed people. To say "it is a mistake to look for moral lessons in nature" is also wrong. Many marvel at the work ethics of bees and ants. There are many other examples, like the loyalty of dogs, ... I could go on. Nature, including humans, is quite diverse and there are both good and bad example of morality. And lastly: In science, faith/confidence, is the basis of hypothesis, and even theories. CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, 21 March, 2005 02:07 Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing with the Tongue Hi Matthew ... Have you formed a view on this threshhold question yet? Ven Dhammananda says that science "cannot offer moral control and guidance". That's also what Stephen Jay Gould used to say, isn't it (i.e. that it is a mistake to look for moral lessons in nature)? The Buddha said that saddha (faith/confidence) was a "treasure": doesn't that suggest to you that he was not involved in a purely scientific endeavour? Re the rigidity of Abhidhamma classifications, it seems to me that the incredible speed of mind-moments permits of a huge degree of flexibility. Would you mind expanding a bit on the place of Dhamma in your life, especially regarding your work? Andrew T 43951 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 1:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Hi Ken, I am back to work so posting will be slow again. ********************************************** C: > I don't disagree with you when you mean, "Ones own faith and doubt should not be important when it comes to study of the Dhamma." This is essential for any good study. They, faith and doubt, should not be considered important because they can cloud your mind and block you from seeing the truth, a new truth. --------------------- K: I see what you mean, however, the conditioned dhamma known as faith (saddha) is not blind faith, it is confidence in wholesomeness. Saddha could never 'block out the Truth.' ............................................. It is blind when the faith is not based on the "experience" (i.e., seen, heard, etc...) as the truth. When you think it is true because it is logical, or a teacher --including the Buddha--, etc..., convinces you of its truth. I have no-clue what you could mean by: "Saddha could never 'block out the Truth.'" *************************************** K: The point I was making was different from yours. I was saying it was not important to differentiate between 'faith' and 'my faith' 'doubt' and 'my doubt' etc. The Anattalakkhana Sutta reads in part, "Is it justifiable to think of these (body, feelings, perceptions, mental factors, and consciousness) which are impermanent, painful and transitory, "This is mine, this am I, this is my self?" "Certainly not, Lord!" (end quote) Therefore, it is not justifiable to think of faith or doubt (which are mental factors) in those ways. To think of either of them, "This is mine," is to have attachment (lobha); "This am I" is to have conceit (mana), and, "This is my self," is to have wrong view (miccha-ditthi). They are unwholesome (akusala) misconceptions. .............................................. I don't understand what you are trying to say. *************************************************** K: I would suggest that other disciplines (e.g., music, science, sport, religion) could be effectively studied and practised with unwholesome (as well as wholesome) consciousness. The Dhamma, however, requires purely kusala study and purely kusala practice. .............................. Wrong again, I know of killers who use Dhamma to sharpen their skills as killers. Now if you consider killing as wholesome, well ... What is a "purely kusala study and purely kusala practice?" ************************************************ C: > To learn/grow we often have to look beyond our faith and doubt. --------------- K: I'm sorry to be argumentative, but to learn and develop the Eightfold Path we have to know the present five khandhas (body, feeling, perception, mental factors and consciousness). Therefore, when faith, doubt, or any other dhamma, becomes the object of consciousness we should not look beyond it. .......................................... Have you experienced this as true, or do you except this by faith? Often, faith and doubt, is what keeps you trapped; lost in I, me, and mine. ********************************************** C: > All that I have been trying to set you up for is this: for you to give yourself the freedom to go beyond the Abhidhamma and not to be limited by it. I was afraid that you are so attached to the Abhidhamma that you would develop clinging, when you should be open to ... ------------------------- K: Thanks, but the way I see it is; there are only dhammas, and the Abhidhamma (and only the Abhidhamma) tells us everything we need to know about dhammas. ................................................... So you disagree with the Kalama suttra? ****************************************** C: > A case in point: The Buddha claimed that experience is the truth you should accept as real (Ref: Kalama Suttra). However, scientist today have proven that the senses can be fooled, therefore what you experience may not be real. This is a contradiction, and you should be asking your-self, "So what can be relied on as Truth/real?" ------------------------- K: I like that, and I agree entirely. ................................................ So are you ready to go for the Masters? ************************** C: > That is the issue of faith and doubt. When it comes to Truth, faith and doubt are important because we often try to live by truth, but in reality we live by faith and doubt. -------------------- K: Yes, and I would say the mistake lies in "trying." The Middle Way is followed, first and foremost, by right understanding (of the present reality). Right effort follows from - and always accompanies - right understanding. ................................................................... And do you know this to be true, or is it just logical (and that makes it true)? ******************************* C: > If you are open, to the possibilities that you may have faith or doubt in the wrong thing, you are also open to change/importance. --------------------------------- K: The Buddha taught the Kalamas, firstly, how to choose a teacher. In effect, they were advised to recall their own experiences, to discuss them, and to consider them wisely. That would enable them, to the best of their ability, to choose the right teacher. If they were to chose the Buddha as their teacher, they could then hear, discuss, and consider the Dhamma. And they could apply the Dhamma, to the best of their ability, to the present moment. ... Hmmm. I think the Kalamas were advised to choose a teacher and then to follow his teaching. As you said, the mind 'can be fooled' and what we experience 'may not be real.' That is why we need a teacher to show us what is ultimately real. I don't believe the Kalama Sutta tells people, who have taken refuge in the Buddhadhamma, to be open to other, contrary, teachings. ........................................ importance was suppose to be impermanence. You are wrong when you say, "Kalamas were advised to choose a teacher and then to follow his teaching. " They were advised to "... Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them. " [Source: http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel008.html] The Buddha never told them to choose the right teacher. He told them how to judge what to accept as true: "'These things [that] are good; these things [that] are not blamable; these things [that] are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things [that] lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them." Other translation say "accept as truth" when this translation says, "Do not go upon" and "enter on and abide in them." ****************************************************** C: > Science and other religions do have a bearing on the Dhamma, if you view Dhamma as a science or the sciences. don't be shy about challenging what you doubt, and supporting what you already have faith in. Just remain open to the fact that "When the moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter aligns with mars, and ..." We could be wrong. I am grateful for knowing, especially where I was wrong. *************************** K: If you think the Dhamma has been made obsolete in some way by science, religion or the 'dawning of the Age of Aquarius' then please say so, and we can discuss it on DSG. ................................................................. My points are about the following: (1) Being open to Truth where ever it is, and not about whether the Dharma is obsolete. (2) To show real mastery of a subject, you have to see it clearly, not clouded by faith or doubt, not clouded by judgment. A study is supposed to be a clinical viewing of all angles. And then there is even a level beyond mastery ... I strive for that. CharlesD 43952 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Charles --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > JON > > The original post was about: "All conditioned things are impermanent" > > You replied with: {The Pali word 'sankhara' ('conditioned things') has a > specific meaning > or, to be more exact, a number of specific meanings depending on the > context (Nyanatiloka's dictionary gives 4 main meanings). ... I > understand sankhara to mean 'conditioned dhammas', that is to say, the > dhammas other than Nibbana. These dhammas are those classified in the > suttas in various ways including as the 5 khandhas, six ayatanas, 18 > elements, 4 establishments of mindfulness, etc. In other words, the > passage does not refer to 'things' in the conventional sense of the > word, to my understanding.} > > Based on my knowledge of Buddhism, there is only the "Conditioned" and > the "Unconditioned." However, other people have been saying that there > is also the non-existent. > > So I was asking what do you believe, since your definition of > Conditioned did not include Abidharma and other teachings. I was > wondering if you view them as illusion (not existing), the > Unconditioned, or something different again. The Tipitaka (Sutta, Vinaya and Abhidhamma) is the expression in conventional terms of the truths that constitute the teachings. The truths themselves are neither *a dhamma*, nor are they *an illusion*. Truths are a realisation by panna, but they do not arise and fall away having their own characteristic. > And you defined them as "Truths." But again, based on my knowledge of > Buddhism, there is only "Relative" and "Absolute" Truth. So what are > they? The classification I am familiar with is the 'absolute' and 'conventional'. The truths spoken of in the teachings are absolute truths. Jon 43953 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jonoabb Hi Tep Thanks for taking up my invitation to share your thoughts on this point. My apologies for taking so long to reply. As I read your comments, then, Buddha Nature is something that would have to be taken on faith, as it is neither a dhamma (although you refer to it as a kind of 'dhatu') nor a truth about dhammas. Is that how you would see it? Does the idea of 'Buddha Nature' have any implications as regards the development of insight? Jon --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > > > Hi Jon - > > Thank you for asking. > > I am honored that you have asked for my thought on the subject of > Buddha Nature and the Primal Mind (A. Mun's word). I hope that after > reading this post you may not be too disappointed. Since mine is just > a thought of a worldling, it is yet free from confusion and > misunderstanding. > > The thought I have now was originated from a number of pieces of > information that had been gathered from various references, including > "A Heart Released", "The Citta Is Buddha", and "The Noble Eightfold > Path: The Way to the End of Suffering" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. The > conclusion I have drawn from these sources is, however, my own. > > The Primal mind was originally a single citta - a pure consciousness > with no associated cetasikas, then it was defiled by incoming > defilements {I,v,9}. I understand that this citta is the primal Buddha > Nature -- it is a dhatu that exists in the universe that noone knows > how it began. This "dhatu" may be a mano-vinnana dhatu or a dhamma > dhatu; don't ask me, 'cause I don't know. Since the Arahant's mind is > released from both passion and ignorance, so it is the fully developed > or Enlightened Primal mind. ... 