54800 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:21pm Subject: The 3 Final Tools ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: What is the Three Steps to Freedom, Peace and Happiness ? If Awareness by Breathing is frequently trained & repeatedly refined over a period, the Four Foundations of Awareness are gradually completed and finally entirely perfected ... If the Four Foundations of Awareness are frequently trained and repeatedly refined over a period, the Seven Links to Awakening are gradually completed and finally entirely perfected ... If the Seven Links to Awakening are frequently trained & repeatedly refined over a period, Release by Knowing is gradually completed and finally entirely perfected ... Only this - in itself - is the End of Suffering ... Details are found in this Meditation Manual: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Manual/Meditation.Manual.htm Source: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya. Sutta 118 AnapanaSati. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 54801 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 0:58am Subject: Tep (3) sarahprocter... HI Tep, I’ll look at your feedback later (many thanks as usual for your careful and prompt reading). Meanwhile continuing on..... 10. With regard to your post #53616, I’d like to discuss SN47:6, The Hawk (Bodhi transl) further. This is in the Satipatthanasamyutta of SN. The point we were discussing was whether or not satipatthana can be referred to as the ‘proper resort as anchoring’ if sila or virtue. In other words,whether satipatthana is the only way that sila can be perfected, by ‘guarding’ and ‘anchoring’. You quote from the Kundaliya Sutta, SN 46:6 and I’ll leave this for now as we’ve discussed it before and gone round in circles. Sometimes the ‘guarding’ refers to sati of satipatthana and sometimes to any sati with wholesome states. One thing for sure is that there cannot be the ‘fulfilling of the four establishements of mindfulness or the perfection of sila, samadhi or panna without the development of satipatthana. You rightly point out that in ‘The Hawk’ (SN 47:6), the Buddha did not talk about ‘the three kinds of good conduct’. However, we read that a bhikkhu should ‘move’ in his ‘own resort’, throught the development of satipatthana and by ‘clearly comprehending’ and being ‘mindful’ removes ‘covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world’. The one who ‘strays’ outside his ‘own resort’ like the hawk , is the one who is enamoured and enticed by the sense objects. Surely, it goes without saying that the one who keeps to his ‘own resort’, who develops satipatthana and is not moved by lobha and dosa , not enticed by the sense objects appearing, is the one who thereby will really keep good sila – not out of fear or habit or appearance, but by way of understanding and fully appreciating the value of good sila with sati sampajanna. ..... 11. I had mentioned that we need to read the teachings as a ‘whole’ rather than reading just a short sutta in isolation. You then asked me (same post above) to show you how to study ‘at least 10,000 suttas, the Vinaya-pitaka, and the Abhidhamma-pitaka and then relate them together’. Good point! I don’t think it’s a question of how much we read or study, but of the careful considering of the meaning and I know you are someone who does consider the suttas very carefully indeed. For example, if we read and appreciate that the Buddha taught that all dhammas are anatta and slowly we begin to understand the truth of this, we won’t be deterred or confused if we come across a sutta which seems to suggest otherwise. We will have confidence that the dhammas experienced now really are anatta and that the sutta in question maybe poorly translated, using conventional speech we don’t appreciate or simply beyond our knowledge to understand. .... 12. On #53675, I’d just like to stress that panna, sampajanna, vijja and samma ditthi are all synonyms. Of course there are different degrees of both mundane and supramundane wisdom. As the commentary note you quote says, “vijja, hiri and ottappa arise together; Vijja is the prime factor giving decisive support to hiri and ottappa which play secondary roles.” As the sutta itself said (SN XLV.10), “Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skilfull qualities, followed by conscience and concern.” This is the point I was trying to make in the earlier posts– they don’t arise in steps, but ‘followed by’ refers to the leadership role of vijja, conditioning its accompanying mental factors such as hiri and ottappa. ..... 13. You refer in your discussions with Math to suttas such as MN149 which seem to stress the development of ‘tranquillity and insight’ (#53681)at enlightenment. I agree. However, whilst I think that often the attainment of jhanas and samatha development is stressed and by conditions is a basis for enlightenment for some of the Buddha’s followers, in contexts like this one (MN149), the emphasis is on the ‘yoked’ nature of ‘tranquillity and insight’ at stages of insight and enlightenment. Nanamoli/Bodhi refer to the commentary notes which say this yoking in context refers to the ‘simultaneous arising of serenity and insight in the supramundane path. The former is present under the heading of right concentration, the latter under the heading of right view.’ As we know, at supramundane path moments, nibbana is experienced with an intensity equivalent to appana (jhana) concentration. (Lots under ‘Jhana & Nibbana’, ‘Jhana –two meanings’ in U.P. Also you may be interested to see posts under ‘Scholars and Meditators’ there as well, indicating the different accumulations in this regard – the unusual title is given by B.Bodhi to a sutta in AN. ) .... 14. Following on the topic of vijja and your post to Math (#53685), I think that whether it’s the vijja or panna which begins to develop now with satipatthana, conditioning hiri and ottappa to grow at the same time or the vijja of the arahant, it’s the same mental factor. It’s panna cetasika which shines a light, dispelling darkness. It has to begin and develop, otherwise it will never become an indriya or bala (power) or enlightenment factor. .... 15. To Suan (#53873), you mentioned that you ‘have no doubt that realities (paramattha dhammas) taught in the Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma Pitaka are the same’. This is good to hear! You go on to refer to confusions arising from some ‘commentarial notes’ and ‘some invented Abhidhamma/Paramattha-dhamma concepts (by several DSG members) that the Buddha did not teach.’ I think we’re all bound to have confusions and though we all act in good faith, I’m sure we all make many mistakes too. That’s why we’re here to pool our understandings to date and to try and support each other. As K.Sujin once said to us, by acknowledging our very limited understanding and many errors, we can really show appreciation for the great wisdom of the Buddha. Meanwhile, please point out any ‘inventions’ you come across:-).(I hope by now you see that we don’t ignore your quoted suttas and interpretations here as you mentioned to Math!!). .... 16. In #53926 you quote from SN48:52, Mallikas (Bodhi transl) in Indriyasamyutta. I’m struck by the many suttas you’ve quoted which emphasise the key role of panna (wisdom)!. Let me add the Bodhi translation and note to the paragraph you quoted from ‘Wings to Awakening’: “ ‘Bhikkhus, so long as noble knowledge has not arisen in the noble disciple, there is as yet no stability of the [other] four faculties, no steadiness of the [other] four faculties.* But when noble knowledge has arisen in the noble disciple, then there is stability of the [other] four faculties, then there is steadiness of the [other] four faculties. .... [S: I’ll add the simile as I think it’s a good one -] “It is, bhikkhus, just as in a house with a peaked roof: so long as the roof peak has not been set in place, there is as yet no stability of the rafters, there is as yet no steadiness of the rafters; but when the roof peak has been set in place, then there is stability of the rafters, then there is steadiness of the rafters. “......In the case of a noble disciple who possesses wisdom, the faith that follows from it becomes stable; the energy that follows from it becomes stable; the mindfulness that follows from it becomes stable; the concentration that follows from it becomes stable.’ “ *BB note: “Noble knowledge (ariya~naa.na) obviously represents the wisdom faculty, Spk (S: the commentary) says that the other four faculties are mixed (mundane and supramundane), while noble knowledge is supramundane [Spk-p.t: the knowledge of the path]; but it is possible to consider it as mixed too if it is understood to be based on the other four faculties.” S: Again, I don’t read ‘follows from it’ as referring to ‘steps’ or sequence, but rather to dependence on right view or wisdom. They are developed together. .... 17. In the same post #53926, you refer to SN48:50 ‘At Aapa.na’ (Bodhi transl). You wonder what phenomena (dhammas) the noble disciple experiences in this passage: ‘ “And, venerable sir, when he has again and again strived in such a way, again and again recollected in such a way, again and again concentrated his mind in such a way, again and again understood with wisdom in such a way, that noble disciple gains complete faith thus: ‘As to those things that previously I had only heard about, now I dwell having contacted them with the body and, having pierced them through with wisdom, I see. ‘ That faith of his, venerable sir, is his faculty of faith.” S: This follows the paragraph about the realization of nibbana Here, I believe the reference is the reviewing cittas which follow the lokuttara cittas, when the lokuttara cittas are ‘reviewed’ and the noble disciple reviews the defilements eradicated and so on. B.Bodhi gives this help from the commentary: “Spk calls this ‘reviewing faith’ (paccavekkha.nasaddhaa). He adds that ‘since the disciple has ‘pierced with wisdom’ the things ‘previously heard’, the precise role of faith here is unclear.’ S: I don’t find the role so unclear (unless I’m missing something). The text seems to me to be referring to the first direct experience of nibbana, i.e sotapatti cittas. At this stage, all doubt is eradicated for good, the faith is now unshakeable. This is the emphasis in the sutta. Back to the sutta: “ ‘Good, good, Sariputta! Sariputta, the noble disciple who is completely dedicated to the Tathagata and has full confidence in him does not entertain any perplexity or doubt about the Tathagata or the Tathagata’s teaching.’ “ S: We could add, no more doubt or wavering with regard to the following of the precepts or the Patimokkha (for bhikkhus) under any circumstances. I think I’ve also answered your question about why the ‘noble’ disciple here. Again, I think many of the Abhidhamma details are to be understood in the sutta. Thanks again for giving me this chance to reflect on all the suttas you refer to and your interesting comments about them. To be contd Metta, Sarah ======== 54802 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 0:43am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 361- Different Groups of Defilements Part 1 (m) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch21 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 1 continued] Questions i What is the use of classifying the same cetasikas as cankers, floods and yokes? ii Do we have to be detached first before we develop wisdom? iii We may agree that sense-pleasures are dangerous, but attachment to them still arises. How can one really see their danger? ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 1 finished!) Metta, Sarah ====== 54803 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:32am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 2. nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 2. We read in the Commentary to the Mahåparinibbånasutta: ³Such and such is síla (virtue), meaning, it is indeed síla, síla to that extent; here it is síla which are the four purities of síla. Samådhi is concentration. Wisdom should be understood as insight wisdom (vipassanå). As to the words, when it is fully developed by síla, this means, when he has abided in that síla etc., these produce concentration accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness; when this is fully developed by that síla it is of great fruit and of great benefit. When he has abided in this concentration, they produce wisdom accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and this, when it is fully developed by this concentration, is of great fruit, of great benefit. When he has abided in this wisdom, they produce the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and thus when it is fully developed by this (wisdom) he is completely freed from the intoxicants.² Thus, when we read about full development this pertains to lokuttara cittas arising at the different stages of enlightenment. The ³Visuddhimagga², in the Chapter on Virtue, Síla, gives the following fourfold classification of purity of síla (pårisuddhi síla): ³the restraint of ³Påtimokkha² including 227 rules of discipline for the monk, the restraint of the sense faculties (indriya samvara síla), the purity of livelihood (åjíva pårisuddhi síla), the use of the four requisites of robe, dwelling, food and medicines, that is purified by reflection (paccaya sannissita síla).² As regards restraint of the sense faculties, there are different levels of restraint. We read in the ³Middle Length Sayings² (no. 27, Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant¹s Footprint) that the Buddha spoke to the brahman Jånussoni about the monk who has restraint as to the sense-faculties: ³... Having seen visible object with the eye he is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over the organ of sight....² ***** Nina. 54804 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. nilovg Hi Howard, op 18-01-2006 21:31 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: What is the flavor of air? -------- N: When you use the word air, it can mean: space or aakasa ruupa, the ruupa that surrounds the kalapas. It does not belong to the groups of eight that always arise together. It is said that space cannot be touched by the four great elements. It cannot be tasted. When flavour is experienced by tasting-consciousness, only flavour is the object, the other conascent ruupas in that group are not the object, they do not appear, although they support the rupa that is flavour. There must be solidity, there must be cohesion as well. It is explained in a conventional way thus: the tongue must be wet so that one can taste a flavour. To me, there is nothing against it to use conventional expressions to explain the Abhidhamma. ------- H: And is it so that in > all realms of existence, including all those corresponding to the rupa jhanas, > odor and flavor arise? It's not all so clear to me! ;-) ------ N: No, in the rupa-brahma planes odour and flavour do not arise. There are no conditions for smelling, tasting and body-consciousness. In the Abhidhamma we learn about the processes of cittas and we come to understand more how rapidly defilements arise an account of an object, in the same process as seeing or hearing. There is no time to manipulate cittas. But actually, the teaching as presented in the Abhidhamma is not different from the teaching as presented in the Suttanta. We read in the suttas: seeing an object with the eye, hearing a sound with the ear... when he is negligent, Mara comes upon him by way of the eye... by way of the ear.. Objects overcome him, he does not overcome objects. Whereas when he is mindful, he conquers objects. I do not find subconsciousness a good term to explain accumulations. Or different layers. One citta falls away, but by force of conditions kusala and akusala are accumulated from one citta to the next citta. Nina. 54805 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 216, 217 nilovg Hi Azita, All ruupas included in ruupakkhandha are molested or afflicted. Susceptible to change, constantly breaking up. In the Vis. ruupakkhandha is compared to a lump of foam, which is contimually breaking up from the first state of the foetus on. All these words are used to explain the danger and disadvantage of the khandhas and here of ruupakhandha. You will read that the kandhas are murderous, and later on we read:< ... and the way of definition should be known according to that, that is to say: firstly, one who sees the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging in brief as an enemy with drawn sword, etc. is not worried by the aggregates.> When one sees dhammas as they are one is not worried. Not even by mozzies. We read in the Suttas about endurance: the monk can endure cold, heat, gadflies, etc. During a former India trip, long ago, a friend who was a doctor said that when a mosquito bites, one can see it as a gift of blood, or a gift of life. She had no aversion. We can prevent the bites, but when it has happened there can be metta and compassion instead of aversion. Nina. op 19-01-2006 02:24 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@...: > not only the word 'afflicted' but now also the > word 'molested', have me very baffled/confused :-). How is molesting > related to similar? > > could we say that not all rupa is afflicted, only the rupa that > is bodysense because of heat,thirst and mozzies - in my case - in > the mozzie infested tropics! 