43954 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 6:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Charles I think my post sent a few minutes ago has answered this point. Please let me know if you would like me to supplement. Jon --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > Hi Jon and TG > > TG wrote: {There are two ways to look at the teachings. As knowledge > states (mental formations) that arise and cease due to conditions. Or > as principles that don't actually exist as "things." I think Charles is > talking from the point of view of the former, and Jon from the point of > view of the latter. And I think you're both right.} > > Good points, but I was actually trying to get Jon to post what he > actually believed. I was not trying to make any claims points other then > getting Jon to state his belief/view considering ... . Thanks for > posting your view/belief. > > CharlesD 43955 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 7:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Charles --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > Hi Jon, > > I got the same impression {"... the Buddha ... said ... through the body > door only hardness etc is experienced, and through the eye-door only > visible object. "} > > Good point for me to remember. > > However, to a non-Pali speaker (me) the Pali term 'dhammas' can convey a > misleading impression (I am never sure what the writer means until they > define). This is a real problem, but it is not confined to times when Pali terms are used. The problem here is the nature of the subject matter. Even standard English terms can give a misleading impression, because the subject matter has no conventional equivalent. The point TG was making, however, was a different one, I think, namely that the term 'dhamma' was not the best choice in Pali. Jon 43956 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 7:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions jonoabb Hi Charles --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > Yes, I was keeping them separate; however it is because of consciousness > there is feelings, perceptions, and formations (I Think). The aggregates > that ... are feed by consciousness. And since consciousness can by-pass > them, it could be useful to say, "the consciousness that thinks." I just > prefer the consciousness that triggers/gives rise to thinking. I would not see it as correct to say that 'consciousness triggers/gives rise to thinking'. That suggests they are separate mind-moments. I prefer 'consciousness that thinks' ;-)) Jon 43957 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 7:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: ... > > To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact > hardness. > > What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is > > experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. > > > TG Did the Buddha ever talk about a "body-door" or "eye-door"? If he > did, > its news to me. (Since I see the Abhidhamma as later analysis and > systemization of the Sutta and Vinaya, I don't consider the Abhidhamma > as completely > authoritive and definitely not the word of the Buddha.) The Buddha certainly did talk about the various sense consciousnesses, regardless of whether he used the term 'door' on every occasion. It is the dhammas associated with the various consciousnesses (of the sense doors and mind door) that have to be known, I believe. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Buddha did not teach us to see conventional objects such as closet door as hardness, but to see/know hardness appearing to body consciusness (i.e., through the body-door) as only hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing to eye-consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) as only visible-object. > Samyutta Nikaya (salayatana vagga ) 27(5)Bodhi p1142 > "Bhikkhus without directly knowing and understanding the all..one is > incapable of destroying suffering. And what is the all? The eye and > forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear consciousness... > (repeats > for all six doors)." > TG "The All" is just the "range" of what is possible to experience. > If you > look at the passages surrounding this Sutta, you'll see that > "understanding > the all" means to be aware of the impermanent, suffering, and no-self > nature of > these aspects. Yes, but I think it's important to understand exactly what is meant by 'the all'. If we don't get it right on this, then everything else will be wrongly taken. Jon 43958 From: "mnease" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 8:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 mlnease Hi Mateesha, ----- Original Message ----- From: "matheesha" To: Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 3:22 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 > Thanks Mike, > > The dhamma is supposedly beyond gender but... > > M> Never a problem, Ma'am--sorry for my own late response. > > ..mister would be more appropriate :) My apologies, Sir--a masculine given name on the Subcontinent? In the US it's not unheard of as a feminine name. And yes, I was telling a couple of women friends just last night that many laywomen in the texts attained the paths and fruits in the Buddha's day, many (if not all) by insight not supported by jhaana, by the way. So beyond gender (or sex) for sure. Cheers, mike 43959 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 4/2/2005 7:27:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: ... > > To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact > hardness. > > What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is > > experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. > > > TG Did the Buddha ever talk about a "body-door" or "eye-door"? If he > did, > its news to me. (Since I see the Abhidhamma as later analysis and > systemization of the Sutta and Vinaya, I don't consider the Abhidhamma > as completely > authoritive and definitely not the word of the Buddha.) The Buddha certainly did talk about the various sense consciousnesses, regardless of whether he used the term 'door' on every occasion. It is the dhammas associated with the various consciousnesses (of the sense doors and mind door) that have to be known, I believe. TG I don't believe he ever used the term "door." Instead of "dhammas," why don't we just say "the eighteen elements"? Or in the context you wrote above ... the twelve elements "associated with the various consciousnesses." This is much clearer in my view. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Buddha did not teach us to see conventional objects such as closet door as hardness, but to see/know hardness appearing to body consciusness (i.e., through the body-door) as only hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing to eye-consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) as only visible-object. TG Please give just one reference from the Suttas to back this up and I'll believe you. > Samyutta Nikaya (salayatana vagga ) 27(5)Bodhi p1142 > "Bhikkhus without directly knowing and understanding the all..one is > incapable of destroying suffering. And what is the all? The eye and > forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear consciousness... > (repeats > for all six doors)." > TG "The All" is just the "range" of what is possible to experience. > If you > look at the passages surrounding this Sutta, you'll see that > "understanding > the all" means to be aware of the impermanent, suffering, and no-self > nature of > these aspects. Yes, but I think it's important to understand exactly what is meant by 'the all'. If we don't get it right on this, then everything else will be wrongly taken. TG Exactly what is meant by "the all" is everything that can be experienced. This is the 5 aggregates/the eighteen elements. Pretty basic I think. What's important is to understand the nature of "the all." I.E., how it is working and what those "working" ramifications mean to us. (Note: Nibbana is not included in "the all.") Jon TG 43960 From: "mnease" Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 9:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:thinking processes. mlnease Hi Nina and Howard, Very well said both, I think. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:thinking processes. Hi Howard, Yes, your thinking aloud is good. And what you said at the end may help people to understand that saññaa accompanies each citta and performs its function of marking. Since there is no gap between cittas, impressions are accumulated and as you say, it takes many processes to see a tree, and define: this is a tree; even if we do not say this, we just recognize a tree. I think it is also in the case of insight. Firm saññaa is the proximate cause of sati of satipatthana. We learn again and again about nama and rupa, about their different characteristics. And when we listened and considered a great deal, and intellecual understanding has been accumulated sufficiently, it can be immediately known when nama appears to the sati and when rupa. No need to say it or define it. Nina. op 31-03-2005 17:01 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > All such > projecting, plus the grosser projecting of all the "story elements" that > constitute our conventional world of trees, buildings, butterflies, and > bandwagons, > occur, it seems to me, over many, many mindstates, and never at any single > moment are any of these fully present. For example, with regard to "a tree". > there > is a long and complex sequence of mindstates involving sights, memories, > recognitions (identifications), and external projecting which constitute > "seeing a > tree". 43961 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: > The Buddha certainly did talk about the various sense consciousnesses, > regardless of whether he used the term 'door' on every occasion. It is > the dhammas associated with the various consciousnesses (of the sense > doors and mind door) that have to be known, I believe. > > TG I don't believe he ever used the term "door." I couldn't say for sure from memory, and have no way of checking at the moment. > Instead of "dhammas," why don't we just say "the eighteen elements"? Or > in > the context you wrote above ... the twelve elements "associated with the > various consciousnesses." This is much clearer in my view. The various ways of classification of dhammas as 12 ayatanas, 18 elements, 5 khandhas, 4 foundations of mindfulness, etc, are different ways of considering the same thing, i.e., the dhammas, so even when considering by way of these classifications we need to know what the individual dhammas involved are. > As I mentioned in my previous post, the Buddha did not teach us to see > conventional objects such as closet door as hardness, but to see/know > hardness appearing to body consciusness (i.e., through the body-door) as > only hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing to > eye-consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) as only visible-object. > > TG Please give just one reference from the Suttas to back this up and > I'll believe you. Well, I'm not asking you to believe me ;-)), and in any event I'm not exactly sure just what you are not in agreement with. But I think the passage concerning 'the all' (see below) is one supporting passage, and another would be the Bahiya Sutta which reads in part: "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10a.html Jon > Samyutta Nikaya (salayatana vagga ) 27(5)Bodhi p1142 > "Bhikkhus without directly knowing and understanding the all..one is > incapable of destroying suffering. And what is the all? The eye and > forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by > eye-consciousness. The ear and sounds and ear consciousness... > (repeats for all six doors)." 43962 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:21am Subject: Friends, Precepts, Books, and sayings christine_forsy... Hello all, As a few of the others have already commented, it was a productive and refreshing gathering in Bangkok - I wish more of you were able to come at some time - it certainly is beneficial for me. As well, there is the camaraderie and lasting friendships formed from mixing face to face with those who have previously been only email tags. "Good friendship, in Buddhism, means considerably more than associating with people that one finds amenable and who share one's interests. It means in effect seeking out wise companions to whom one can look for guidance and instruction. The task of the noble friend is not only to provide companionship in the treading of the way. The truly wise and compassionate friend is one who, with understanding and sympathy of heart, is ready to criticize and admonish, to point out one's faults, to exhort and encourage, perceiving that the final end of such friendship is growth in the Dhamma. The Buddha succinctly expresses the proper response of a disciple to such a good friend in a verse of the Dhammapada: "If one finds a person who points out one's faults and who reproves one, one should follow such a wise and sagacious counselor as one would a guide to hidden treasure" (Dhp. 76). {Bhikkhu Bodhi 'Association with the Wise'} http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/kalyanamittata.html Regarding The Precepts - there was a fairly long discussion, including the difference between "Undertaking" and "Observing" the Precepts. Observing the Precepts was a moment of restraint, of right intention, kusala sila. When the citta is kusala at a moment of abstention from breaking the Precepts, that is when it accumulates, that accumulation is the Training. It is a good thing to talk about the Precepts - it may be a condition for kusala citta in others - but it wasn't seen as necessarily a good thing to 'tell' other people to keep the Precepts. I found myself leaning towards the Speech and Deeds version i.e. 4 Speech, 3 Deeds and Livelihood ... Four types of Right Speech: "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech." -- SN XLV.8 Three types of Right Action: "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity. This is called right action." -- SN XLV 8 And Right Livelihood: "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood." - - SN XLV.8 Well, have to say I still don't quite understand the Right Livelihood part ... Jon tried to explain to me about how 'you can work in an abattoir and still have RL ... in all the moments that you aren't actually slaughtering an animal, or performing other akusala ..' I know I am getting lost in the story and not realising that we are talking about nama and rupa and what is happening in the moment, but ... (at least at Cooran at the Vesak gathering in May there won't be any animals needing to feel anxious - we all behave in sympathy with Reg who is a vegan, and so we are all some variation of vegetarian/vegan on these weekends). There was also mention of the three kinds of Sila - profitable (kusala) sila, unprofitable (akusala) sila, indeterminate sila (avyakata, neither kusala nor akusala). Since coming back from Bangkok, I've found this chapter by Nina on "Purity of Sila" which is helpful. http://www.dhammastudy.com/Asoka5.html An interesting snippet: Major-General Weera Polawat brought to the meeting at the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation a copy of a a yet- to-be-published Masters Thesis by a Monk on [something like] the significance and impact of the teachings of Ajahn Sujin on Thai Theravada Buddhism - it will be interesting to read any english translation that may be made, don't you think? For the Cooran Mob (Steve, Andrew T, KenH) - I have some copies of "The Buddha's Path - an Introduction to Theravada Buddhism" by Nina van Gorkom :-) to bring to the Vesak meeting for you. It is a publication of the Committee on Religion, Art and Culture, The House of Representatives and the Vongvanij Foundation, Bangkok.(Triple Gem Press, London 1994) - this book is to be placed in Hotel rooms in Thailand. And speaking of books - Mom Betty and I spent an enjoyable time browsing in the Mahamakuta Bookshop and I added quite a few books to the load I was carrying back to Oz by Bhikkhu Nanananda, Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, Nyanatiloka Thera, Achaan Naeb Mahaniranonda, and Ajahn Jagaro. [They don't yet have, but are soon to get, credit card facilities]. http://www.mahamakuta.inet.co.th/ For Sukin and Ivan - another example of synchronicity (seen as meaningless by you two :-)) - I changed from International to Domestic in Sydney - and who should arrive to sit in the row in front of me on the Brisbane flight but Jill Jordan (who came on the last India trip) - on her way back to Brisbane from giving presentations and workshops at Expo in Japan, and spending a couple of days in Sydney. A few remembered remarks from our discussions: 'Mind your own kilesas!' 'One has to know someone for a very long time to know what their Sila is.' 'What's the use of feeling discouraged?' 'Sati is not a bolt of lightning.' Regarding the idea of self: "Why did 'something' come out of 'nothing' just to be 'undone' again?" 'Many read the Tipitaka, but few study it carefully.' 'Whenever akusala presents itself - just see it as it is.' 'Only understand nama and rupa, in this moment.' and my very favourite: 'Begin again!' (simply a matter of starting from 'right now'). metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 43963 From: nina Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:35am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 150 and Tiika nilovg Visuddhimagga XIV, 150 and Tiika Text Vis. 150: (xxviii) 'Zeal' (desire) is a term for desire to act. N: The Tiika states that chanda desires an object and that by the term kaama chanda, sensuous clinging, also tanhaa is denoted. Chanda, zeal or desire, is among the ³particulars², the cetasikas that do not arise with every citta. Chanda can be of the four jaatis of kusala, akusala, vipaaka and kiriya. In this context of the Visuddhimagga it arises with mahaa-kusala citta accompanied by paññaa. The Tiika explains that it also denotes zeal of energy or effort, and that it is a term for desire to act (kattukaamataa). It refers to the Book of Analysis, Analysis of Right Striving (Ch 8, §391). This text deals with the four right efforts: The text explains Œwish¹, chanda: Its commentary, the ³Dispeller of Delusion² Ch 8, §1399 states: Text Vis. : So that zeal has the characteristic of desire to act. Its function is scanning for an object. N: The desire to act is with relation to an object, it wishes to take hold of an object, as the Tiika states. In this case, this is the object of kusala, namely, daana, siila, samatha or vipassanaa. Text Vis.: It is manifested as need for an object. That same [object] is its proximate cause. It should be regarded as the extending of the mental hand in the apprehending of an object. N: When it searches for an object for itself, as is its function, it also conditions the accompanying dhammas which have one and the same object. Tiika: Therefore he said ŒIt should be regarded as the extending of the mental hand in the apprehending of an object.¹ When this has arisen with kusala dhammas it is called kusala chanda, because it has originated from right attention (yoniso manasikaara). N: When there is right attention to the object, the javana cittas are kusala and thus accompanied by kusala chanda. We read in the Co to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (T.A. p. 57) which translates chanda as purpose: We may appreciate the benefit of generosity, daana, but chanda is needed to act accordingly. Kusala chanda assists the kusala citta to actually apply the Dhamma in our life. This is Dhammachanda, zeal of Dhamma. We read in the ³ Dispeller of Delusion² (Ch 8, §1401) in the section of arousing right effort, about the arousing of chanda : We are bound to meet obstacles in the development of vipassanaa, due to our defilements. But this text is a reminder not to loose courage, but to continue developing understanding of the realities that appear in daily life. It should be without hesitation, withour reluctance, without reserve, no matter whether the objects are pleasant or unpleasant, kusala dhamma or akusala dhamma. This is the zeal of Dhamma, Dhammachanda. **** Nina. 43964 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 nilovg Hi Matheesha, BTW I am away next week and cannot answer mails. op 02-04-2005 13:45 schreef matheesha op dhammachat@...: ...But it is interesting that the buddha felt that there would be people who > would not be able to progress further. In a way experience seems to > bear this out. Sometimes however much we try guide and coax others > into further practice they do seem to come to a standstill. Maybe it > is lack of good kamma or conditions for the arising of insight. N: Your remark is worth considering more. Everybody has ups and downs. Good friendship is helpful. But we cannot force ourselves or others, because the right conditions are needed for the development of understanding. Each individu is different and we never know to what extent pañña develops in the case of each individual in one lifespan. We may not notice much progress, but still, pañña may develop very, very gradually. I am so impressed by the Tiika and Co of Visuddhimagga Ch XIV,150 on chanda. I repeat again: A text we read, sutta, abhidhamma, commentary, can give us a push. This is a good