54806 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:41am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 222, 223 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 222, 223 Text Vis. 222: 'Twice as to how to be seen': the exposition should be known twice as to how to be seen, namely, in brief and in detail. --------- N: In the following section (Vis. 223) there are similes pertaining to the five khandhas collectively, which is how they are seen in brief. After that, in section 224, there are similes pertaining to each of the five khandhas separately and this is how they are seen in detail. ----------- Text Vis.223: In brief [that is, collectively] the five aggregates as objects of clinging should be seen as an enemy with drawn sword (S.iv,174) in the Snake Simile, as a burden (S.iii,25) according to the Burden Sutta, as a devourer (S.iii,87f.) according to the To-be-devoured Discourse, and as impermanent, painful, not-self, formed, and murderous, according to the Yamaka Sutta (S.iii,112f.). -------- N: The Tiika refers briefly to the sutta texts. With regard to the Snake Simile, the Tiika states that the five khandhas of grasping are like five murderous foes. In this sutta we read that these follow a person close upon his tracks. We read in the Burden Sutta (B.B. p. 871) that the five khandhas of grasping are a burden: the person who takes them up is the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden is craving for sensual pleasures, for existence and for extermination, and the laying down of the burden is the cessation of craving. The Co. explains that the khandhas are a burden because they have to be borne through maintenance, they have to be looked after. The body, for example, is a constant burden, because it has to be fed, to be bathed and looked after all the time, and it is affected by tiredness and disease. The Co. explains that the Buddha spoke about the person (puggala) who carries the burden in conventional sense. The person is called the carrier of the burden because it picks up the burden of the aggregates at the moment of birth, maintains it by looking after it and lays it down at death, and then takes up another burden at rebirth. The Tiika quotes from the To-be-devoured Sutta, that the well-taught ariyan disciple reflects: The same is said of the other khandhas. ŒI am a prey of¹ is the translation of the Pali khajji.m, I am eaten or devoured. The Co. explains that this kind of consuming means experiencing discomfort from the khandhas. Again the Buddha uses conventional expressions to teach the disadvantages of the five khandhas. In the Yamaka Sutta it is explained that the khandhas are like a foe in disguise of a friend. We read that a treacherous person enters into the service of a rich man and behaves as a friend, eager to please and well-spoken. He then slays the rich man. The Sutta explains that by having wrong view of the khandhas these turn to his loss and suffering and it deals with personality belief (sakkaya di.t.thi), which is a wrong interpretation of the five khandhas: one regards the body as self, the self as having a body, the body as being in the self, or the self as being in the body. Evenso one interpretes the other khandhas wrongly. The Sutta explains that the person who has wrong view does not see that the khandhas are impermanent, painful, not-self, formed, and murderous. The Tiika to the Visuddhimagga adds that the khandhas of grasping that have been explained in many ways are indeed the field of investigation for insight. The Co. to the Yamakasutta (notes B.B. translation, p. 1079) states: --------- Conclusion: So long as craving have not been eradicated one will have to take up the burden of the khandhas from rebirth on. One will be a prey to the khandhas, and be deceived by the khandhas who are like a foe in disguise of a friend. Whatever we read in the texts pertains to the development of insight at this moment. The Tiika reminds one that insight has to be developed in order to see naama and ruupa which are classified as five khandhas as impermanent, painful, not-self. They have to be seen as formed, as conditioned dhammas. They are murderous, which means that they are dangerous: when one keeps on clinging to them one will not be liberated from the cycle of birth and death. If we are neglectful we shall be murdered or devoured all the time. All these similes are an exhortation to develop insight of seeing which appears now, visible object which appears now, to all dhammas that are included in the five khandhas of grasping. ******* Nina. 54807 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > Hi James > > I am unaware that a Theravadin by definition has to accept all three baskets verbatim. Hallo TG, James, Howard, Christine, all Some topics in this thread that interest me First: do all (real) Theravadins accept all the three baskets? James, that's based on a idealistic view: you construct a perfect ideal, a perfect Theravadin who accepts the three baskets completely. I think many buddhists who define themselves as a Theravadin, state for example that the Abhidhamma is composed after the passing away of the Buddha and has aspects that are not those of the Buddha. For example Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Sujata take that position. As TG states, many positions are possible. Mine for example is that many parts of the Sutta Pitaka should be understood metaphorically and not literally, and that the Abhidhamma is a very good therory about reality, a theory with a awakening purpose, not with a scientific one; so Abhidhamma is a theory, a model of reality, not reality itself. Second and more important is the statement of Howard with which James disagrees: "Paramattha dhammas are also empty. They lack identity, and are empty of themselves! They have no independent, separate existence or status whatsoever, depending entirely for their fleeting existence on prior and co-arising conditions, all of which are equally empty of core." I like this view of Howard, but I think this (nearly reified) use of the term "conditions" creates a new problem: What is the meaning of "conditions are equally empty of core" Does that mean that they have no core? And if they have no core they still can influence the arising of new dhammas. Is the relation paramattha dhammas - conditions comparable with the relation electricity - magnetism (a magnetic field arising when a electric current changes etc)? Behind that question is a more important problem of Howard's theory: it is a process theory in which the existence dimension "time" is implicit assumed. But "time" is not a paramattha dhamma, it's a concept. That brings me to a third topic. I still have my question: are concepts (pannatti) empty? TG answered it for one of the concepts, the concept "atta", that is empty, I knew that. But what about the (in the view of TG, I think, unimportant) infinite number of other concepts? I think concepts are empty, stated in another way: they are illusions, they are all product of are mind because we got mad without concepts; but this again is a personal opinion. Fourth: it does not surprise me that many Mahayanists don't have a correct idea what is the belief-system of a Theravadin. But what do Theravadins know about the Mahayana? Or in fact: about the several Mahayana traditions? I think it's important to have (a bit of) that knowledge, for two reasons (a) Personal: To define more honest and precise what kind of buddhist one want to be. (b) Social: For buddhism in the future Nina doesn't agree with this, and I got the idea that Sujin also never has studied any Mahayana text. But the result of this attitude is that hardcore DSG think: nobody does understand us. Fifth: there are differences between Theravada and Mahayana, no doubt about that. In my message I quoted some sources in #54776. But perhaps there is a "meta-difference": the lack of flexibility of Theravada (or: of most Theravadins) versus the more flexibel Mahayana. Metta Joop 54808 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:36am Subject: Dhamma thread ( 630 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Avijjaa paccayaa sa`nkhaaraa. Ignorance (avijjaa) as a supporting condition conditions 'sa`nkhaara' or sa`nkhaara have to arise because of avijjaa (ignorance) conditions them to arise. How does avijjaa support? By ignoring or by covering right things or the truths that is the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of the suffering, the truth of the cessation of the suffering and the truth of the path leading to the cessation of the suffering. Pancupadaana-kkhandhaa are suffering. Pancupadaana-kkhandhaa are dukkha. Pancupadaana-kkhandhaa or 5 clinging aggregates are agreegates that are the cause of arising of craving and clinging. These aggregates namely ruupa, vedanaa, sannaa, sankhaara, vinnaana are all suffering. When these five khandhaa or aggregates are not directly seen which is because of ignorance then formations or sankhaara have to arise. The support of avijjaa or ignorance helps very much to arising of these formation or kamma-formations or sankhaara or fabrication or fermentations. There are 3 sankhaara or 3 kinds of formation. They are 1. apunnaabhisankhaara (demeriting actions) 2. punnaabhisankhaara (meriting actions) 3. anenjaabhisankhaara (unshaking actions) Apunnaabhisankhaara are nothing but they all are unwholesome actions. They are unwholesome formations. When they are committed or they are performed there arise formation of kamma and this kamma is akusala kamma. Punnaabhisankhaara are nothing but they all are wholesome actions. But depending on the implications that they are involved there are two kinds of kusala and they are kaama-kusala and ruupa-kusala. Both cause formations of kamma of their respective realms. Because of kaama-kusala kamma there have to arise vipaaka in kaama- bhuumi or sensuous planes. These vipaakas are both rebirths and living vipaaka like seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and other vipaaka. If it is ruupa-kusala then it will give rise to ruupa-vipaaka in rupa brahma realms or fine material sphere. Ruupa-vipaaka are ruupa- rebirth, ruupa-bhavanga and ruupa-cuti all of which are present only in ruupa realms. Even The Buddha did not have such consciousness of ruupa-vipaaka cittas. The 3rd sankhaara is anenjaabhisankhaara. Again this is done because of avijjaa. This avijjaa or ignorance does not know Noble Truths. Because of this pancupadaanakkhadhaas are thought to be good. The person concerned will be clinging to vinnaana or sannaa or vedanaa or sankhaara in connection with aruupa-jhaana. Aruupa jhaana are called anenjaabhisankhaara because they are completely and totally unshakable unlike ruupa jhaana which are still shakable and disturbable when there is very strong outside object like explosion, fire etc. Aruupa jhaana are unshakable by these outside strong objects however they are strong and powerful. This happen because aruupa jhaana does not depend on ruupa and they are free of ruupa that is why they are called aruupa jhaana. They when arise are called anenjaabhisankhaara. May you 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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 54809 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:06am Subject: Tep (4) sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Continuing....I think this will be the last of this batch:-). Thx for your patience. ..... 18. Really just a question here. In #53931 to Math, you say that you ‘both reject the assumption of a ‘single moment’ of development.’ Could you clarify what you mean? I agree with what you say about the bodhipakkhiya dhammas ‘being developed concurrently over time’, so you may just be referring to the long and gradual development of these. ..... 19.In your post to Math (#53968) you suggest that the ‘Dhamma Vinaya’ refers specifically to the Vinaya and Suttas and that it is only nowadays that ‘the Buddha’s teachings are often referred to as Tipitaka’. In the commentaries (eg commentary to the Vinaya and the Atthasalini) and accounts of the First Council, the Dhamma Vinaya is clearly shown to be the same as the Tipitaka, the 84,000 units of text (See ‘Dhamma-Vinaya’ in U.P. if you have time). You quote from the Mahavamsa in your post and Mahakassapa’s comments. Also you refer to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Here is a quote from the commentary to the sutta – MahaKassapa’s words: .... “ ‘Even while the body of the ascetic Gotama survives, his disciples are quarrelling.’ Let me just be patient, for the Dhamma which the Blessed One taught is like a heap of flowers not yet tied together. As flowers blown by the wind scatter here and there, so by the influence of people like this (S: Subhadda), as time passes, a rule of training or two will be lost from the Vinaya. A question or two will be lost from the Sutta; a difference between stages or two will be lost from the Abhidhamma, so in due course, when the root is destroyed, we will become like demons. Therefore I will have the Dhamma and Vinaya recited. When it is done, this Dhamma and Vinaya will be immovable like the flowers tied together by strong string.” .... 19. You raise an interesting point in #53970 (also to Math) about the role of memory and mindfulness. I think it depends on what kind of memory or sanna we’re referring to. If it is the ‘marking’ or ‘remembering’ of dhammas, it can condition sati as you say. If it’s the memory of conventional topics such as languages or school subjects, it won’t be of any use. I’d be glad to hear your further thoughts and clarifications of your comments. .... 20. I thought that (like Math), you gave some good quotes on the importance of ‘listening well’ and so on in #54099. Very helpful. I was curious about the two meanings given from the article on ‘Sotapanna’ referring the usually given ‘stream – entry’, but also ‘ear-entry’. I’d be interested to see any reference from the texts to this second meaning. When the Buddha refers to savakas or listeners of the Dhamma, I don’t think this is the same as referring to sotapannas. Glad for any assistance on this. .... 21. You asked about accumulations (in #54174). I agree with you that kamma-formations and ayuhana cannot be extended to refer to all ‘accumulations’ such as the condition for ‘teachability/learnability and for the development of understanding.’ Such accumulations come about for the most part by natural decisive support condition, not by kamma condition. I wrote a note to Joop on different terms commonly translated as accumulations. Ayuhana specifically refers to kamma-formations (or abhisankhara in D.O.) only. .... 22. You asked (#54442) about the ‘four right exertions’ and whether those given in AN 1V, 14 are ‘at higher level than the ‘four right efforts’, which is a factor of the Path?’. As I read them, they are the same 4 right efforts of the Path. They are developed at moments of satipatthana and ‘established’ or fully developed at lokuttara path moments – all fulfilling their functions at such moments. This is the Right Effort of the Eightfold Path. .... Tep, some of these comments are a bit rushed as is my glancing through the many suttas you kindly referred us to. Please feel free to point out any errors and discuss any points further. There are many other people I’d also like to write to before we go away in a couple of weeks, so I hope you won’t mind if any further replies of mind to yours or other new posts wait til our return to Hong Kong. We’re also getting close to making the full set of ‘the Erik series’ of discussions with A.Sujin available (India 06 talks won’t be finished before we go away). If you’re able to listen to these on the computer (or wish me to send you a CD like James and others), I’d be glad to hear your comments. Metta, Sarah ======== 54810 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. scottduncan2 "I do not find subconsciousness a good term to explain accumulations. Or different layers. One citta falls away, but by force of conditions kusala and akusala are accumulated from one citta to the next citta." Nina. Dear Howard, Nina, et al, The term "subconscious" is one with too much baggage, in my opinion. I mean to say that it is not a precise term. I don't wish to discuss psychology, at least western psychology, here (I've had my fill) but just as an aside, at least within the psychoanalytic tradition, most theoreticians use the term "unconscious." But even so, there are a number of senses is which this is meant; and so imprecise again. There is a certain mental topography implicit in the use of the term "unconscious;" the presence of aspects of mentality outside of awareness which are active, "parallel," and capable of having an influence on behaviour and experience despite being outside of awareness. To use the structure of the Abhidhammikas to describe unconscious mental states, one would have to say that within each layer of the psyche there are cittas arising and falling away. As I understand Abhidhamma "psychology," no such layering or hierarchy is suggested. There is a temporal factor - the speed with which citta arises and falls away. That this is much quicker than "awareness" is capable of registering contributes to a functional sort of unconscious but this seems to be linear. There is a complexity factor - that along with each citta arise many cetasikas giving a multi-dimensional apect to each instance of citta, and that a conditioning by the preceding citta structures the subsequent one. There is a dynamic factor - one citta conditions the next. There is an interactional factor - rupakhanda and contact. The main thesis of citta teaching seems to be, though, that citta arises and falls away. Without creating of each citta a little homunculus, all of the requisite elements seem to arise each time. Aspects of accumulation are transferred. My understanding is very limited and so I make this statement in the hope of being corrected and taught. I'd like to know the way in which the concept "outside of awareness" is dealt with from within the Abhidhamma. This is what, in part, seems to be a good question within this discussion. Thanks for an interesting thread. Sincerely, Scott. 