reminder: The obstacles may be due to vipaaka, like sickness or pain, but more often it is due to defilements, our akusala reactions to the circumstances of our life. Or we try to find excuses not to develop understanding: too difficult, progress too slow, too many distractions in our life. M: I think you approach to no-self/Anatta is slightly different from > the way my practice goes. You seem to contemplate everything which > arises as no self (I think), while the system I pracice in leads to > a an arising of this insight by gradual development of panna with > one conclusion at the end. N: You are quite right. But in the beginning there should be intellectual understanding that whatever arises is due to conditions and cannot be directed by a self. If we have no firm intellectual understanding of this, it may be very tempting to try to control sati with the idea of a self. M: I think both are valid approaches. Those > with less faith maybe better suited for the method which i practice! N: So, I do not see it as two approaches. As to faith, confidence in kusala, we all start off with weak confidence. But it can become stronger even by intellectual understanding, stemming from listening and study. M: Any ideas as why magga-citta phala citta and exact mechanisms > detailed in the abhidhamma arent prominent in the suttas? N: It is not a question of mechanism, but arising from the right condiitons: paññaa which has been developed to that extent. All four noble Truths have to be realized, and nibbaana is among them. But first dukkha and its cause, desire, and especially the Path should be penetrated. There are four paramattha dhammas: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbaana. First citta, cetasika and rupa, the conditioned dhammas have to be known as they are, and eventually the uncondiitoned element can be realized. That is why the Buddha taught in the suttas again and again about the dhammas appearing through the six doors, just now, in daily life. Nibbaana is referred to, but you will not find many details about the experience of nibbana. You will not find many details about insight. Insight is referred to as clear comprehension and the Co. elaborates on this as the three pariññas, which include insight in stages. Why is this? Because it is paccatta.m, to be directly experienced by oneself. It is personal experience. At this moment the citta is lokiya, not lokuttara, and we can only speculate about nibbaana. When time comes it will be experienced, but the Path leading to it should be right. Nina. 43965 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassana ( Ken H & Htoo 2nd discussion) nilovg Hi Carl, good to see you again. op 03-04-2005 00:50 schreef Carl op c7carl@...:> > Carl writes: I hope this discussion will continue. N: So do I. It is held in such good spirits. I very much C: I would wish for no one > to become frustrated in views. It is good (for me) to see such > learned Abhidhamists "butting heads" over something as important as > vipassana "practice". Be cool and know that any sparks will be > treated as sparks of potent wisdom. N: You put that very nicely and to the point. We just study and discuss Dhamma and do not think of persons. This leads to coolness. But you can butt in any time with remarks and questions, it is not just a dialogue between two people. Htoo adds after each post: remarks are welcome. Nina. 43966 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:25am Subject: Dhamma Thread (293) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 4 non-material absorptive stillings or 4 arupa jhanas. 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana 1. akasanancayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of boundless space derived from the kasina object of 4th rupa jhana. 2. vinnanancayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of boundless consciousness that once took the object 'boundless space derived from the kasina object of 4th rupa jhana'. 3. akincinnayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of 'nothingness' evident because of detachment of the object 'boundless consciousness'. 4. n'evasanna-nasannayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of neither 'perception' nor 'non- perception'. These 4 arupa jhanas or 4 non-material absorptive states have been very frequently described. They appeared in the 'citta' portion, 'jhana' portion, 'bhumi' portion, 'vithi' portion. These repeatitions are to help supporting for 'sanna'. If arupa jhanas are well understood, this already means that rupa jhanas are also understood. If both rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas are understood, this means that all jhanas are understood. Understanding does not mean 'experiencing'. When jhanas are understood, it will not be not difficult to understand other worldly dhamma or dhamma of sensuous sphere or kaamaavacara dhamma or kama dhamma. Kamavacara dhamma and jhana dhamma are different. There is the third dhamma. It is dhamma beyond the world or lokuttara dhamma. Lokuttara dhamma are the highest among kamavacara dhamma, jhana dhamma or mahaggata dhamma, and lokuttara dhamma. Kamavacara dhamma are the lowest among these three dhammas. When lokuttara dhamma are the highest and kamavacara dhamma are the lowest, mahaggata dhamma or jhana dhamma are right in the middle in terms of rank. So they are also called majjhima dhamma or 'middle dhamma'. The 4th arupa jhana or nevasannanasannayatana arupa jhana or the highest jhana will be explained in the coming post. 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. 43967 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:55am Subject: Dhamma Thread (294) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 4 non-material absorptive stillings or 4 arupa jhanas. 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana 1. akasanancayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of boundless space derived from the kasina object of 4th rupa jhana. 2. vinnanancayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of boundless consciousness that once took the object 'boundless space derived from the kasina object of 4th rupa jhana'. 3. akincinnayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of 'nothingness' evident because of detachment of the object 'boundless consciousness'. 4. n'evasanna-nasannayatana arupa jhana Stilling in the sphere of neither 'perception' nor 'non- perception'. The first three arupa jhanas have been discussed in the previous posts. The 3rd arupa jhana is the jhana, which the first teacher of Siddhattha Gotama ( Buddha-to-be )had attained and was proficient. Let us have a look at that arupa jhana. When we pin-point a dhamma, there are a) a citta ( a moment of mind ), who have the faculty of knowing b) a set of cetasikas, who have different faculties to do thier jobs c) a rupa, which is called vatthu (ground), where nama dhamma home d) an arammana, which may be a rupa which may be a nama which may be the nibbana which may be pannatti (concepts, names) When we look at 3rd arupa jhana, there are a) a citta called 'akincinnayatana arupakusala citta' b) a set of cetasikas (7 universal cetasikas, 3 of 6 pakinnana cetasikas namely-viriya,chanda,adhimokkha 19 sabbasobhanacitta-sadharana cetasikas/universal beaut. cetasikas 1 pannindriya cetasika --- 30 cetasikas c) a rupa called hadaya vatthu/hadaya rupa, which is the seat of mind d) an arammana, which is 'natthibhavo' or 'nothingness' As this citta is taking its own object of 'nothingness' he will not know himself. The object it takes is so subtle that it is very very hard to note whether there is perception or equally there is no perception at all or there is non-perception. Just leave rupa here. When in 3rd arupa jhana, cittas will just know the object of 3rd arupa jhana, that is 'nothingness'. But at the end of jhana-vithi or at the end of jhana-samapatti, there follow bhavanga cittas or life-continuing consciousness. This is followed by 'paccavakkhana vithi'. The cittas in 'paccavakkhana vithi' or 'scrutinizing thinking procession consciousness' review the 3rd arupa jhana. There they see that 3rd arupa jhana is so subtle that they may leave it alone. But when arupa jhana practitioner is mindful and investigative, they will go over again and again on 3rd arupa jhana. As they (contemplating cittas or mind) go over on 3rd arupa jhana, they know that this 3rd arupa jhaana citta is so subtle that it is very very hard to say that there is no perception. It is equally very very hard to say that there is perception. And it is equally very very hard to say that there is non-perception or it is hard to say there is no perception at all. When the mind goes still with such perception on mind, there develops the 4th arupa jhana called 'nevasanna-nasanna-ayatana arupa jhana'. There are 4 arupa jhanas. 1st arupa jhana takes the object of 'pannatti' or 'concept' or 'name' which is 'boundless space'. The 3rd arupa jhana takes the object of pannatti, which is 'nothingness'. Unlike the 1st and the 3rd arupa jhana, 2nd and 4th arupa jhanas take paramattha dhamma here cittas. 2nd arupa jhana takes the object which is 'boundless consciousness' or 'vinnana' which are the 1st arupa jhana cittas. And 4th arupa jhana citta takes the object, which is the 3rd arupa jhana cittas, while comtemplating as 'neither perception nor non-perception'. 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. 43968 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 3:08am Subject: 54 Kama cittas and 8 lobha cittas htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Freinds, There are 54 cittas that are concerned with sensuous sphere. They are consciousness of sensuous sphere or kamavacara cittas. These 54 cittas are 12 akusala cittas, 30 asobhana cittas or non-beautiful consciousness, and 24 sobhana cittas or 24 beautiful consciousness. Among 12 akusala cittas, 8 lobha mula cittas or simply 8 lobha cittas are the most common and the most frequently arising akusala cittas in beings of all kind. Other akusala cittas are 2 dosa mula cittas or 2 angry minds, and 2 moha mula cittas or 2 ignorant minds. 8 Lobha mula mula cittas are 1.somanassa sahagatam ditthigata samyuttam asankharika cittam 2.somanassa sahagatam ditthigata samyuttam sasankharika cittam 3.somanassa sahagatam ditthigata vippayuttam asankharika cittam 4.somanassa sahagatam ditthigata vippayuttam sasankharikacittam 5.upekkha sahagatam ditthigata samyuttam asankharika cittam 6.upekkha sahagatam ditthigata samyuttam sasankharika cittam 7.upekkha sahagatam ditthigata vippayuttam asankharika cittam 8.upekkha sahagatam ditthigata vippayuttam sasankharika cittam Somanassa is mental pleasure or pleasant feeling in mind. Sahagatam means ' to go together'. Ditthigata means 'together with ditthi or wrong view that is there is no belief in kamma and its implication. Samyuttam means 'in parallel with' while vippayuttam means 'without'. Asankharika means 'without any prompt or preparation or stimulation'. Sasankharika means the opposite of former that is stimulation is needed or prompted. Upekkha means 'neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling'. The first citta is as in case of a child eating ice-cream happily. He is happy. There is mental pleasure or somanassa. As a child, he would not know kamma and so there is no belief in kamma. That citta arises in parallel with ditthi or wrong view. No one is telling him to be happy. So this is an example of the first lobha citta. The second lobha citta is seen in case such as a child receiving a packet containing sweet cake without knowledge of the cake in it. His mother tells him 'John, that packet is for you. Unwrap the packet and eat the sweet cake inside. When he received the packet, he did not know he had got the cake. But as his mother told him to unwrap, he beomes happy with a view to eating sweet cake. This is prompted. The third lobha citta is seen as in case of a well-learned adult who at the moment is happily watching movies. He is happy. He believes kamma and its implication. But no one is urging him to be happy. The fourth lobha citta is seen as in case of a well-learned adult who hear a word but not fully realize what exactly it meant. His friend tell him that ' you are very impressive'. Then the man becomes happy. He is happy ( somanassa ). He is well-learned ( ditthigata vippayutta ). But he has to be prompted by his friend that is sasankharika. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 43969 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 3:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread (295) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 4 non-material absorptive stillings or 4 arupa jhanas. 1. aakaasaanancaayatana arupa jhana 2. vinnaanancaayatana arupa jhana 3. akincinnaayatana arupa jhana 4. n'evasannaanaasannaayatana arupa jhana When beings develop such absorptive stilling, they are said to be in arupa jhanas. Their cittas at that particular time when in absorptive state are called 'arupakusala cittas'. So there are 4 arupakusala cittas. The names for these 4 arupakusala cittas are as above. 1. akasanancayatana arupakusala citta 2. vinnananacayatana arupakusala citta 3. akincinnayatana arupakusala citta 4. nevasannanasannayatana arupakusala citta When dying, if these arupakusala cittas arise as marana-asanna-javana cittas or 'dying-frequenting-mental-impulsive consciousness' these arupakusala cittas create 'the seed' or 'the kamma' called 'arupakusala kamma'. This is the chief dhamma that gives rise to 'arupa rebirth' or 'arupa patisandhi'. As soon as, being born as arupa brahma with one of these 4 arupakusala kamma gives rise to arupavipaka citta and this citta serves as vipaka citta or resultant citta performing as a patisandhi citta or linking consciousness or rebirth consciousness. What does it link? It links with 'the cuti citta of immediate previous life' and 'the 1st bhavanga citta or life continuing consciousness of the current life'. The 1st bhavanga citta has the identical characterisitics of the patisandhi citta. The only difference is 'function'. Patisandhi just does linking and bhavanga just does life-continuing. Dhamma Threads is currently discussing on beings and cittas in arupa brahma bhumis or non-material realms. These will be continued in the coming posts. 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. 43970 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma in the City jonoabb Hi Nina --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Azita, > it is so nice to hear from you so soon. I was also glad that Matt was > present too. It turns out that you and I both know Matt. Matt is Ivan ;-)) Some good news on 'Survey'. Editing work has been completed and the final draft is now with the printer. According to Betty, Pina has done a good job of the references and citations. Jon 43971 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, Precepts, Books, and sayings jonoabb Hi Chris Thanks for the report and impressions of Bangkok. I'm glad you found it useful, as I did too. Just a further comment on the right livelihood issue. --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Well, have to say I still don't quite understand the Right > Livelihood part ... Jon tried to explain to me about how 'you can > work in an abattoir and still have RL ... in all the moments that > you aren't actually slaughtering an animal, or performing other > akusala ..' Right speech, r. action and r. livelihood are all restraints, that is to say, they occur at the moment of restraint from wrong speech, action or livelihood. In the case of r. livelihood in particular, this is restraint of speech or action that occurs in the furtherance of one's livelihood. Where a person's livelihood is slaughtering animals, it is inevitable that there will be a lot of moments of wrong livelihood. But the pursuit of any livelihood also involves, for example, opportunities for honesty/dishonesty, so a moment of restraint from dishonesty by the person would be a moment of right livelihood, regardless of the nature of the occupation being followed. Conversely, a person may be engaged in a very commendable occupation, but have poor speech and general moral conduct, in which case there could be many moments of wrong livelihood. I hope this is clearer. Jon 43972 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 4:29am Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 jonoabb Hi Charles --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > Jon, > > When it comes to accepting something as truth, the Buddhist text (Kalama > sutra mainly) say not by faith, but by experience. However, when it > comes to truths, like Buddhism, gaining the experience is often a goal > way out of reach. But we can still have faith in it. > > Now the real problem with the post is the word HOPE. Hope implies > clinging. But I always ask: "How can one have hope/clinging without > suffering when the hope goes unfulfilled?" > > Often, hope is all a desperate person has. > > So I ask you, "How can one have hope/clinging without suffering when the > hope goes unfulfilled?" > > When you can answer that, "I think" you will have the Right View. You've lost me again, I'm afraid. So it looks like I'm destined to be mired in wrong view for a while longer yet ;-)) Looking forward to your elucidation on this subject matter. Jon 43973 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 5:06am Subject: Re: Vipassana / Tep kenhowardau Dear Tep, Thank you for your encouraging words. I am glad to accept your suggestion to re-examine the issues. ----------------------------------------------------- T: > For this mail I have just one concern about your opinion on the "jhana meditators". KH: Isn't it true that sitting for long periods with a straight back while living in a cemetery or at the base of a tree applies only to jhana meditators? Tep: I am very glad that you have raised this issue that indicates a few misunderstandings. What are such misunderstandings that I think I see ? -- Jhana meditators don't know vipassana. ------------------------------------------------------ No, even I would not make such a sweeping statement as that. There are explanations in the suttas (which I think I could find in DSG's files) of how some monks became enlightened by developing jhana followed by vipassana; others by developing vipassana followed by jhana; others by developing jhana and vipassana in tandem, and still others by developing vipassana on its own. Before the Buddha taught the Dhamma, jhana meditators certainly didn't "know vipassana," but that is by no means a criticism. If I seem to have less than the highest possible regard for jhana meditators, that is due to a certain misunderstanding. Namely; some people claim to practise jhana when, in fact, they practise nothing remotely like jhana. If I am a little bit critical of those people, it might look as though I am being critical of genuine jhana meditators. I should add that, in my humble opinion, there are no genuine jhana meditators in the world today. ------------------------- T: > This misunderstanding is also seen in your other remark, "The idea that anyone can purposely make chanda (or sati or any other dhamma)arise is contrary to the doctrine of conditionality. This is a difficult fact for meditation teachers to get around". It almost sounds like some (jhana) meditation teachers are ignorant. -------------------------- Actually, I wasn't referring to jhana-meditation teachers: I was referring to people who teach ritualised vipassana-meditation. That probably puts me out of the frying pan and into the fire! :-) -------------- T: > -- Sitting meditation for long periods of time is a waste of time. -------------- Let's be clear on what we are talking about: Sitting meditation is a jhana practice. The texts make no mention of sitting meditation in regard to the development of bare vipassana. The jhana meditators described in the ancient texts sat for long periods, but they knew what they were doing. Long before they took up sitting meditation they had developed sila and samadhi to an extraordinary extent. Just how extraordinary that extent was is a point of controversy. Some people today think they can begin sitting meditation with just an ordinary level of developed sila and bhavana. I think they are gravely mistaken. I think, for them, sitting meditation is, as you say, "a waste of time." -------------------------------------------- T: > Goenka's students might be offended. --------------------------------------------- I am sorry about that, but who takes any notice of me? I am a raw beginner speaking my mind without expecting anyone to take me seriously. ----------------------------- T: > -- Dhutanga bhikkhus are pitiful. ----------------------------- If I have said that, it must have been by implication because I have never used the word, dhutanga. I have just now looked it up in the dictionary for the first time. ------------------------------------------ T: > To me "pitiful" is full with Piti for dhutanga bhikkus, rather than sad, lost and lonesome like you have implied. In case you admit having the above misunderstandings, then you might consider restudying Buddhism, especially the Sutta Pitaka and the Visuddhimagga. ------------------------------------------ I do indeed misunderstand pannatti-sila and the benefits of accepting training rules. Sarah has been helping me with it, but I have been a slow learner. I genuinely accept your advice to restudy Buddhism because I need to understand dhutanga. In fact, I think I am getting an inkling of it already, but it is still early days. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi KenH (Htoo and others) - > > I really like the dialogue between you and Htoo about vipassana in > general -- there are several practical and conceptual issues that are > always good for re-examination. > > 43974 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Friends, Precepts, Books, and sayings nilovg Dear Christine, thank you for your lively description of your trip amd the discussions. Yes, I often heard, begin again, and this is very good. Nina. op 03-04-2005 11:21 schreef Christine Forsyth op cforsyth1@...: > 'Whenever akusala presents itself - just see it as it is.' > 'Only understand nama and rupa, in this moment.' > > and my very favourite: > 'Begin again!' (simply a matter of starting from 'right now'). 43975 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 11:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (294) nilovg Dear Htoo, thank you for explaining. I always tend to get confused when the objects of arupa jhanas are paramattha dhammas. This is clear now. Nina. op 03-04-2005 12:55 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > There are 4 arupa jhanas. 1st arupa jhana takes the object > of 'pannatti' or 'concept' or 'name' which is 'boundless space'. The > 3rd arupa jhana takes the object of pannatti, which is 'nothingness'. > > Unlike the 1st and the 3rd arupa jhana, 2nd and 4th arupa jhanas take > paramattha dhamma here cittas. 2nd arupa jhana takes the object which > is 'boundless consciousness' or 'vinnana' which are the 1st arupa > jhana cittas. And 4th arupa jhana citta takes the object, which is > the 3rd arupa jhana cittas, while comtemplating as 'neither > perception nor non-perception'. 43976 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 4/3/2005 1:47:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: The various ways of classification of dhammas as 12 ayatanas, 18 elements, 5 khandhas, 4 foundations of mindfulness, etc, are different ways of considering the same thing, i.e., the dhammas, so even when considering by way of these classifications we need to know what the individual dhammas involved are. TG There's no such thing as an "individual dhamma." There are, however, composite states" that are able to perform specific functions and are discernible by analysis. I believe this is in accordance to the way the Buddha taught it. > As I mentioned in my previous post, the Buddha did not teach us to see > conventional objects such as closet door as hardness, but to see/know > hardness appearing to body consciusness (i.e., through the body-door) as > only hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing to > eye-consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) as only visible-object. > > TG Please give just one reference from the Suttas to back this up and > I'll believe you. Well, I'm not asking you to believe me ;-)), and in any event I'm not exactly sure just what you are not in agreement with. But I think the passage concerning 'the all' (see below) is one supporting passage, and another would be the Bahiya Sutta which reads in part: TG I am asking for a reference from the Suttas that can back up the gist of your statement above. "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya. "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." TG Here the Buddha is training to know states for merely "what they are" and not to "imagine into them" as something that they are not ... i.e. self, individual dhammas, etc. ;-) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10a.html Jon TG 43977 From: "mnease" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (294) mlnease Hi Htoo and Nina, Thanks Htoo, I found this very helpful and interesting too. Sorry if you've covered this already, but can even the 2nd and 4th aruupajhaanas--with paramattha dhammas as objects--still be micchaasamaadhi if unaccompanied by sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasati etc.? Thanks in advance, mike > Dear Htoo, > thank you for explaining. I always tend to get confused when the objects of > arupa jhanas are paramattha dhammas. This is clear now. > Nina. > op 03-04-2005 12:55 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > > > There are 4 arupa jhanas. 1st arupa jhana takes the object > > of 'pannatti' or 'concept' or 'name' which is 'boundless space'. The > > 3rd arupa jhana takes the object of pannatti, which is 'nothingness'. > > > > Unlike the 1st and the 3rd arupa jhana, 2nd and 4th arupa jhanas take > > paramattha dhamma here cittas. 2nd arupa jhana takes the object which > > is 'boundless consciousness' or 'vinnana' which are the 1st arupa > > jhana cittas. And 4th arupa jhana citta takes the object, which is > > the 3rd arupa jhana cittas, while comtemplating as 'neither > > perception nor non-perception'. 43978 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (294) kelvin_lwin Send IM Hi Mike, I find it useful to remember it's 3 value logic, not 2. Your question make it sound like you think other jhanas can be accompanied by miccha-samadi. All akusala won't be accompanied by samma-anything. Some are accompanied by miccha and some doesn't have either. Hence the 3 value are like: pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feelings. By the same token all kusala won't be accompanied by miccha-anything. Some might lack samma but it falls into "neutral" category which lacks both. Technically though all kusala cittas are accompanied by sati. Also all jhana cittas have panna, only 4/8 maha-kusala cittas lack panna. - kel > covered this already, but can even the 2nd and 4th aruupajhaanas-- with > paramattha dhammas as objects--still be micchaasamaadhi if unaccompanied by > sammaadi.t.thi, sammaasati etc.? 43979 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature buddhistmeditat... Hi Jon - Thank you for (finally) replying to my post on Buddha Nature. I wrote about Buddha Nature from the perspective of a curious Buddhist who thinks that Mahayana Buddhism is worthy and that I might find some clues about Nirvana which Theravada Buddhism does not provide. I believe that Buddha Nature is a concept that deserves a careful study. I do not have a faith in it yet, because I have just begun to pay more attention to this interesting issue. You have asked a good question: "Does the idea of 'Buddha Nature' have any implications as regards the development of insight?" I don't know, Jon. But must you study only things that develop insight? To me curiosity is enough to motivate me to study anything. However, I am willing to devote my life time only to the development of insights. Warm regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi Tep > > Thanks for taking up my invitation to share your thoughts on this point. > My apologies for taking so long to reply. > > As I read your comments, then, Buddha Nature is something that would have > to be taken on faith, as it is neither a dhamma (although you refer to it > as a kind of 'dhatu') nor a truth about dhammas. Is that how you would > see it? > > Does the idea of 'Buddha Nature' have any implications as regards the > development of insight? > > Jon > > --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Jon - > > > > Thank you for asking. > > > > I am honored that you have asked for my thought on the subject of > > Buddha Nature and the Primal Mind (A. Mun's word). I hope that after > > reading this post you may not be too disappointed. Since mine is just > > a thought of a worldling, it is not yet free from confusion and > > misunderstanding. > > 43980 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:11pm Subject: Re: Vipassana / Tep buddhistmeditat... Dear KenH - If open-mindedness is a treasure, then you already are a rich man. Thank you very much for clarifying a number of points about jhana meditation, meditation teachers, and about you <"I am a raw beginner speaking my mind without expecting anyone to take me seriously.">. Your explanation is good. Warm regards, Tep ============== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thank you for your encouraging words. I am glad to accept your > suggestion to re-examine the issues. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > T: > For this mail I have just one concern about your opinion on > the "jhana meditators". > > KH: Isn't it true that sitting for long periods with a straight back > while living in a cemetery or at the base of a tree applies only to > jhana meditators? > > Tep: I am very glad that you have raised this issue that indicates a > few misunderstandings. What are such misunderstandings that I think I > see ? > > -- Jhana meditators don't know vipassana. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > No, even I would not make such a sweeping statement as that. There > are explanations in the suttas (which I think I could find in DSG's > files) of how some monks became enlightened by developing jhana > followed by vipassana; others by developing vipassana followed by > jhana; others by developing jhana and vipassana in tandem, and still > others by developing vipassana on its own. > > Before the Buddha taught the Dhamma, jhana meditators certainly > didn't "know vipassana," but that is by no means a criticism. If I > seem to have less than the highest possible regard for jhana > meditators, that is due to a certain misunderstanding. Namely; some > people claim to practise jhana when, in fact, they practise nothing > remotely like jhana. If I am a little bit critical of those people, > it might look as though I am being critical of genuine jhana > meditators. > > I should add that, in my humble opinion, there are no genuine jhana > meditators in the world today. > > ------------------------- > T: > This misunderstanding is also seen in your other remark, "The > idea that anyone can purposely make chanda (or sati or any other > dhamma)arise is contrary to the doctrine of conditionality. This is a > difficult fact for meditation teachers to get around". It almost > sounds like some (jhana) meditation teachers are ignorant. > -------------------------- > > Actually, I wasn't referring to jhana-meditation teachers: I was > referring to people who teach ritualised vipassana-meditation. That > probably puts me out of the frying pan and into the fire! :-) > > -------------- > T: > -- Sitting meditation for long periods of time is a waste of > time. > -------------- > > Let's be clear on what we are talking about: Sitting meditation is a > jhana practice. The texts make no mention of sitting meditation in > regard to the development of bare vipassana. > > The jhana meditators described in the ancient texts sat for long > periods, but they knew what they were doing. Long before they took > up sitting meditation they had developed sila and samadhi to an > extraordinary extent. Just how extraordinary that extent was is a > point of controversy. Some people today think they can begin sitting > meditation with just an ordinary level of developed sila and > bhavana. I think they are gravely mistaken. I think, for them, > sitting meditation is, as you say, "a waste of time." > > -------------------------------------------- > > T: > Goenka's students might be offended. > > --------------------------------------------- > > I am sorry about that, but who takes any notice of me? I am a raw > beginner speaking my mind without expecting anyone to take me > seriously. > > ----------------------------- > T: > -- Dhutanga bhikkhus are pitiful. > ----------------------------- > > If I have said that, it must have been by implication because I have > never used the word, dhutanga. I have just now looked it up in the > dictionary for the first time. > > ------------------------------------------ > T: > To me "pitiful" is full with Piti for dhutanga bhikkus, rather > than sad, lost and lonesome like you have implied. > > In case you admit having the above misunderstandings, then you might > consider restudying Buddhism, especially the Sutta Pitaka and the > Visuddhimagga. > ------------------------------------------ > > I do indeed misunderstand pannatti-sila and the benefits of > accepting training rules. Sarah has been helping me with it, but I > have been a slow learner. I genuinely accept your advice to restudy > Buddhism because I need to understand dhutanga. In fact, I think I > am getting an inkling of it already, but it is still early days. :-) > > Ken H > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi KenH (Htoo and others) - > > > > I really like the dialogue between you and Htoo about vipassana in > > general -- there are several practical and conceptual issues that > are > > always good for re-examination. > > > > 43981 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:33pm Subject: Re: Nirvana and Consciousness buddhistmeditat... Hi TG - Your sutta quote, 'These six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder, and no other six faculties will arise anywhere in anyway.' does not rule out the "consciousness of nirvana". So we cannot say for sure that such consciousness, which is not included in the six faculties, does not exist. Of course, its existence has not been proven by anyone either; perhaps, Thanissaro Bhikkhu might be the exception. Thank you for the frank reply. I look forward to hearing from you again. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Tep > > In a message dated 4/2/2005 1:54:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, tepyawa@m... > writes: > Hi, All - > > My friend Hugo just wrote to me about a new article written by > Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Nirvana. I have found this article very > interesting and would like to present a few extracted passages for you > to read and discuss. Words in parentheses also belong to the author's. > (snipped) > > 4. Does the whole writing make sense? > > I believe that the first three questions are not beyond the ability of > our DSG members to answer, based on the Abhidhamma principles. > > > Sincerely and respectfully yours, > > > Tep > > The only question I find relevent to the Buddha's teaching is # 4 and the > answer is no. > > I don't believe Thanissaro Bhikkhu's theories about Nibbana and consciousness > hold any water. Take the following quote from the Samyutta Nikaya ... > > "...a Bhikkhu who is beyond training understands the six faculties -- the eye > faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body > faculty, the mind faculty. He understands: 'These six faculties will cease > completely and totally without remainder, and no other six faculties will arise > anywhere in anyway.' " > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol 2, pg. 1697) > > TG > 43982 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:59pm Subject: Re: What is citta? buddhistmeditat... Dear Friend Htoo (and other DSG members) - I think your message (#43934) is one of the many reprints you have made on this subject. May I suggest that you kindly consider expanding the text to include answers to the following questions: H: It is the nature that is aware of its object. No other dhamma or no other nature can know anything including themselves. T: Why? H: A citta arises, it passes away immediately after its arising. Another citta arises, and again it falls away. Next arises and dies out immediately. This kind of uninterruptedness is the manifestation of citta. T: Why? And what makes it behave that way? H: There are 89 cittas in total. T: How could this statement be practically (experimentally) verified? How is such fact (given that it is true) useful for insight knowledge development? If you could answer the above questions in a straightforward fashion, then the subject "What is citta?" would become more interesting (at least to me). Kindest regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > From four realities, first, citta needs to be understood. It is the > nature that is aware of its object. No other dhamma or no other > nature can know anything including themselves. But citta can know > everything possible including cittas. > 43983 From: "alpha16draconis" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 3:29pm Subject: What is cittuppada? alpha16draconis To Sarah, Jonothan, or Nina What is the correct translation of the term cittuppada? If it translates as state of consciousness, how exactly is this to be understood? What is the relationship between cittuppada and cetasikas, the mental factors that arise with consciousness? thanks, Stephen 43984 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 3:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma challenge 4 matheesha333 Hi Mike, Actually you are right. They way the last 'a' of my name is pronounced alters the whole er ..picture even if the spelling is the same. 'Ah' would be female, 'er' would be male :) I'm from Sri Lanka by the way. Dont agree with the jhana bit but then I'm exhausted from an exchange with someone who believes it is only jhana and nothing else! So I dont want to get into that right now :) Wishing you progress cheers! Matheesha 43985 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi TG > > --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > ... > > > To my mind, the Buddha did not say that closet door is in fact > > hardness. > > > What he said was that through the body door only hardness etc is > > > experienced, and through the eye-door only visible object. > > > > > TG Did the Buddha ever talk about a "body-door" or "eye-door"? If he > > did, > > its news to me. (Since I see the Abhidhamma as later analysis and > > systemization of the Sutta and Vinaya, I don't consider the Abhidhamma > > as completely > > authoritive and definitely not the word of the Buddha.) > > The Buddha certainly did talk about the various sense consciousnesses, > regardless of whether he used the term 'door' on every occasion. It is > the dhammas associated with the various consciousnesses (of the sense > doors and mind door) that have to be known, I believe. > > As I mentioned in my previous post, the Buddha did not teach us to see > conventional objects such as closet door as hardness, but to see/know > hardness appearing to body consciusness (i.e., through the body- door) as > only hardness and to see/know visible-object appearing to > eye-consciousness (i.e., through the eye-door) as only visible- object. Hi Jon and TG Your discussion reminds me of the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2, Walshe) where it says: "And how, Sire, is he [the monk perfected in morality] a guardian of the sense-doors? Here a monk, on seeing a visible object with the eye, does not grasp at its major signs or secondary characteristics." It goes on similarly with the other senses and talks about the "eye-faculty" etc which is probably the same as "eye- door". Re this sutta, TG, are you able to understand it ("major signs" and "secondary characteristics") without reference to commentarial or Abhidhammic materials, the latter you know to be "definitely not the word of the Buddha" but apparently still partially "authoritative"? (-: Best wishes Andrew T 43986 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga XIV, 150 and Tiika lbidd2 Thanks Nina, very thorough. See you in a week. What is vipaka chanda? Larry 43987 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and TG & Jon) - In a message dated 4/3/05 7:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi Jon and TG > > Your discussion reminds me of the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2, Walshe) > where it says: "And how, Sire, is he [the monk perfected in morality] > a guardian of the sense-doors? Here a monk, on seeing a visible > object with the eye, does not grasp at its major signs or secondary > characteristics." It goes on similarly with the other senses and > talks about the "eye-faculty" etc which is probably the same as "eye- > door". > > Re this sutta, TG, are you able to understand it ("major signs" > and "secondary characteristics") without reference to commentarial or > Abhidhammic materials, the latter you know to be "definitely not the > word of the Buddha" but apparently still partially "authoritative"? > (-: > > Best wishes > Andrew T > ======================== I think that a comparison of this Walshe version with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's is useful here, and it seems to confirm that there is at least this one sutta where 'sense door' is used: Text Version (Walshe) quoted by Andrew: "And how, Sire, is he [the monk perfected in morality] a guardian of the sense-doors? Here a monk, on seeing a visible object with the eye, does not grasp at its major signs or secondary characteristics." ____________________________ ATI Version (Thanissaro Bhikkhu): "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him." With metta, Howard P.S. Why is the matter of whether the term 'sense DOOR' is used in the suttas or not deemed to be of any importance? I don't get the point? /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) 43988 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 1:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nirvana and Consciousness TGrand458@... Hi Tep In a message dated 4/3/2005 2:34:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, tepyawa@... writes: Hi TG - Your sutta quote, 'These six faculties will cease completely and totally without remainder, and no other six faculties will arise anywhere in anyway.' does not rule out the "consciousness of nirvana". So we cannot say for sure that such consciousness, which is not included in the six faculties, does not exist. Of course, its existence has not been proven by anyone either; perhaps, Thanissaro Bhikkhu might be the exception. Thank you for the frank reply. I look forward to hearing from you again. Warm regards, Tep TG Well, when the Buddha says in effect that -- "consciousness totally ceases without remainder and no consciousness will arise anywhere in anyway" -- to me that rules out some sort of "consciousness of Nibbana" state. This isn't the only instance of the Buddha speaking in these direct terms...there are many throughout the Suttas. TG 43989 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 2:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times TGrand458@... Hi Andrew, All I missed this original post so am working off of Howard's copy. I accept that sense doors or doors of the senses is used in the Suttas. Thanks for pointing out these instances. At any rate...the idea is that physical information travels from the "external" to the "internal" through the senses and this passage is being called a "door." In a message dated 4/3/2005 5:22:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Andrew (and TG & Jon) - In a message dated 4/3/05 7:17:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi Jon and TG > > Your discussion reminds me of the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2, Walshe) > where it says: "And how, Sire, is he [the monk perfected in morality] > a guardian of the sense-doors? Here a monk, on seeing a visible > object with the eye, does not grasp at its major signs or secondary > characteristics." It goes on similarly with the other senses and > talks about the "eye-faculty" etc which is probably the same as "eye- > door". > > Re this sutta, TG, are you able to understand it ("major signs" > and "secondary characteristics") without reference to commentarial or > Abhidhammic materials, the latter you know to be "definitely not the > word of the Buddha" but apparently still partially "authoritative"? > (-: > TG This passage is instruction to thwart conceptualizing things as entities or self. I have never claimed to "definitely know" the Abhidhamma is not the teaching word the Buddha. I don't believe it is his direct teaching for a variety of reasons which I have stated previously. (Apparently Bhikkhu Bodhi does not as well after recently