54811 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles abhidhammika Dear Joop and all How are you? Joop wrote: "the lack of flexibility of Theravada (or: of most Theravadins) versus the more flexibel Mahayana." What do you mean by that? In what way should Theravada have flexibility? Before you can answer the above questions, I should point out, you have implied that you understood what Theravada is. Otherwise, you would not have been able to use the expression "the lack of flexibility of Theravada." If so, what exactly is Theravada according to your understanding? And, please keep in mind that Dalai Lama may have been out of touch with the Pali Tipitaka because I have never heard him quoting the Buddha's words from Pali texts. I usually attended his show whenever he visited Canberra in Australia. I saw and heard him on a TV program saying he followed Naagarjuna while he ought to have said that he followed Gotama the Buddha. And, please also keep in mind that Naagarjuna was merely one of the commentary writers in Sanskrit, far far below Buddhaghosa and other commentators in Pali textual tradition. The reason he became relatively more well-known in the west seemed to be that Buddhist Studies departments at the universities in the west have been dominated by Sanskritists who are usually weak in Pali scholarship. When they are busy with Sanskrit works like Naagarjuna's, they naturally have less time for Pali studies and fewer opportunities to read Pali texts. Hence, misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Buddha's teachings. Please remember that the Buddha did not permit his teachings to be transmitted in Sanskrit. Yet, wrong-headed monks converted from Brahmin caste disobeyed the Buddha's prohibition and went ahead with writing commentaries in Sanskrit! The result is, Brahminism being promoted in Buddhist parlance and disguise. As Naagarjuna was reported to be unable to distinguish between Samsaara and Nibbaana, he failed to understand the Buddha's teachings on forward processes and reverse processes of Pa.ticcasamuppaado. Thereby, he failed to meet the test of Vibhajjavaado, the Deconstruction Approach of Gotama the Buddha who declares himself Vibhajjavaadii, the Analytical Distinguisher of Dhammas. In short, Naagarjuna was merely a follower of Adveta school of Brahminism, the so-called non-dualism. So his followers, the so-called Mahayanists such as Dalai Lama, may have suffered from the scenario of the blind leading the blind or the blind following the blind. Am I now flexible or inflexible or what? :-) When followers of Theravada are silent by ignoring criticisms of Mahayanists, they may be accused of not being open to, or ignorant of, other schools of Buddhism. When they point out the wrong views of Mahayanists, they may be accused of being inflexible, harsh or provocative. The best course of action seems to be ignore Mahayanists as we know for sure that they are usually out of touch with Pali Tipitaka. We should not waste our time on fakes. Best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: < snip> Fifth: there are differences between Theravada and Mahayana, no doubt about that. In my message I quoted some sources in #54776. But perhaps there is a "meta-difference": the lack of flexibility of Theravada (or: of most Theravadins) versus the more flexibel Mahayana. Metta Joop 54812 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. nilovg Dear Scott, op 19-01-2006 14:34 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: There is a dynamic factor - one citta > conditions the next. There is an interactional factor - rupakhanda > and contact. ------ N: I am wondering what you mean by the last factor. do you perhaps think of rupa as object and rupa as physical base, and the cetasika contact? ------- > S: I'd like to know the way in which the concept "outside of awareness" > is dealt with from within the Abhidhamma. ------ N: Concept, paññatti, has different meanings. It can be the term that denotes a notion and the notion or idea itself. A term can denote a reality or something that is not real. In Survey of paramattha dhammas the many meanings of paññatti have been dealt with, in a separate Ch. Nina. 54813 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles nilovg Hi TG, If we remember which are paramattha dhammas, things may be clearer. Remember Sarah's second Abhidhamma posting: “The topics of Abhidhamma spoken of therein in full are from the ultimate standpoint four: consciousness, mentalities [cetasikas], materiality, and nibbana. [“Tattha vutt’ aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramattho Citta’m cetasika’m ruupa’m Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa] (From: Abhidhammatthasa’ngaha, Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma, transl by Wijeratne and Gethin). Don't be misled by the word ultimate, or paramattha. It does not have an abstract connotation. It refers to reality now; conditioned realities are ephemeral (I do not speak now about nibbaana) and they have their own characteristics that appear, be it for an infinitely short moment. We can also denote them as dhammas. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is the study of dhammas at this moment. If the characteristics of citta, cetasika and rupa could not be realized, what is the purpose of our study? Sarah's post: “ Ultimate’ means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate. N: ' the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest'. A person is not a paramattha dhamma. Understanding is developed to see that what we take for a lasting body are rupas that are constantly breaking up. And what we take for mind are citta and cetasika that do not last. This understanding when developed will be the highest knowledge that liberates from the cycle. Sarah's post: “ Consciousness (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: Consciousness has the characteristic of knowing objects. N: We learn that not a person, not a self knows an object. This is the highest and undistorted sense. When we are ignorant and unaware we take it that 'I' am seeing or hearing. This is what we usually did from childhood. But we can change our habitual outlook very gradually. Nina. op 18-01-2006 21:15 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > I think both the Dalai Lama and Namdrol cannot understand how something can > be a paramattha dhamma and still not be considered self. I frankly cannot > understand it either. That's why I sometimes speak against the paramattha > dhamma notion. 54814 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/18/06 11:18:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Howard: > "My "theory" is a phenomenalist one that views the "stage" upon which > all dhammas appear, ever, to be the "stage of experience." > ----- > S: I'm not sure I follow this, Howard. All dhammas - past,present, > and future - appear on the "stage of experience?" Since you include > "experience" are you referring to citta? Or "person?" I guess I'm > wondering about point of view. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Going along with the Abhidhammic terminology, my answer is "citta", not "person". Persons are concept-only IMO. Persons (actual, literal persons) are not a part of our experience. We only think so. ------------------------------------------ > ----- > But much of the experience at any time is subliminal, with only one > element of experience rising to the level of conscious awareness as > "object". > ----- > S: Okay, so you are referring to conscious awareness then. Are you > speaking about a continuity of experience? Probably dogmatic because > I'm new to this, I learn that there is only one citta arising at a > time, accompanied by the various cetasikas and having various > functions. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I accept that within a given mindstream there is but one citta (in the sense of mindstate) at a time. I think of a mindstream as a never ending sequence of waves, each rising, peaking, and falling. ----------------------------------------- I gather that by the time one has a conscious awareness of> > an object, a whole sequence of rising and falling away has proceeded > "subliminally," to use your phraseology. The element of experience > which rises to the level of conscious awareness is the "next" citta > only - is it not? You still seem to be theorising about a secondary > flow of events. ---------------------------------------- Howard: The parallel processing theory that I am proposing, though which I am far from wedded to, says that within a single mindstate for which the object is a particular rupa, there are, in addition to that object plus the operation of knowing it and the various concomitant mental operations associated with it, a number of "background" rupas that lie below the level of conscious awareness, but that arise along with the rupa that is object. These other, subliminal rupas, below the threshhold of awareness, are part of a rupic group (kalapa). ----------------------------------------- > ----- > What Abhidhamma and the commentaries call a citta then would exclude > all elements that are subliminal, for, though present on the "stage of > mind", they are flying in "under the radar" as it were. > ----- > S: That's what I'm learning. More or less. I still understand it to > be that the flow of successive cittas is too fast to follow and that > "awareness" comes late in the game and misses most of the action. Is > this what you are saying? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Not exactly. What I'm saying I've just explained. The "awareness" that you are speaking of is, I think, a mind-door grasping of an object that is more special than just the awareness of an object as it arises. It is a sort of summing-up awareness. ----------------------------------------- > ----- > What particular arising phenomenon becomes object in the moment is > determined by a combination of prior and concurrently arising > conditions, prominent among which are instances of kamma. > ----- > S: I think this is what I've gathered as well. Sa~n~na, > accumulations and whatnot, as discussed elsewhere lately. That is , > experience and it's valence (kusula/akusula) - vipakka -is kammically > determined - again as I am trying to figure out - I don't know for sure. > ----- > Of course, this phenomenalist parallel-processing, rupic-bundle theory > may well be wrong. There are several alternatives. One possiblity is > that my phenomenalist presumptions are all wrong, and rupas may have > "lives" independent of experience, both conscious and subliminal. > ----- > S: No I don't think so. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, neither do I. But, of course, I cannot be certain at this stage. ----------------------------------------- > ----- > Another is that the phenomenalist (experiential) perspective is still > correct, but that kalipas (rupic bundles) occur sequentially, with all > component rupas arising one after the other in some order, but not > simultaneously. > ----- > S: I'm sorry but I don't follow that (too tired?) You don't like > that rupic bundles arise as "bundles?" I'll chat more later. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I like it just fine that they arise simultaneously in a bundle. In fact, "my" theory accepts that they do so arise. I'm just recognizing the possibility that the bundle *might* occur spread out over a stretch of time, with the rupas comprising the bundle arising sequentially instead of simultaneously. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the discussion, Howard. --------------------------------------------- Howard: My pleasure, Scott. A caveat for both of us, though. This theorizing is an interesting and pleasant diversion, but it isn't "practice"! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > ======================== 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) 54815 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/19/06 12:38:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > I think that the sammati vs paramattha distinction is a > valid one. And > >pragmatically I see it as medicine for the illness of taking > conventional > >objects as real. But that is just a first step, in my opinion. If > one goes on to > >treat paramattha dhammas as separate, self-existent entities - > that is, if one > >reifies them, then one has simply moved on to a slightly more > favorable > >position but is still in the wrong. Paramattha dhammas are also > empty. They lack > >identity, and are empty of themselves! They have no independent, > separate > >existence or status whatsoever, depending entirely for their > fleeting existence on > >prior and co-arising conditions, all of which are equally empty of > core. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > Howard, While I quite agree with what you have to say about > paramattha dhammas, you are not purporting the official position of > the Abhidhamma and its commentaries. > ------------------------------------- Howard: It's certainly not my intention to be doing so. ;-) ------------------------------------- The `Abhidhammattha Sangaha' > > states: > > With his supernormal knowledge the Buddha analyzed this so-called > paramanu and declared this it consists of paramatthas- ultimate > entities which cannot be further subdivided. > -Narada Maha Thera, `A Manual of Abhidhamma', pg. 281. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I don't think that an instance of hardness, for example, can be "further subdivided." But being divisible isn't the only basis for emptiness. Being utterly dependent is. ------------------------------------------ > > So Howard, when you write, "Paramattha dhammas are also empty. They > lack > identity, and are empty of themselves! They have no independent, > separate existence or status whatsoever…" you are presenting your > viewpoint, not the viewpoint of the Abhidhamma and its > commentaries. ----------------------------------------- Howard: It may or may not accord with all or parts of these. I don't know. I do think it accords with the Dhamma as expressed in the suttas. ----------------------------------------- The Abhidhamma does reify phenomena and so therefore > > the Dali Lama is correct in stating that the Theravada position > doesn't adequately address the anatta of sensory objects and > phenomena. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I think that the Sutta Pitaka does adequately express it, as for example in the Uraga Sutta of the Sutta Nipata and the Kaccayanagotta Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. ---------------------------------------- > > Now, TG, you state that not all Theravada accept the paramattha > theory, but that can't quite be so. The definition of a Theravada > is someone who accepts all three baskets of the Pali Canon as > written, and rejects any other commentaries or suttas. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I know several Theravadin monks who do not accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as word of the Buddha, and who pay little attention to it. ------------------------------------------- As an > > example, I would say that Sarah is full-fledged Theravada (with > eccentric KS Philosophy thrown in for flavor ;-)); I, on the other > hand, am mixed with beliefs and viewpoints from all three vehicles. > Nowadays, I think there is a lot of mixing between the three > vehicles and so it's difficult to find any Buddhist who is pure this > or that vehicle (including monks/nuns). ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, yes. You are correct in this. Many Buddhists draw from a variety of traditions. I for one find much of value in Mahayana. ---------------------------------------- > > 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) 54816 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 1/19/06 5:55:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Behind that question is a more important problem of Howard's theory: > it is a process theory in which the existence dimension "time" is > implicit assumed. But "time" is not a paramattha dhamma, it's a > concept. > ===================== Is time presumed by the theory, or is time our conceptual means of understanding the flow of experience? 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) 54817 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:12am Subject: Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > So Howard, when you write, "Paramattha dhammas are also empty. They > lack > identity, and are empty of themselves! They have no independent, > separate existence or status whatsoever…" Hi, I think this is my first post here :D. I want to ask about what is meant by 'empty' ? My view is that everything is empty of atta, not empty on theirselves. Because atta is a wrong view, thus it never exist. There are concepts, and there are realities. Realities is always real, concepts could be wrong. Saying things as empty sounds strange to me, because when it is said to be empty, then it should be empty of something. What something? That something is an essence. But the essence is a concept. A concept do not even exist. So how could something become empty of another thing that do not even exist. So it's like saying that the Buddhas or Arahats exist or do not exist after parinibbana. 54818 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/19/2006 8:49:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Don't be misled by the word ultimate, or paramattha. It does not have an abstract connotation. It refers to reality now; conditioned realities are ephemeral (I do not speak now about nibbaana) and they have their own characteristics that appear, be it for an infinitely short moment. We can also denote them as dhammas. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is the study of dhammas at this moment. If the characteristics of citta, cetasika and rupa could not be realized, what is the purpose of our study? Hi Nina, Howard, All I fully understand they are not abstract notions. What I object to is the notion that they have "characteristics of their own" for what ever period of time. Nothing ever has "its own" characteristic...not even in the present moment. I agree that consciousness, mental formations, and form need to be understood in the present moment, but they also need to be understood in principle. To be aware of them in the present is one thing. To be aware of them in the present for what they really are is another. I believe the view that states have "their own characteristics" is to miss the principle of no-self. Consciousness, mental formations, and form need to be seen as Howard said and I quote ... "Paramattha dhammas are also empty. They lack identity, and are empty of themselves! They have no independent, separate existence or status whatsoever, depending entirely for their fleeting existence on prior and co-arising conditions, all of which are equally empty of core.to be "empty of their own characteristics." TG 54819 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/19/2006 2:15:44 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: My view is that everything is empty of atta, not empty on theirselves. Because atta is a wrong view, thus it never exist. There are concepts, and there are realities. Realities is always real, concepts could be wrong. Saying things as empty sounds strange to me, because when it is said to be empty, then it should be empty of something. What something? That something is an essence. But the essence is a concept. A concept do not even exist. So how could something become empty of another thing that do not even exist. So it's like saying that the Buddhas or Arahats exist or do not exist after parinibbana. Hi Cherry If all things in the world arise due to something else, what can be said to be self? Emptiness means no-self. Things don't have anything of "their own" because they are generated and supported by something else. The Buddha clarifies what is meant by "emptiness" in the following quote... "Venerable sir, it is said, `Empty is the world, empty is the world.´ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, `Empty is the world´?" "It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, `Empty is the world.´" (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha , vol. 2, pg. 1163) There are states, but they have no nature of "their own." TG 54820 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Joop - > > In a message dated 1/19/06 5:55:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jwromeijn@y... writes: > ... Hallo Howard Your question: "Is time presumed by the theory, or is time our conceptual means of understanding the flow of experience?" can have several answers. The first is: yes and yes; your theory presumes times; and time is our conceptual means of understanding the flow of experience. The second is a return-question: what do you mean by the term "flow"? It is a spatial metaphore, a stream (for example of water) moving continuously, but a flow without space is also impossible. Or more exactly said: my imagination is not big enough for this flow without time or space. My phantasy is not big enough to have any "picture" as the arising and falling away of paramattha dhammas works without time (milliseconds or picoseconds or whatever the correct timescale is). That is my shortcoming. But I'm glad you did not have problems with the rest of my message. Metta Joop 54821 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > Dear Joop and all > > How are you? > > Joop wrote: > > "the lack of flexibility of Theravada (or: of most Theravadins) > versus the more flexibel Mahayana." > > What do you mean by that? In what way should Theravada have > flexibility? > Hallo Suan After reading the first part of your message I thought: yes I have to explain my statement my idea "the lack of flexibility of Theravada (or: of most Theravadins) versus the more flexibel Mahayana." But after reading the rest I had to say: I will not try For example your "please also keep in mind that Naagarjuna was merely one of the commentary writers in Sanskrit, far far below Buddhaghosa and other commentators in Pali textual tradition" makes a discussion between us nearly impossible. I remember we had a year or so ago a similar discussion when I quoted David Kalupahana. It's OK that you behave as a defender of the pure Pali canon and it's better to say: we agree to disagree. Metta Joop 54822 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:00pm Subject: Question to Sujin (Was: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individ jwromeijn Hallo Sarah and other Bangkok-goers This thread started by Christine brings me to a question of which I like it if it can by asked to Sujin; I remember that Sarah said it's question-time again. My question to Sujin is: what can "we" learn from Mahayana? And 'we" is then: all human beings who define themselves - for 51 % till 99% - Theravadin. Metta Joop 54823 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:56pm Subject: Re: Reflections for Tep2 .. Full Reply / Peaceful Retreat !! buddhistmedi... Dear James (and Hasituppada. Attn. Sarah, Jon, KenH, Phil, RobK) - You responded to me exactly as I had hoped -- i.e. giving me your feedback/evaluation of the situation that truly frustrated me. Luckily, I felt no aversion yet - only frustration. >James: > James thinks to himself, "Aren't Buddhists, above all others, >supposed to deal with reality? How can a person call him/herself a >Buddhist when his/her ideology is based on deceptive reasoning, >subterfuge, leading questioning, dogmatism, and smoke screens? >Just who are they fooling: others or themselves?" > Tep: I appreciate your suggestion/advice/persuasion as follows: >James: > My only response is: you are beating your head against a brick wall. I've been there and done that, bought the t-shirt, and then moved on. Pick your battles appropriately and realize that to give up a discussion because the other person isn't participating fairly doesn't mean you are wrong and they are right (though they may think so), it means you have the wisdom to know when enough is enough. > Tep: You are not the first (wise) friend who tells me that I am beating my head against a brick wall. Hasitappada is the very first who said exactly the same thing several months ago. Both of you are right. No more discussion from now for me. [Wisdom at last?] Yes, I give up. No more fight-- followed by a peaceful retreat !! {:<|) Warm regards, Tep ========= In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Sarah, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > Hi, Sarah and James - > > > ................ > > > > Tep: Now I understand fully why James was mad at the way you answered his questions ! > > > > 54824 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi - In a message dated 1/19/06 4:15:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: > Hi, I think this is my first post here :D. I want to ask about what > is meant by 'empty' ? > > My view is that everything is empty of atta, not empty on theirselves. > Because atta is a wrong view, thus it never exist. There are > concepts, and there are realities. Realities is always real, concepts > could be wrong. Saying things as empty sounds strange to me, because > when it is said to be empty, then it should be empty of something. > What something? That something is an essence. But the essence is a > concept. A concept do not even exist. So how could something become > empty of another thing that do not even exist. So it's like saying > that the Buddhas or Arahats exist or do not exist after parinibbana. > > ========================= Hardness, apparently one of my favorite rupas for giving examples (LOL!!), is a paramattha dhamma, and not concept-only, but it is still empty. What is it empty of? It's empty of own-being, of self. Is it nothing at all? No! But it IS nothing at all IN-AND-OF-ITSELF. What it lacks is exactly own-being or essence. It is an entirely contingent phenomenon, utterly dependent for its brief appearance on a multitude of equally empty phenomena other than itself. To say that dhammas lack own-being does not mean that 1) there is such a thing as own-being, but 2) dhammas don't have it! That phenomena lack own-being is not both assertion and denial. It is merely denial. 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) 54825 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 1/19/06 5:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > My phantasy is not big enough to have > any "picture" as the arising and falling away of paramattha dhammas > works without time (milliseconds or picoseconds or whatever the > correct timescale is). That is my shortcoming. > ======================= It is my shortcoming as well. Time is a category of thought for me. For the time being (LOL!) I'm stuck with it. But I don't believe that it is anything more than a poor substitute for the reality of things. 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) 54826 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:58pm Subject: Re: Tep (3) - There is no party that never ends - Chinese Proverb. buddhistmedi... Hi, Sarah (and James) - This post (# 54801) of yours is the longest I have ever seen. It shows your thorough analysis and the energy that is second to none. I appreciate your time, effort and consideration. However, there will be no debate from me from now, because our ways are so much different that our debate will go on without ending. I'd rather spend the time doing something else more useful than "banging my head against a brick wall" (as James put it in the other post). {:>( Thank you very much for doing your moderator's duty with diligence. With appreciation, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > HI Tep, > > I'll look at your feedback later (many thanks as usual for your careful > and prompt reading). Meanwhile continuing on..... > (snipped) 54827 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 Howard: "Hardness, apparently one of my favorite rupas for giving examples (LOL!!), is a paramattha dhamma, and not concept-only, but it is still empty. What is it empty of? It's empty of own-being, of self." Hi Howard, To say hardness is empty of hardness makes no sense. If you look carefully at what Nagarjuna or DL says is empty of own nature you will see they are talking about compounds. Theravada would agree that a compound is empty of own nature. What are the components of feeling? What are the parts of earth element? Paramattha simply means they are not compounds. Dependent arising does not translate into empty of own nature in Theravada. If X arises dependent on Y that doesn't mean X is really XY, or Y, or empty of X. Being confident that none of these arguments will persuade you, might I ask how do you see the satipatthana of "empty of own nature"? What sort of practice would that be? I've never seen practice discussed in Tibetan or English commentaries on Nagarjuna. Larry 54828 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:51pm Subject: Vism.XIV,224 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 224. In detail [that is, individually] matter should be regarded as a lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because it deceives (S.iii,140-42). In particular, even sublime internal materiality84 should be regarded as foul (ugly); feeling should be regarded as painful because it is never free from the three kinds of suffering (see Ch. XVI,34); perception and formations as not-self because they are unmanageable; and consciousness as impermanent because it has the nature of rise and fall. ------------------------------- Note 84. P.T.S. and Harvard eds. both read visesato ca suu.laaram pi ajjhattika"m ruupa"m. But Burmese ed. of Sammohavinodanii in identical passage reads visesato ca subhaaramma.nam pi o.laarikam pi ajjhattika-ruupa"m. ************************** 224. vitthaarato panettha phe.napi.n.do viya ruupa.m da.t.thabba.m, parimaddanaasahanato. udakapubbu.la.m viya vedanaa, muhuttarama.niiyato. mariicikaa viya sa~n~naa, vippalambhanato. kadalikkhandho viya sa"nkhaaraa, asaarakato. maayaa viya vi~n~naa.na.m, va~ncakato. visesato ca su.laarampi ajjhattika.m ruupa.m asubhanti da.t.thabba.m. vedanaa tiihi dukkhataahi avinimuttato dukkhaati. sa~n~naasa"nkhaaraa avidheyyato anattaati. vi~n~naa.na.m udayabbayadhammato aniccanti da.t.thabba.m. 54829 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > If all things in the world arise due to something else, what can be said to > be self? Thank you, this is acceptable, I guess :] Anyway Nibbana is unconditional but still Nibbana is anatta. Then what is the meaning of empty for Nibbana ? 54830 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/19/2006 6:55:47 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: Anyway Nibbana is unconditional but still Nibbana is anatta. Then what is the meaning of empty for Nibbana ? If there is no-self in regard to "states/conditions," then how could there be a self in regard to a "non-state/non-condition"? TG 54831 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... Hi Larry Cutting in with a quote... "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility." (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta #115) Note: The Buddha says "anything," not just compounds. TG In a message dated 1/19/2006 5:46:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, To say hardness is empty of hardness makes no sense. If you look carefully at what Nagarjuna or DL says is empty of own nature you will see they are talking about compounds. Theravada would agree that a compound is empty of own nature. What are the components of feeling? What are the parts of earth element? Paramattha simply means they are not compounds. Dependent arising does not translate into empty of own nature in Theravada. If X arises dependent on Y that doesn't mean X is really XY, or Y, or empty of X. Being confident that none of these arguments will persuade you, might I ask how do you see the satipatthana of "empty of own nature"? What sort of practice would that be? I've never seen practice discussed in Tibetan or English commentaries on Nagarjuna. Larry 54832 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:00pm Subject: Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hardness, apparently one of my favorite rupas for giving examples > (LOL!!), is a paramattha dhamma, and not concept-only, but it is still empty. What > is it empty of? It's empty of own-being, of self. Hi, Thanks for the example. But isn't 'self' is a concept. And concept is a mental object, and exists in the observer. How could rupa itself become empty of a concept? 54833 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your reply. I wrote (cryptically): "There is a dynamic factor - one citta conditions the next. There is an interactional factor - rupakhanda and contact." > ------ > N: "I am wondering what you mean by the last factor. do you perhaps think of rupa as object and rupa as physical base, and the cetasika contact?" > ------- S: What I meant, sloppy thinker that I am, was to try to convey my understanding of "phassa" (contact)as being a point of connection between nama and rupa. The contact is probably between the mind and its objects. I was sure I was a bit out to lunch but hoping for correction. If the cetasika would be the nama-aspect involved in the process of contact, then that is what I meant. I just don't know. I know that phassa is part of the dependent origination teaching and not of the same level of discourse. Does that make sense? ----- Then I asked: "I'd like to know the way in which the concept "outside of awareness" is dealt with from within the Abhidhamma." > ------ > N: "Concept, paññatti, has different meanings. It can be the term that denotes a notion and the notion or idea itself. A term can denote a reality or something that is not real. In Survey of paramattha dhammas the many meanings of paññatti have been dealt with, in a separate Ch." S: Great answer. Since "outside awareness" is a concept, you tell me how concepts are dealt with. I was wondering about whether the Abhidhamma deals with this whole aspect of the thread - parallel processing outside of or beyond processing. My guess is no, and all the theories being propounded are simply other interesting theories. Sincerely, Scott. 54834 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/19/06 7:46:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Howard: "Hardness, apparently one of my favorite rupas for giving > examples (LOL!!), is a paramattha dhamma, and not concept-only, but it > is still empty. What is it empty of? It's empty of own-being, of self." > > Hi Howard, > > To say hardness is empty of hardness makes no sense. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, put that way it sounds just plain wrong. But what any hardness experience lacks is exactly own-being. It is nothing in and of itself. That is different from being nothing at all. ------------------------------------- If you look> > carefully at what Nagarjuna or DL says is empty of own nature you will > see they are talking about compounds. ------------------------------------- Howard: Not so, Larry. Nagarjuna explicity applies his emptiness analysis to such things as the senses, the aggregates, and the elements (dhatus). ------------------------------------- Theravada would agree that a> > compound is empty of own nature. What are the components of feeling? > What are the parts of earth element? Paramattha simply means they are > not compounds. Dependent arising does not translate into empty of own > nature in Theravada. If X arises dependent on Y that doesn't mean X is > really XY, or Y, or empty of X. ------------------------------------ Howard: In the Uraga Sutta, the Buddha taught "He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, - such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." Also, five times in that sutta he says "He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal." And for even greater clarity on the matter of the emptiness of paramattha dhammas in Theravada, there is the Phena Sutta, which I include here in its entirety: __________________________ On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form? "Now suppose that in the autumn - when it's raining in fat, heavy drops - a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling? "Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception? "Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him - seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them - they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications? "Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him - seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it - it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness? "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further: Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick - this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things - life, warmth, & consciousness - form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer. No substance here is found. Thus a monk, persistence aroused, should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire - in hopes of the state with no falling away. _______________________ > > Being confident that none of these arguments will persuade you, might I > ask how do you see the satipatthana of "empty of own nature"? What sort > of practice would that be? I've never seen practice discussed in Tibetan > or English commentaries on Nagarjuna. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps I don't understand your question, Larry. Emptiness will be fully known when dependent origination is fully known. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 54835 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, John - In a message dated 1/19/06 9:42:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: > Hi, > > Thanks for the example. But isn't 'self' is a concept. And concept is > a mental object, and exists in the observer. How could rupa itself > become empty of a concept? > ========================= John, you seem to be mixing levels of thought and speech here. It is not a mental idea that rupas are said to lack, but the intended, though actually nonexistent, REFERENT of that idea that they lack. (To clarify the language-usage problem: Suppose I were to dream that I was sitting on a unicorn. Now, one might well say that a 'unicorn' is a concept, as you said for 'self'. So, would I then properly say that I dreamed that I was sitting on a concept?? LOL!) The Buddha has said that all dhammas are not self. Another way of saying that is that "self" is mere concept, or, better, that there are no selves! Now, was it inappropriate for him to say that all dhammas are not self due to the very fact that there *is* no self and that self is concept-only? Does the very fact that it is true that all dhammas lack self make it in appropriate to say? ;-)) 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) 54836 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 TG: "Hi Larry Cutting in with a quote... “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self â€" there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka Sutta #115) Note: The Buddha says "anything," not just compounds." Hi TG, Notice I said Nagarjuna was only referring to compounds as empty of own nature. Both the Buddha and Buddhaghosa say paramattha dhammas are not self. "Not self" is not the same as "empty of own nature". A paramattha dhamma is not self because it is impermanent. A compound is empty of own nature because it cannot be said to be a single particular experience. For example, the compound of dhammas that make up a tree is not a single experience, therefore a tree is empty of own nature. The nun Vajira said there is no carriage, just khandhas arising and ceasing. It would be odd to say the carriage is not self; because there isn't a carriage. We _could_ say the carriage is empty of own nature. And given that all our experience is compounded (sankhara), perhaps that is a useful way to look at it. Satipatthana also deals with compounded experience, but differently. I agree with Suan that the Tibetans in general have a ways to go in understanding Pali Buddhism. Larry 54837 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 Howard: "And for even greater clarity on the matter of the emptiness of paramattha dhammas in Theravada, there is the Phena Sutta, which I include here in its entirety:" Hi Howard, You might also look at Vism.XIV,224 which I just posted. Notice where it is cited: Visuddhimagga. Larry 54838 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles nilovg Hi Howard, Thanks for the sutta. What a coincidence. Just now I am working on the Visuddhimagga section (Larry posted now) and Tiika that exactly treats this subject. No core, nissaaro. Saarro is core, substance. Nina. op 20-01-2006 04:02 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: the Phena Sutta, which I include > here in > its entirety: > __________________________ > > On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks > of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: > "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges > River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & > appropriately > examine it. 54839 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, again - In a message dated 1/19/06 10:38:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi, John ========================= Sorry about that. Another person on another list who didn't at first give his name is "John". I guess I don't know your name. My apologies. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 54840 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/19/06 11:56:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You might also look at Vism.XIV,224 which I just posted. Notice where it > is cited: Visuddhimagga. > > Larry > ===================== Yes. :-) 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) 54841 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/19/2006 9:45:11 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: "Not self" is not the same as "empty of own nature". A paramattha dhamma is not self because it is impermanent. A compound is empty of own nature because it cannot be said to be a single particular experience. Hi Larry This is where we disagree. Something with "own nature" is by definition a self. There is no difference IMO. It is precisely because states don't have "own nature" that they have no-self. States have "conditioned nature." Not "own nature." Own nature = self Conditioned nature = no-self. A self does not exist because nothing has "own nature." TG 54842 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > > Hi James > > I am unaware that a Theravadin by definition has to accept all three baskets > verbatim. James: Well, I'm sure there could be some contested points on minor issues, or even some issues that aren't fully accepted because they aren't yet fully understood, but I don't think it is possible to completely reject one of the three baskets (i.e. the Abhidhamma)and still consider one's self a Theravadin. If you reject the Abhidhamma you aren't a Theravadin- it's just that simple. What's the big deal anyway?? As I see it, it is unhelpful to cling to labels. I know several very highly educated (in Sri Lanka) high ranking, > life-long elder Sri Lankan Theravadin monks that are going to have to > "re-register." ;-) James: I already wrote in my original post that there are monks/nuns practicing in the Theravada lineage who aren't truly Theravadin. That isn't the point of this thread originated by Christine. My input was that when the Dali Lama says that Theravadins believe such and such, he is correct. He is not generalizing and he isn't stating something which is false. Those who don't believe, more or less, the entire Pali Canon and state unequivocally that they are Theravadin are the ones stating a falsehood. Perhaps we can get Sarah to set them straight. ;-) James: lol. Well, that won't be necessary. You could just have them do a little internet research. I googled 'Theravada' and came up with these sources immediately: During the reign of Emperor Asoka in India, the third Council was held in Pataliputra (250 BCE). The President of the Council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book called the Kathavatthu attempting to refute what he saw as the heretical, false views and theories held by some sects. The teaching approved and accepted by this Council was known as Theravada. The Abhidhamma Pitaka was included at this Council. Thus the modern Pali Canon was now essentially completed. It was brought by Venerable Mahinda to Sri Lanka in 246 BCE and was committed to writing in 110 BCE. It is still in use today by Theravadins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada Disturbed by the prolific growth of Buddhist heresies, a council of Buddhist monks was convened at the Mauryan capital of Patna during the third century BC to purify the doctrine. What arose from that council, more or less, were the definitive teachings of Theravada Buddhism; from this point onwards, Theravada Buddhism undergoes little if any change. When the teachings of Buddha were finally written into a canon, they were written not in Sanskrit, but in a language derived from Sanskrit, called Pali. … This canon is called the Tripitaka, or "Three Baskets," for it is divided into three parts, the Vinaya , or "Conduct," the Sutta , or "Discourses," and the Abhidhamma , or "Supplementary Doctrines." The second part, the "Discourses," are the most important in Buddhism. These are discourses by the Buddha and contain the whole of Buddhist philosophy and morality. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/BUDDHISM/THERA.HTM Theravada (pronounced — more or less — "terra-VAH-dah"), the "Doctrine of the Elders," is the school of Buddhism that draws its scriptural inspiration from the Tipitaka, or Pali Canon, which scholars generally agree contains the earliest surviving record of the Buddha's teachings. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/theravada.html > > TG > Metta, James 54843 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, James - > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I know several Theravadin monks who do not accept the Abhidhamma > Pitaka as word of the Buddha, and who pay little attention to it. > ------------------------------------------- See my recent post to TG. If they don't accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka then they aren't truly "Theravadin" by definition. Metta, James 54844 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > > > Hi James > > > > I am unaware that a Theravadin by definition has to accept all > three baskets verbatim. > > Hallo TG, James, Howard, Christine, all > > Some topics in this thread that interest me > > First: do all (real) Theravadins accept all the three baskets? > James, that's based on a idealistic view: you construct a perfect > ideal, a perfect Theravadin who accepts the three baskets completely. > I think many buddhists who define themselves as a Theravadin, state > for example that the Abhidhamma is composed after the passing away of > the Buddha and has aspects that are not those of the Buddha. For > example Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Sujata take that position. > As TG states, many positions are possible. Mine for example is that > many parts of the Sutta Pitaka should be understood metaphorically > and not literally, and that the Abhidhamma is a very good therory > about reality, a theory with a awakening purpose, not with a > scientific one; so Abhidhamma is a theory, a model of reality, not > reality itself. James: A Theravadin Buddhist by definition must accept, more or less, the Tipitaka. If one rejects the Abhidhamma they are no longer a Theravadin, but a different school of Buddhism- maybe a new school maybe an older school. After the Buddha's passing, there were some 30 schools of Buddhism and Theravadin was but one. I don't set the rules, I am just explaining them. I am not being idealist I don't think. To me "Theravada" is not an ideal to attain. I don't cling to that label and don't care if I am a Theravadin or not. See my recent post to TG. Metta, James 54845 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:24pm Subject: Re: Reflections for Tep2 .. Full Reply / Peaceful Retreat !! buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear James (and Hasituppada. Attn. Sarah, Jon, KenH, Phil, RobK) - > > You responded to me exactly as I had hoped -- i.e. giving me your > feedback/evaluation of the situation that truly frustrated me. Luckily, I > felt no aversion yet - only frustration. > > >James: > > James thinks to himself, "Aren't Buddhists, above all others, > >supposed to deal with reality? How can a person call him/herself a > >Buddhist when his/her ideology is based on deceptive reasoning, > >subterfuge, leading questioning, dogmatism, and smoke screens? > >Just who are they fooling: others or themselves?" > > > > Tep: I appreciate your suggestion/advice/persuasion as follows: > > >James: > > My only response is: you are beating your head against a brick wall. > I've been there and done that, bought the t-shirt, and then moved on. > Pick your battles appropriately and realize that to give up a discussion > because the other person isn't participating fairly doesn't mean you > are wrong and they are right (though they may think so), it means you > have the wisdom to know when enough is enough. > > > > Tep: You are not the first (wise) friend who tells me that I am beating my > head against a brick wall. Hasitappada is the very first who said > exactly the same thing several months ago. Both of you are right. No > more discussion from now for me. [Wisdom at last?] James: I am not advocating that you give up all discussion. Some discussion is useful for all parties involved. As you see, I have not given up all discussion. But I also know that some members are so dogmatic in their viewpoints that they won't bend no matter what, and that lenghty discussion becomes "beating your head against a brick wall". I do suggest you stop discussions like that- for your own peace of mind. Spend the extra time in meditation focusing on the breath- that beautiful breath! :-) > > Yes, I give up. No more fight-- followed by a peaceful retreat !! {:<|) James: Good. When a discussion becomes a fight it is time to give it up. And rather than making up false excuses about being too busy or whatnot (Hi Nina), it is better to just tell it like it is. > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep Metta, James 54846 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/19/2006 11:06:39 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: lol. Well, that won't be necessary. You could just have them do a little internet research. I googled 'Theravada' and came up with these sources immediately: Hi James I think I'll pass on suggesting to some of the highest ranking Sri Lankan senior monks, ordained since they were around 10, who went to the best Sri Lankan Buddhist University and have masters degrees there, who have been teaching graduate classes in Theravadin Buddhism almost 30 years....I think I'll pass on telling them to do some internet research so they can discover what Theravadin Buddhism is. TG 54847 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/19/2006 11:06:39 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > James: lol. Well, that won't be necessary. You could just have > them do a little internet research. I googled 'Theravada' and came > up with these sources immediately: > > > > Hi James > > I think I'll pass on suggesting to some of the highest ranking Sri Lankan > senior monks, ordained since they were around 10, who went to the best Sri > Lankan Buddhist University and have masters degrees there, who have been teaching > graduate classes in Theravadin Buddhism almost 30 years....I think I'll pass > on telling them to do some internet research so they can discover what > Theravadin Buddhism is. > > TG Well, you can do whatever you want. I wasn't being serious anyway- I was responding to your joke with a joke. But since it seems you want to be sarcastic, the joking mood is killed. Metta, James 54848 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep (3) - There is no party that never ends - Chinese Proverb. sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& James), Isn't there another Chinese proverb which says that flowers look different to different eyes? No problem at all....Just feel very free to respond or not anytime as you like. Who knows, you may wish to party-on again after taking some of that breath. --- Tep Sastri wrote: > However, there will be no debate from me from now, because our ways > are so much different that our debate will go on without ending. I'd > rather spend the time doing something else more useful than "banging > my head against a brick wall" (as James put it in the other post). > {:>( > Thank you very much for doing your moderator's duty with diligence. ... S: I see no problem with never ending discussions, but I'm sorry if you (and James) see yourselves as banging your heads against a brick wall:-/. I don't see any of my correspondence here as being my 'moderator's duty'. It's my real pleasure. Thank you for reading all my lengthy posts. Thanks for your other comments - as I said, I may pick up any further points after our trip. Metta, Sarah ======= 54849 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 216, 217 sarahprocter... Hi Azita & Nina, 'Afflicted' and 'Molested' are curious terms for rupas, I agree. Yes, not only rupas in the body-sense, but also all external rupas too. --- nina van gorkom wrote: >All ruupas included in ruupakkhandha are molested or afflicted. Susceptible to change, constantly breaking up. In the Vis. ruupakkhandha is compared to a lump of foam, which is contimually breaking up from the first state of the foetus on.< .... S: I want to add that all rupas are 'battered' around, like the rocks are susceptible to the wind and sea and temperature and any garbage dumped upon them. The rupas of the ground or earth are similarly 'afflicted' but never react with attachment or aversion:)- Think of the advice to Rahula (MN62): <<--Rahula, develop a mind similar to earth, when you develop a mind similar to earth arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of your mind and stay. Rahula on the earth is dumped, the pure and the impure, excreta, urine, saliva, pus, blood, the earth does not loathe those, in the same manner develop a mind similar to earth. When you develop a mind similar to earth, arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of the mind and stay-->> .... A similar description is given in 'Sariputta's Lion's Roar', AN 9s, 178: "Just as, Lord, people throw upon the earth things clean and unclean, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the earth has no revulsion, loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart that is like the earth, vast, exalted and measureless, without hostility and without ill will. However, one in whom mindfulness directed on the body in regard to the body is not present may well hit a fellow monk and leave without an apology. "Just as. Lord, people use water to wash things clean and unclean, things soiled....... "Just as, Lord, fire burns things clean and unclean, things soiled.... "Just as, Lord, the wind blows over things clean and unclean..... "Lord, just as a duster wipes over things clean and unclean, things soiled with dung, urine, pus and blood, yet for all that the duster has no revulsion, loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart that is like a duster.... ..... S: I find these descriptions of external rupas being 'afflicted' and 'molested' are more helpful than anything else I might add. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, thx for telling me about your lunch-time discussions and reading with Lodewijk and the texts your found helpful for this. ======= 54850 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:43pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 362- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (a) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2] The akusala cetasikas which are attachment, wrong view and ignorance are classified in different groups: as four cankers, four floods and four yokes. Each of these groups consists of the same defilements, but different aspects are shown by these classifications. The cankers flow or “exude”, or they are like intoxicants. The floods are dangerous, they can drown us, they sweep us away into the ocean of rebirths. The yokes tie us to the cycle of birth and death. There are still other groups of defilements and by their classifications again different aspects are shown. One of these groups is the ties or knots, ganthas. Instead of gantha the term kåyagantha, bodily tie, is used as well. Kåya which means body refers to the physical body as well as to the “mental body” (Vis. XXII, 54). The ganthas tie us to the round of rebirths. We read in the Atthasåliní (I, Part I, Chapter II, 49): * "In the knot-group, states which knot or tie in repeated rounds of birth by way of birth and decease the person in whom they exist are termed “knots”." ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 1 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 54851 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jwromeijn Hallo James James: "A Theravadin Buddhist by definition must accept, more or less, the Tipitaka. If one rejects the Abhidhamma they are no longer a Theravadin" I understand your opinion but I don't think it's very fruitful. Perhaps because "rejecting" is a word I hardly ever use. "Neglecting" or "not taking very serious" fits better to me. For example: I neglect the Jataka-stories because I don't like such kind of stories But even accepting all parts of the Tipitaka does not mean so much, the question is: how to understand, that is: how to interprete, the texts. You don't mention Buddhaghosa, but many DSG-ers (Nina, Sarah, Larry when quoting Vsm) do it every day; and Buddhaghosa has with his commentaries really influenced the interpretation of what Theravada means. And look at different interpretations of Theravada. As I said yesterday: many Teachings can be understood literally or can be understood as metaphores. Or had in your opinion all content of the Tipitaka been taken literal? I agree with you that the label "Theravadin" is not the most important thing, at the personal level. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > James: A Theravadin Buddhist by definition must accept, more or > less, the Tipitaka. If one rejects the Abhidhamma they are no > longer a Theravadin, but a different school of Buddhism- maybe a new > school maybe an older school. After the Buddha's passing, there > were some 30 schools of Buddhism and Theravadin was but one. I > don't set the rules, I am just explaining them. I am not being > idealist I don't think. To me "Theravada" is not an ideal to > attain. I don't cling to that label and don't care if I am a > Theravadin or not. > > See my recent post to TG. > > Metta, > James > 54852 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 0:59am Subject: Final Destination beyond all Doubt ... bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Beyond all Doubt, Perplexity and Confusion! The Ability of Faith... The Ability of Energy... The Ability of Awareness... The Ability of Concentration... The Ability of Understanding... All these capabilities culminate in the Deathless Destination, which is their final goal, ground, base, and resulting effect... When having seen, known, understood, directly experienced, fully realized and touched this through wisdom, then one is quite beyond all doubt, uncertainty, perplexity and confusion! Source: The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. V [221] Section 48: On The 6 Abilities. The Eastern Gatehouse: 44. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 54853 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles sarahprocter... Hi Charles C (??)*, Welcome to DSG - I think you're making good points and asking excellent questions. Please continue!! --- Charles wrote: > Hi, I think this is my first post here :D. I want to ask about what > is meant by 'empty' ? > > My view is that everything is empty of atta, not empty on theirselves. > Because atta is a wrong view, thus it never exist. There are > concepts, and there are realities. Realities is always real, concepts > could be wrong. Saying things as empty sounds strange to me, because > when it is said to be empty, then it should be empty of something. > What something? That something is an essence. But the essence is a > concept. A concept do not even exist. So how could something become > empty of another thing that do not even exist. So it's like saying > that the Buddhas or Arahats exist or do not exist after parinibbana. .... S: Good points!! You'll appreciate the Erik series audio discussions on the same points too, I think. If you feel inclined, please tell us something about your background, where you live and how long you've been lurking here. Look forward to more of your contributions and good questions. Metta, Sarah * I see you're being addressed as Cherry, John and Charles. Pls help us by signing of with your (preferably real) name you wish to be addressed by. If it's Charles, an extra letter would help as we have a few 'Charles' DSG members. ...... 54854 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:36am Subject: Re: Question to Sujin (Was: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individ sarahprocter... Hi Joop, Chris (Nina, Azita, Phil & all), --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah and other Bangkok-goers > > This thread started by Christine brings me to a question of which I > like it if it can by asked to Sujin; I remember that Sarah said it's > question-time again. > > My question to Sujin is: what can "we" learn from Mahayana? > > And 'we" is then: all human beings who define themselves - for 51 % > till 99% - Theravadin. .... S: Thx for the question, Joop. Christine* may well be joining us for some of the discussions in Bangkok too, so perhaps she can help raise your question from this thread which I see is very active. It might be helpful if you give more indication of what you have in mind - some examples, perhaps. If she can't make it, someone else will raise it. If anyone else has questions for A.Sujin, pls fire away. If anyone else can join in person and bring your qus along, even better - dates below. Phil, very sorry you can't make it. Perhaps next time? I hope you have a good trip to Canada. We're also looking forward to having a holiday with my mother for the two weeks in Thailand. Metta, Sarah *To Chris & all, further to my cryptic response off-list, we've just re-confirmed the dates and times of English discussions at the Foundation (no change). We plan to be there for all these, arriving the day before. a)-Sat 4th Feb 2 p.m (regular session), Mon 6th Feb 9a.m,Tuesday 7th Feb 2p.m & Wednesday 8th Feb 9.a.m ****** b)-Wed 15th Feb 9a.m, Thurs 16th Feb 2p.m, Fri 17th Feb 9a.m, Sat 18th Feb 2p.m (regular session) 54855 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium Hi, I'm sorry but I still cannot see the that the premis There's no self in conditionals (P) has as the consequence There's no self in unconditionals (Q) P -> Q ? Is the statement "What not exist in conditionals not exist also in unconditionals" a tautology (a fact, sorry about the terms :]). The relation between conditionals and unconditionals is that one is the escape from the other, so I can accept that "things exist in the conditionals do not exist in the unconditionals" but about "things do not exist in the conditionals not exist also in the unconditionals?" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > If there is no-self in regard to "states/conditions," then how could there > be a self in regard to a "non-state/non-condition"? > > TG 54856 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view > could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility." > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka > Sutta #115) > Note: The Buddha says "anything," not just compounds. > TG Hi again :] I also remember another passage in the sutta pitaka that said "all is to be understood". The commentary translated "all" as the pancakkhandha. 54857 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium Thanks Sarah for the warm welcome. My name is Charles Gunawan and I live in Indonesia. Please call me anything as you like, charles, charlesg, cherry_avium, or even john :D (but the last one is not a good choice though). Honestly I like to count other people cows and I think that's what I am doing here, hoping someday I can count my own cows (http://www.path.homestead.com/ cows.html). I do not speak english so please forgive any mistaken words. I like abhidhamma studies, although I'm pessimist that anyone can really understand it only by studying other than direct knowledge. But at least it can add something to my knowledge :D --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote: > > Hi Charles C (??)*, > > Welcome to DSG - I think you're making good points and asking excellent > questions. Please continue!! 54858 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, James (and TG) - In a message dated 1/20/06 1:10:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, James - > > >-------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I know several Theravadin monks who do not accept the > Abhidhamma > >Pitaka as word of the Buddha, and who pay little attention to it. > >------------------------------------------- > > See my recent post to TG. If they don't accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka > then they aren't truly "Theravadin" by definition. > > Metta, > James > > ============================ Yes, you wrote the following: ___________________________ The definition of a Theravada is someone who accepts all three baskets of the Pali Canon as written, and rejects any other commentaries or suttas. ___________________________ I'm surprised at how "orthodox" you are on this matter, James. The problem I have with your definition is threefold: 1) the matter of what constitutes "accepting", 2) what you mean by "as written", and 3) what authority provides the articles of faith. The suttas describe a Mount Sumeru universe. If one doesn't accept that scheme as literally correct, is one not a Theravadin? Also there is mention of nagas. Must their existence be a Theravadin article of faith? Is one who questions the authenticity of the Anupada Sutta not legitimately Theravadin? Need a person consider maleness and nutrition, just to pick two of my favorites ;-), as ultimate realities in order to be Theravadin? Must one consider space to be special sort of abstract rupa and not a relational concept to get a membership card in Theravada? Must all Theravadins believe that there may no longer ever be Theravadin nuns and that calling for the reestablishment of the Bhikkhuni Sangha makes one "untheravadin", and must one believe that homosexuals should not be permitted to go forth in order for one to qualify as Theravadin? Are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Nyanaponika Thera (deceased) too doubting or too flexible to make the cut? Who guards the door at Club Theravada? I believe that according to your definition, the Khun Sujin fans, and not all of them, may be the only folks to be allowed entry. Does that seem about right to you? ;-) 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) 54859 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Veh... upasaka_howard Hi, Charles - In a message dated 1/20/06 8:41:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: > My name is Charles Gunawan and I live in Indonesia. Please call me > anything as you like, charles, charlesg, cherry_avium, or even john :D > (but the last one is not a good choice though). ========================= LOL! Happy to meet you, Charles! (Again, I apologize for providing you with a new name!!) 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) 54860 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:21am Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing dacostacharles Hi TG, What I mean is that each sense organ is like an analog sensor. They just detect and transmit information to the brain for farther processing, and each organ is doing this at the same time (i.e., in parallel). The "detection" is what I call collection and storage of representations of the sensory objects. The storage is like a cache buffer (i.e., like in computers), 1 close to the organ and another close to the central processor of the mind). Now, the awareness of these objects "may" (or may not) occur in parallel. Awareness "may" be like a single (or parallel) switch between the mind and each nerve (transmitting lines) of the sensory organs. My point is that the "single switch" model appears to be what DSG members believe (in this case, the actual switching must be subconscious -- b/c we are not aware its constant changing every 1 billionth of a second). Now if the switch is parallel then attention is concentrated on what ever is needed. The other related point I made before was, "Do events take place in the mind, or brain, sequentially or in parallel?" I tried to argue for both, in parallel and in sequence. The act Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- Hi Charles, Howard, All I want to see if we are on a similar track with this ... Let's say a mind is currently paying attention to one thing at a time. For example, we are reading a book. Attention, consciousness, etc., are focused on a sequence of connecting events within the books contents. All of a sudden, we hear a police siren go by and attention is distracted to a different sense base reaction. In order to be distract away from one base to another, it seems to me that all the sense bases need some level of subconscious awareness that is more or less always active. Is this the type of thing you mean when you are talking about parallel processing? Or are you speaking about a different thing? Thank for the feedback. TG 54861 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:33am Subject: Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. nilovg Hi TG, Howard and all interested in sabhaava, and welcome also to Charles (cherry), and Hi James in passing, Sabhaava, as we discussed before (many posts), has been translated in the Vis. as individual essence, unfortunately. Bhaava is nature, and sabhaava can mean: own distinct nature or characteristic. In the same Vis. just now we read: matter should be regarded as a lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because it deceives (S.iii,140-42). I am working on a summary of the Tiika that explains each of these similes (it is lenghty but impressive). The word no core, nissaaro, is repeated time and again. It is completely in accordance with the Phemasutta. No trace of any substantialism; on the contrary, it is emphasized how ephemeral and coreless each condiitoned dhamma is. As to own characteristic, no matter how coreless dhammas are, seeing has a characteristic different from hearing, and different from visible object. What is a characteristic: a specific feature that can be directly experienced. If there were no characteristics, we could not experience anything. The experience of characteristics (viseso lakkhana) is the way to become familiar with different dhammas and investigate them. Thus direct understanding of them grows. Direct understanding is understanding of different characteristics that appear, though it is for an extremely short moment. When direct understanding develops the three general characteristics (samañña lakkhana) can be penetrated. Finally, a few words on the Dalai Lama. I posted here before a message by the Dalai Lama wherein he spoke with much appreciation of the translation of Ven. Nanamoli of the Visuddhimagga. He finds that this work shows how much all schools of Buddhism have in common. He calls the work a meditation manual, and one may have reservations about this expression. However, it shows that he knows that the Visuddhimagga does not contain theories and abstractions, it is meant for practice. I have noticed before that the Dalai Lama is well read, but that he does not show to others how much he knows. I do not know how much he depends on interpreters for his English. It may be a matter of English language that has caused misunderstandings about his ideas on Theravada. I always took it that anattaa was what all Buddhists have in common. Moreover, Howard has cautioned us that Mahayana comprises many different schools. I personally am not inclined to pay attention to controversities. In India we visited in Arunachal a Tibetan temple where a service was going on, and we just appreciated it. We feelt very close to the lamas there. There was some mutual understanding though we could not speak with them. After all, we are relatives. Nina. 54862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. nilovg Dear Scott, op 20-01-2006 03:49 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > S: What I meant, sloppy thinker that I am, was to try to convey my > understanding of "phassa" (contact)as being a point of connection > between nama and rupa. The contact is probably between the mind and > its objects. If the cetasika would be the nama-aspect involved in the > process of contact, then that is what I meant. ------- N: we can use the word contact, contacting in different ways. Phassa cetasika, contact, accompanies every citta and assists citta in the experiencing of an object. It is quite different from physical contact. It is sometimes said that a sense object contacts a sense-base, but I would rather use the word impinges on, so that there is no confusion. The manifestation of contact is the coinciding of physical base, object and citta. -------- S: I > know that phassa is part of the dependent origination teaching and not > of the same level of discourse. Does that make sense? N: Here it is said that phassa is a condition for feeling. Citta experiences pleasant and unpleasant objects and phassa contacts these, and on account of these contacts different feelings arise. However, also in D.O. phassa conditions the conascent feeling. In D.O. the purpose is teaching that we are kept in the cycle. We are under the sway of feeling. > ----- S: Since "outside awareness" is a concept, you tell > me how concepts are dealt with. I was wondering about whether the > Abhidhamma deals with this whole aspect of the thread - parallel > processing outside of or beyond processing. My guess is no, and all > the theories being propounded are simply other interesting theories. ------ N: parallel processing outside of or beyond processing, these expressions I do not find clear. I have not come across them. Nina. 54863 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and TG, Charles, and James) - Nina, I applaud this post of yours! I have no negative criticisms to put forward, and nothing at all to question!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/20/06 10:34:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi TG, Howard and all interested in sabhaava, and welcome also to Charles > (cherry), and Hi James in passing, > > Sabhaava, as we discussed before (many posts), has been translated in the > Vis. as individual essence, unfortunately. Bhaava is nature, and sabhaava > can mean: own distinct nature or characteristic. > > In the same Vis. just now we read: matter should be regarded as a > lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble > on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a > mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk > because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because > it deceives (S.iii,140-42). > I am working on a summary of the Tiika that explains each of these similes > (it is lenghty but impressive). The word no core, nissaaro, is repeated time > and again. > It is completely in accordance with the Phemasutta. No trace of any > substantialism; on the contrary, it is emphasized how ephemeral and coreless > each condiitoned dhamma is. > As to own characteristic, no matter how coreless dhammas are, seeing has a > characteristic different from hearing, and different from visible object. > > What is a characteristic: a specific feature that can be directly > experienced. If there were no characteristics, we could not experience > anything. The experience of characteristics (viseso lakkhana) is the way to > become familiar with different dhammas and investigate them. Thus direct > understanding of them grows. Direct understanding is understanding of > different characteristics that appear, though it is for an extremely short > moment. > When direct understanding develops the three general characteristics > (samañña lakkhana) can be penetrated. > > Finally, a few words on the Dalai Lama. I posted here before a message by > the Dalai Lama wherein he spoke with much appreciation of the translation of > Ven. Nanamoli of the Visuddhimagga. He finds that this work shows how much > all schools of Buddhism have in common. He calls the work a meditation > manual, and one may have reservations about this expression. However, it > shows that he knows that the Visuddhimagga does not contain theories and > abstractions, it is meant for practice. > I have noticed before that the Dalai Lama is well read, but that he does not > show to others how much he knows. I do not know how much he depends on > interpreters for his English. It may be a matter of English language that > has caused misunderstandings about his ideas on Theravada. I always took it > that anattaa was what all Buddhists have in common. > Moreover, Howard has cautioned us that Mahayana comprises many different > schools. I personally am not inclined to pay attention to controversities. > In India we visited in Arunachal a Tibetan temple where a service was going > on, and we just appreciated it. We feelt very close to the lamas there. > There was some mutual understanding though we could not speak with them. > After all, we are relatives. > Nina. > /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) 54864 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. nilovg Hi Howard, it seems we come to agree more and more. Except those rupas of yours. But who knows? Maybe with patience. Nina. op 20-01-2006 16:40 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > Nina, I applaud this post of yours! I have no negative criticisms to > put forward, and nothing at all to question!! :-) 54865 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Veh... cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Charles - > LOL! Happy to meet you, Charles! (Again, I apologize for providing you > with a new name!!) That's allright, Mr. Howard :D. John sounds cool anyway. By the way, it is easy to create a debate when people are talking about different views. I may have different view, others may have their own views also, (maybe it's because of my ignorance, maybe it's because of your ignorance too :P) but I hope no one will get stressed by the differences. Unless someone is a sotapanna at least, then it's a mere view, thus it doesn't have to be that our view is right and others' are wrong :D. 54866 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:19am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 3 nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 3 The Buddha taught satipatthåna so that the wrong view of self can be eradicated. Through satipatthåna right understanding is developed and without satipatthåna síla cannot become ³well established². For the sotåpanna who has developed vipassanå, síla is ³well established². Satipatthåna includes training in ³higher síla² (adhi-síla sikkhå), ³higher citta² (adhi-citta sikkhå) and ³higher wisdom² (adhi-paññå sikkhå). Instead of thinking of classifications and names or thinking of a specific order as to the development of síla, concentration and paññå, we can gradually develop understanding of the nåma and rúpa appearing at this moment and this is training in higher síla, higher citta and higher paññå. As to higher citta or concentration, this includes all levels of concentration, not merely jhåna. Concentration, samådhi, is the cetasika which is one-pointedness, ekaggatå cetasika. It arises with each citta and has the function of focussing the citta on one object. When satipaììhåna arises, ekkagatå cetasika ³concentrates² for that short moment on the nåma or rúpa which appears so that understanding of that reality can develop. In the development of samatha concentration is developed to a high degree so that jhåna can be attained, but this cannot be achieved without paññå which has right understanding of the citta and cetasikas which develop calm. In the ³Visuddhimagga² all levels of concentration, jhåna included, are described, but this does not mean that everybody must develop jhåna in order to attain enlightenment. We read in the Tipitaka about jhåna, but we should remember that the Commentaries distinguish between two kinds of jhåna. We read in the Commentary to the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I, sutta 8) about two meanings of the expression: meditate (jhåyathå). The objects of meditation or contemplation, jhåna, can be the thirtyeight objects of samatha or the characteristics beginning with impermanence (anicca) of the khandhas and the åyåtanas (sense-fields). The Commentary states that it is said in the Sutta: ³Develop samatha and vipassanå." It repeats that one should not be negligent. We read in the Subcommentary to this passage: ³With mindfulness and clear comprehension (sati-sampajañña), which means: by grasping with thorough comprehension.² Acharn Sujin said: ³One says that calm is helpful, but why does one not say: all moments of kusala are helpful? If one has more kusala cittas in daily life there is also calm. Why does one not develop more kusala in daily life instead of high levels of calm?² ***** Nina. 54867 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/20/2006 6:40:18 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view > could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility." > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 928, The Many Kinds of Elements, Bahudhatuka > Sutta #115) > Note: The Buddha says "anything," not just compounds. > TG Hi again :] I also remember another passage in the sutta pitaka that said "all is to be understood". The commentary translated "all" as the pancakkhandha. Hi cherry (Since I don't know your name unless it is in fact Cherry), That's true, the Buddha has many different ways of presenting things. But the 5 Khandas are also inclusive of all the elements of all conditioned states. There is no conditioned state outside of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. TG 54868 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Veh... upasaka_howard Hi, Charles - In a message dated 1/20/06 11:08:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, Charles - > > LOL! Happy to meet you, Charles! (Again, I apologize for > providing you > >with a new name!!) > > That's allright, Mr. Howard :D. John sounds cool anyway. > > By the way, it is easy to create a debate when people are talking > about different views. I may have different view, others may have > their own views also, (maybe it's because of my ignorance, maybe it's > because of your ignorance too :P) but I hope no one will get stressed > by the differences. Unless someone is a sotapanna at least, then it's > a mere view, thus it doesn't have to be that our view is right and > others' are wrong :D. > > ===================== I agree completely, Charles. Clinging to view is a particular problem, I think, for us "internet-discussion types"! ;-) 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) 54869 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/20/2006 6:40:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: Hi, I'm sorry but I still cannot see the that the premis There's no self in conditionals (P) has as the consequence There's no self in unconditionals (Q) P -> Q ? Is the statement "What not exist in conditionals not exist also in unconditionals" a tautology (a fact, sorry about the terms :]). The relation between conditionals and unconditionals is that one is the escape from the other, so I can accept that "things exist in the conditionals do not exist in the unconditionals" but about "things do not exist in the conditionals not exist also in the unconditionals?" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > If there is no-self in regard to "states/conditions," then how could there > be a self in regard to a "non-state/non-condition"? > > TG If a human being, something that actually arises, doesn't have a "self," how could the absence of a human being, a non-arisen state, have a "self"? That's as clear as I can make it. The Buddha says ... "All formations are impermanent; all things are not self." (The Buddha . . . Majjhima Nikaya -- MLDB, pg. 322, The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka, Culasaccaka Sutta, #35) TG 54870 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo James > > And look at different interpretations of Theravada. As I said > yesterday: many Teachings can be understood literally or can be > understood as metaphores. Or had in your opinion all content of the > Tipitaka been taken literal? James: Well, that's an interesting question. I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I don't believe that the Vinaya could be taken metaphorically and I don't believe the Abhidhamma is meant to be taken metaphorically. As far as the suttas, some of them contain the use of metaphors and some don't. But I don't think that this is what you mean. > > I agree with you that the label "Theravadin" is not the most > important thing, at the personal level. James: Good, I'm glad you agree. It's not imporatnt to get hung up on that label. (But if one is to use that label, they should realize the history and the meaning behind the label). > > Metta > > Joop Metta, James 54871 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing TGrand458@... Hi Charles, Thanks for the more detailed explanation. It sounds fine to me and I have nothing to add. TG In a message dated 1/20/2006 8:12:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: Hi TG, What I mean is that each sense organ is like an analog sensor. They just detect and transmit information to the brain for farther processing, and each organ is doing this at the same time (i.e., in parallel). The "detection" is what I call collection and storage of representations of the sensory objects. The storage is like a cache buffer (i.e., like in computers), 1 close to the organ and another close to the central processor of the mind). Now, the awareness of these objects "may" (or may not) occur in parallel. Awareness "may" be like a single (or parallel) switch between the mind and each nerve (transmitting lines) of the sensory organs. My point is that the "single switch" model appears to be what DSG members believe (in this case, the actual switching must be subconscious -- b/c we are not aware its constant changing every 1 billionth of a second). Now if the switch is parallel then attention is concentrated on what ever is needed. The other related point I made before was, "Do events take place in the mind, or brain, sequentially or in parallel?" I tried to argue for both, in parallel and in sequence. The act Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta 54872 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, James (and TG) - > > In a message dated 1/20/06 1:10:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > >Hi, James - > > > > >-------------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > > I know several Theravadin monks who do not accept the > > Abhidhamma > > >Pitaka as word of the Buddha, and who pay little attention to it. > > >------------------------------------------- > > > > See my recent post to TG. If they don't accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka > > then they aren't truly "Theravadin" by definition. > > > > Metta, > > James > > > > > ============================ > Yes, you wrote the following: > ___________________________ > > The definition of a Theravada is someone who accepts all three baskets of the > Pali Canon as written, and rejects any other commentaries or suttas. > ___________________________ > > > I'm surprised at how "orthodox" you are on this matter, James. The > problem I have with your definition is threefold: 1) the matter of what > constitutes "accepting", 2) what you mean by "as written", and 3) what authority > provides the articles of faith. > The suttas describe a Mount Sumeru universe. If one doesn't accept > that scheme as literally correct, is one not a Theravadin? Also there is mention > of nagas. Must their existence be a Theravadin article of faith? Is one who > questions the authenticity of the Anupada Sutta not legitimately Theravadin? > Need a person consider maleness and nutrition, just to pick two of my favorites > ;-), as ultimate realities in order to be Theravadin? Must one consider space > to be special sort of abstract rupa and not a relational concept to get a > membership card in Theravada? Must all Theravadins believe that there may no longer > ever be Theravadin nuns and that calling for the reestablishment of the > Bhikkhuni Sangha makes one "untheravadin", and must one believe that homosexuals > should not be permitted to go forth in order for one to qualify as Theravadin? > Are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Nyanaponika Thera (deceased) too doubting or too > flexible to make the cut? Who guards the door at Club Theravada? I believe > that according to your definition, the Khun Sujin fans, and not all of them, may > be the only folks to be allowed entry. Does that seem about right to you? ;-) LOLOLOL!! This really cracked me up! I think it is telling when you state "Who guards the door at Club Theravada?" LOL! Why do you think that being Theravada is some sort of membership in an exclusive club? You ask a lot of weird questions, on minor points of doctrine, but you don't address what I quoted. In ancient history, there were a lot of factions of Buddhism and one group got together and decided that the Pali Canon, the Three Baskets, was the teaching of the Buddha and that it constituted the Dhamma. This group called itself Theravada. So, again, Theravadins by definition accept the Three Baskets as being the teaching of the Buddha. Now, how could someone today, who claims that the Abhidhamma wasn't taught by the Buddha, also claim to be Theravada? Before I joined this group I thought that I was a Theravadin Buddhist because I didn't believe in the whole concept of a bodhisattva choosing to be reborn to save all sentient beings. That seems like an impossible task to me and unrealistic. So, I thought I must be Theravadin. But then I joined this group to learn about the Abhidhamma, because I thought that the Buddha taught it (as I had read in Theravadin literature) and discovered that I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma. Therefore, I can't really consider myself to be a Theravadin Buddhist any longer. I don't know what kind of Buddhist I am; I don't have a label for my type of belief; but I now know that I am not really Theravadin. In my opinion, many people lump themselves in with Theravadin because they don't identify with the other two vehicles. In that case, the meaning of the word "Theravadin" is being corrupted and lost. We need more choices!! LOL! Or realy, why use any kind of label? Why can't we all just be called "Buddhist"? > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James 54873 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. TGrand458@... Hi Nina, Howard, All, I believe the word "characteristic" is a poor one for our needs. The root "character" has a strong and definite "self" sense to it in English. In fact, we often call someone a "character" when their "self-expression" is at a uniquely high level. Also the part "actor" or "acter" is anti no-self. Buddhist commentaries would say there is no "actor" just acting. I would much prefer the word "quality." To say that experiences have "qualities" seems to me to imbue much less of a sense-of-self into the description. When the terms "own" and "characteristic" are combined into "own characteristic" the sense-of-self multiplies. The term characteristic is so-so bad. But the term "own characteristic" is a disaster IMO. It is precisely this type of language that tends to imbue a subtle sense-of-self in the mind. If quality was used I think it would be an improvement...as long as it doesn't become "own quality." ;-) The terms "characteristic" and "quality" can convey the same idea but the term "characteristic" brings with it about 50% sense-of-self baggage. If below, we substitute Nina's use of the word "characteristic" with "quality"; to me it reads in a more neutral and detached way. I suppose in reflection and fairness the term "quality" has the disadvantage giving the wrong idea of -- "high or low quality" but I think it can be worked around. At least that error does not side on self-view. Thanks for the explanation Nina, it does help. TG In a message dated 1/20/2006 8:42:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi TG, Howard and all interested in sabhaava, and welcome also to Charles > (cherry), and Hi James in passing, > > Sabhaava, as we discussed before (many posts), has been translated in the > Vis. as individual essence, unfortunately. Bhaava is nature, and sabhaava > can mean: own distinct nature or characteristic. > > In the same Vis. just now we read: matter should be regarded as a > lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble > on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a > mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk > because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because > it deceives (S.iii,140-42). > I am working on a summary of the Tiika that explains each of these similes > (it is lenghty but impressive). The word no core, nissaaro, is repeated time > and again. > It is completely in accordance with the Phemasutta. No trace of any > substantialism; on the contrary, it is emphasized how ephemeral and coreless > each condiitoned dhamma is. > As to own characteristic, no matter how coreless dhammas are, seeing has a > characteristic different from hearing, and different from visible object. > > What is a characteristic: a specific feature that can be directly > experienced. If there were no characteristics, we could not experience > anything. The experience of characteristics (viseso lakkhana) is the way to > become familiar with different dhammas and investigate them. Thus direct > understanding of them grows. Direct understanding is understanding of > different characteristics that appear, though it is for an extremely short > moment. > When direct understanding develops the three general characteristics > (samañña lakkhana) can be penetrated. 