reading his introduction the "Numerical Discourses.") I have respect for the Abhidhamma as being an ingenius systemization of the Buddha's teaching. I take Abhidhamma as being an assist to understanding the Suttas. The Buddha's teaching in the Suttas have a very carefully crafted sensibility to them that is lacking in Abhidhamma. If one studies Abhidhamma without deeply ingraining the overall sensibility found in the Suttas, I believe it is very easy to go off on a wrong tangent. (Its easy enough anyway.) TG 43990 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 6:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nirvana and Consciousness buddhistmeditat... Hi TG and others - You're absolutely right about the suttas <"consciousness totally ceases without remainder and no consciousness will arise anywhere in anyway" >. But I remember the Visuddhimagga stating that a citta can arise simply because another prior ciita just passes away. This is similar to the magnetic induction phenomenon -- a collapsing magnetic field simply induces another magnetic field to arise in its neighborhood. Now, let's imagine the passing away of a prior lokiya citta induces a lokuttara citta which takes Nibbana as its object, and it is no longer subject to the impermanence law: mind of the Arahant. Is it possible that this "last" lokuttara citta is the "consciousness of Nibbana"? [I am speculating here that Thanissaro Bhikkhu was not too naive to not know the sutta, from which you are quoting.] I think I again has stuck out my neck too far beyond my turtle shell. Please feel free, though, to strike the turtle's head with your stick. Warm regards, Tep ========= > In a message dated 4/3/2005 2:34:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, > TG Well, when the Buddha says in effect that -- "consciousness totally > ceases without remainder and no consciousness will arise anywhere in anyway" -- to > me that rules out some sort of "consciousness of Nibbana" state. > > This isn't the only instance of the Buddha speaking in these direct > terms...there are many throughout the Suttas. > > TG 43991 From: "Evan Stamatopoulos" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 7:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Vipassana / Ken H Evan_Stamatopou... Ken In your post you state: I should add that, in my humble opinion, there are no genuine jhana meditators in the world today. Could you please elaborate on this because I don't understand your meaning here. Kind Regards, Evan 43992 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 0:17pm Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 dacostacharles Jon, This is a tough one (the idea) so I understand why you could be feeling lost. "In a nut shell" The point of not suffering even though there is clinging is based on the principle of transforming a samsaric experience into an enlightening one. This takes wisdom concentration, and morality/basic goodness. An example of this is the practice of single pointed meditation that is fixed on an object. We are actually clinging to the object. Does that help?? CharlesD ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, 03 April, 2005 14:29 Subject: Re: A Question Re: [dsg] Re: Ken--ultimate (Abhidhamma) view part 2 Hi Charles --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > Jon, > When it comes to accepting something as truth, the Buddhist text (Kalama > sutra mainly) say not by faith, but by experience. However, when it > comes to truths, like Buddhism, gaining the experience is often a goal > way out of reach. But we can still have faith in it. > > Now the real problem with the post is the word HOPE. Hope implies > clinging. But I always ask: "How can one have hope/clinging without > suffering when the hope goes unfulfilled?" > Often, hope is all a desperate person has. > So I ask you, "How can one have hope/clinging without suffering when the > hope goes unfulfilled?" > When you can answer that, "I think" you will have the Right View. You've lost me again, I'm afraid. So it looks like I'm destined to be mired in wrong view for a while longer yet ;-)) Looking forward to your elucidation on this subject matter. Jon 43993 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 0:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having no opinions dacostacharles Hi Jon Charles DaCosta wrote: Yes, I was keeping them separate; however it is because of consciousness there is feelings, perceptions, and formations (I Think). The aggregates that ... are feed by consciousness. And since consciousness can by-pass them, it could be useful to say, "the consciousness that thinks." I just prefer the consciousness that triggers/gives rise to thinking. ------------------------------------------------ Jon: I would not see it as correct to say that 'consciousness triggers/gives rise to thinking'. That suggests they are separate mind-moments. I prefer 'consciousness that thinks' ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- If you remove consciousness you could not tell if you were thinking, nor would you be able to sense objects. I would think, you would have no reason to think since without consciousness there is no-awareness. And keep in mind that consciousness and concoting/thinking are seperate aggregets. CharlesD PS: this was a quicky so I hope it makes sense 43994 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 7:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi TG --- TGrand458@... wrote: ... > TG There's no such thing as an "individual dhamma." There are, > however, > composite states" that are able to perform specific functions and are > discernible by analysis. I believe this is in accordance to the way the > Buddha taught it. If there are 'composite states', then of what are those states composed? In the often-quoted passage, 'Sabbe sankhara anicca and dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta', what is your understanding of 'sankhara' and 'dhamma' (and if composite states, on what do you base that interpretation)? > TG Here the Buddha is training to know states for merely "what they > are" > and not to "imagine into them" as something that they are not ... i.e. > self, > individual dhammas, etc. ;-) Well, I'm clear on the admonition that things should not be taken for self, but I am not aware of any admonition to the effect that composite states are not to be taken as individual dhammas. Now it's my turn to ask you for a sutta quote ;-)). Jon 43995 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Buddha Nature jonoabb Hi Tep --- Tep Sastri wrote: ... > I believe that Buddha Nature is a concept that deserves a careful > study. I do not have a faith in it yet, because I have just begun to > pay more attention to this interesting issue. > > You have asked a good question: "Does the idea of 'Buddha Nature' have > any implications as regards the development of insight?" > I don't know, Jon. But must you study only things that develop > insight? To me curiosity is enough to motivate me to study anything. > However, I am willing to devote my life time only to the development > of insights. Insight is of course the thing most worth studying of all, and the most difficult. For me, it's enough for this lifetime ;-)). Also, we don't know how much time we have left in this lifetime, or when the opportunity to study about insight will next arise. Jon 43996 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 8:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is cittuppada? jonoabb Hi Stephen Cittuppada is not a term I'm familiar with, but you may find something of interest in the message at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12008?ordered=1&simple=1 Jon --- alpha16draconis wrote: > > > To Sarah, Jonothan, or Nina > What is the correct translation of the term cittuppada? > If it translates as state of consciousness, how exactly is > this to be understood? > > What is the relationship between cittuppada and cetasikas, > the mental factors that arise with consciousness? > > thanks, > Stephen 43997 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 8:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Andrew Thanks for the sutta quote. Very relevant. Jon --- Andrew wrote: ... > Hi Jon and TG > > Your discussion reminds me of the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2, Walshe) > where it says: "And how, Sire, is he [the monk perfected in morality] > a guardian of the sense-doors? Here a monk, on seeing a visible > object with the eye, does not grasp at its major signs or secondary > characteristics." It goes on similarly with the other senses and > talks about the "eye-faculty" etc which is probably the same as "eye- > door". > > Re this sutta, TG, are you able to understand it ("major signs" > and "secondary characteristics") without reference to commentarial or > Abhidhammic materials, the latter you know to be "definitely not the > word of the Buddha" but apparently still partially "authoritative"? > (-: > > Best wishes > Andrew T 43998 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 8:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Unchanging, For All Times jonoabb Hi Howard Your closing remark is a point well made. The crux of the matter here is whether the Buddha taught the importance of knowing as they are the different kinds of consciousness and their objects. Jon --- upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Andrew (and TG & Jon) - ... > I think that a comparison of this Walshe version with Thanissaro > Bhikkhu's is useful here, and it seems to confirm that there is at least > this one sutta where 'sense door' is used: ... > P.S. Why is the matter of whether the term 'sense DOOR' is used in the > suttas or not deemed to be of any importance? I don't get the point? 43999 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Apr 3, 2005 8:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing with the Tongue corvus121 Hi Charles Thanks for taking the time to give me your views on this issue. Just a few points in reply: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: [snip] To say "it is a mistake to look for moral lessons in nature" is also wrong. Many marvel at the work ethics of bees and ants. There are many other examples, like the loyalty of dogs, ... I could go on. Nature, including humans, is quite diverse and there are both good and bad example of morality. Andrew: In schoolbooks in Elizabethan England, children were encouraged to copy the "good" behaviour of bees and ants - "working hard", "devotion to a Queen", "thrift" and so on. But that was, of course, people superimposing their own ethical outlook on nature. As Gould pointed out, none of these schoolbooks ever dealt with creatures that DIDN'T fit with the ethical ideas of the authors e.g. there is a species of wasp in which the newly born young devour their mother! Nobody ever told the school kiddies that this was "natural" behaviour and therefore "good". Charles, with your comments, you are merely superimposing your own ethical ideas onto nature and saying "this is good" but "that is bad". The point I was trying to make - and didn't do a very clear job of it - is that it is a mistake to equate "natural" with "ethical". You wrote: And lastly: In science, faith/confidence, is the basis of hypothesis, and even theories. Andrew: Good point! Best wishes Andrew T