54874 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:34am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 631 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Because of ignorance or avijjaa three different forms of formation or kamma-formation or sa1nkhaaras are committed. These three are unwholesome actions, wholesome actions, and unshakable actions. Every action has a volition. This volition is culprit of all action as it urge to do those actions that beings are committing. This volition is called cetanaa. It can also be called as kamma. Because of formation there has to arise consciousness. Sa`nkhaara paccayaa vi~n~naana. Formation as a supporting condition consciousness has to arise. Sankhara or formation conditions consciousness. Consciousness is conditioned by sankhaara. Formation support consciousness. Without formation consciousness will never arise. Consciousness has to arise because of formation. Sankhaara can give rise to different consciousness. Among 89 consciousness there are 19 consciousness that can serve as rebirth consciousness or linking consciousness. This citta that is linking consciousness is called patisandhi citta. It is the first citta in a life. Apunnaabhisankhaara or unwholesome actions will give rise to resultant consciousness of unwholesome origin or akusala-vipaaka citta. Punnaabhisankhaara or wholesome actions will give rise to resultant consciousness of wholesome origin or kusala-vipaaka citta. Anenjaabhisankhaara or unshakable actions will give rise to their respective vipaaka cittas. May you 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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 54875 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:02pm Subject: Question to Sujin (Was: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individ jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, Chris (Nina, Azita, Phil & all), > > --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah and other Bangkok-goers Sarah, you asked, to make my question more precise, with exemples. I will, because otherwise Sujin can "escape" (apology for the term) to easy, cf my remarks at the (MP3-recorded) discussion with Erik in which she showed no interest in the ideas of Erik but wanted to teach him. I don't know Erik, perhaps she had good reasons to do so, as Nina states. So: good formulated and asked by somebody who don't need to be teached immediately. The main question is: WHAT CAN WE (THERAVADINS) LEARN FROM MAHAYANA? So NOT the question: what are the differences between Theravada and Mahayana and NOT the text of the Dalai Lama that Christine quoted a week ago. I think a good entry is to take anicca as an entry (better than "anatta", I think), and ask: First subquestion: DON'T YOU THINK, MRS SUJIN, THAT ANICCA AS ONE OF THE CENTRAL DOCTRINES IN THERAVADA CAN BE ENRICHED BY THE EMPHASIS ON EMPTINESS (SUNYATA) IN MAHAYANA ? Another topic is that of compassion. In Mahayana "KARUNA" is primarely something else as a cetasika; it's a basic attitude for helping other beings, especially on the spiritual path. Referring to AN VII-64, the stereotype that Mahayanists are primarely concerned with the welfare and salvation of others; and that Theravadin who is solely concerned with striving for his own salvation, is not correct. We read in the Dhammaññu Sutta: "… Of two people who practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, having a sense of Dhamma, having a sense of meaning -- one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others, and one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others -- the one who practices for his own benefit but not that of others is to be criticized for that reason, the one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others is, for that reason, to be praised. The second subquestion is: IT'S CLEAR FROM THIS SUTTA THAT THE BUDDHA WANT US (THERAVADINS) TO BE SOCIAL. PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN LIBERATION, THEIR OWN GETTING AN ARAHANT, SHOULD BE CRITICIZED. DON'T YOU THINK WE CAN LEARN FROM MAHAYANA ABOUT THIS POINT ? Of course the questions had to be made polite but with perseverence, I don't know how exactly such questions are most times asked to Sujin. Metta Joop > > Hallo Sarah and other Bangkok-goers > > > > This thread started by Christine brings me to a question of which I > > like it if it can by asked to Sujin; I remember that Sarah said it's > > question-time again. > > > > My question to Sujin is: what can "we" learn from Mahayana? > > > > And 'we" is then: all human beings who define themselves - for 51 % > > till 99% - Theravadin. > .... > S: Thx for the question, Joop. Christine* may well be joining us for some > of the discussions in Bangkok too, so perhaps she can help raise your > question from this thread which I see is very active. It might be helpful > if you give more indication of what you have in mind - some examples, > perhaps. If she can't make it, someone else will raise it. > > If anyone else has questions for A.Sujin, pls fire away. If anyone else > can join in person and bring your qus along, even better - dates below. > > > Metta, > > Sarah 54876 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/20/06 12:20:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >Hi, James (and TG) - > > > >In a message dated 1/20/06 1:10:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi, James - > >> > >>>-------------------------------------------- > >>>Howard: > >>> I know several Theravadin monks who do not accept the > >>Abhidhamma > >>>Pitaka as word of the Buddha, and who pay little attention to > it. > >>>------------------------------------------- > >> > >>See my recent post to TG. If they don't accept the Abhidhamma > Pitaka > >>then they aren't truly "Theravadin" by definition. > >> > >>Metta, > >>James > >> > >> > >============================ > > Yes, you wrote the following: > >___________________________ > > > >The definition of a Theravada is someone who accepts all three > baskets of the > >Pali Canon as written, and rejects any other commentaries or > suttas. > >___________________________ > > > > > > I'm surprised at how "orthodox" you are on this matter, > James. The > >problem I have with your definition is threefold: 1) the matter of > what > >constitutes "accepting", 2) what you mean by "as written", and 3) > what authority > >provides the articles of faith. > > The suttas describe a Mount Sumeru universe. If one doesn't > accept > >that scheme as literally correct, is one not a Theravadin? Also > there is mention > >of nagas. Must their existence be a Theravadin article of faith? > Is one who > >questions the authenticity of the Anupada Sutta not legitimately > Theravadin? > >Need a person consider maleness and nutrition, just to pick two of > my favorites > >;-), as ultimate realities in order to be Theravadin? Must one > consider space > >to be special sort of abstract rupa and not a relational concept > to get a > >membership card in Theravada? Must all Theravadins believe that > there may no longer > >ever be Theravadin nuns and that calling for the reestablishment > of the > >Bhikkhuni Sangha makes one "untheravadin", and must one believe > that homosexuals > >should not be permitted to go forth in order for one to qualify as > Theravadin? > > Are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Nyanaponika Thera (deceased) too > doubting or too > >flexible to make the cut? Who guards the door at Club Theravada? I > believe > >that according to your definition, the Khun Sujin fans, and not > all of them, may > >be the only folks to be allowed entry. Does that seem about right > to you? ;-) > > LOLOLOL!! This really cracked me up! > -------------------------------------- Howard: I'm happy that you have accepted my post with a smile! :-) ------------------------------------- I think it is telling when > > you state "Who guards the door at Club Theravada?" LOL! Why do you > think that being Theravada is some sort of membership in an > exclusive club? You ask a lot of weird questions, on minor points > of doctrine, but you don't address what I quoted. In ancient > history, there were a lot of factions of Buddhism and one group got > together and decided that the Pali Canon, the Three Baskets, was the > teaching of the Buddha and that it constituted the Dhamma. This > group called itself Theravada. So, again, Theravadins by definition > accept the Three Baskets as being the teaching of the Buddha. Now, > how could someone today, who claims that the Abhidhamma wasn't > taught by the Buddha, also claim to be Theravada? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: There were from the beginning differences of what to include and what not to include, and Theravada developed in stages. The Abhidhamma Pitaka wasn't a part of it at first, and disagreements within Theravada persisted even to the time of the Kathavatthu. But I'm not so certain whether at any time there were rules set up to determine who could or could not be considered as Theravadins. I presume that taking the precepts etc were all that was required. To be a Theravadin, one naturally would agree, more or less, with what at the time was considered Theravadin doctrine. Pretty much everything is "more or less", isn't it James. Also, things don't stay the same. And despite the best laid plans of Theravadin conservatives and reactionaries (LOL!), that includes what constitutes "Theravada". --------------------------------------- > Before I joined this group I thought that I was a Theravadin > Buddhist because I didn't believe in the whole concept of a > bodhisattva choosing to be reborn to save all sentient beings. That > seems like an impossible task to me and unrealistic. So, I thought > I must be Theravadin. But then I joined this group to learn about > the Abhidhamma, because I thought that the Buddha taught it (as I > had read in Theravadin literature) and discovered that I don't > believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma. Therefore, I can't really > consider myself to be a Theravadin Buddhist any longer. I don't > know what kind of Buddhist I am; I don't have a label for my type of > belief; but I now know that I am not really Theravadin. -------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as you said, and as I agree, it doesn't matter. But I would say that you are, more or less (LOL!!), a Theravadin. And I am unwilling, as regards myself, to cede that title to only the truest of believers. -------------------------------------- > > In my opinion, many people lump themselves in with Theravadin > because they don't identify with the other two vehicles. In that > case, the meaning of the word "Theravadin" is being corrupted and > lost. We need more choices!! LOL! Or realy, why use any kind of > label? Why can't we all just be called "Buddhist"? --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that's fine. If the name weren't already taken, and by a group that I have real differences with, I might consider calling myself a Sautrantika! But I am more of a Theravadin than anything else. Things needn't be tied up in a neat a perfect package. They are too fuzzy and too ephemeral for that to be the case anyway! :-) ------------------------------------ > > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > 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) 54877 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:02am Subject: Re: Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: . Direct understanding is understanding of > different characteristics that appear, though it is for an extremely short > moment. > When direct understanding develops the three general characteristics > (samañña lakkhana) can be penetrated. Thanks nice explanation. Talking about anatta (core, substance), actually I had and got several views on this (thanks to the friends on DSG :]). Thinking this and that and I simply could not choose which one will I believe to the point that the last decision I took is that I do not care again. I wonder maybe the Buddha taught about anicca, dukkha, and anatta only for those that can understand the Dhamma by mere listening. While for those who need to practice the full path, the Buddha taught them the way to see the three, not confusing them with something they cannot understand (without practice). So I think I'll better off thinking about core and coreless and start thinking about how can I practice to see it by myself. Maybe if someone there feeling confused too would like to do the same :D Just an idea :P 54878 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 0:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing -- Mind is the Matrix dacostacharles Hi all Ultimately, we are trying to answer: What are the brain, mind, their connections, and how do they function? Mind is the Matrix When a sensory organ (e.g., eye) picks up an object, patterns of nerve firings are activated in the brain. This creates a representation of that object in the mind. A healthy brain will always "react" to these patterns of nerve firings by firing more nerves, creating more patterns. However, a representation of that object might not always appear in the mind, i.e., awareness might not "detect" these events. For the event to be detected, the intensity of the representation (i.e., nerve firings) would have to be greater than the intensity of all the other representations. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta 54879 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing -- Awareness the Spider on the Web of Consciousness dacostacharles Hi all, Awareness is like a spider sitting in the web of Consciousness, waiting for something to seize. This spider preys on objects in the mind (i.e., nerve patterns in the brain). It "wraps" these objects up in recognition, feelings, and other ideas (i.e., more nerve patterns in the brain). This rapping continues until the intensity of the object falls below that of another object stuck on the web. From anywhere in the web, the spider can detect the presence of, and changes in, objects by their intensity (i.e., intensity of nerve firing). Therefore, variations in "intensity" cause the spider to leap from one object to another. The web seems to alert the spider to the presents of the objects and the objects' intensity. Once on an object, the spider can process the object, i.e., identify it, identify every layer of wrappings on the object, and add new or remove old wrappings. Objects enter the mind because of consciousness, i.e., the network of viable nerves. These nerves expand into 6 directions/dimensions. These are the dimensions of images, sounds, smells, flavors, tactiles, and ideas -- including feelings. These nerves are stimulated by sensory input. The spider pounces on which ever prey produces the greatest intensity of vibrations, and as long as the object is at the sense gate, that prey is alive and giving off vibrations. The nature of these vibrations can vary form a pure single sensory object to a multi-sensory object combined with the spider's wrappings of extra web, i.e., more consciousness (consciousness of recognition, feelings, and other ideas). Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta PS: Getting tired so if it seems like babble let me know. 54880 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 0:13pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing dacostacharles Hi all, I am glad to read this thread because it sounds like everyone is using their knowledge (e.g., the Abidharma) to think about what could really be taking place in the mind. It appears as though you are no longer limited by your knowledge. Howard, theorizing is also a type of "practice." When you add the terms, "analyzing" and "searching for truth," you are on the path of developing wisdom, as insight into the nature of mind. From this, you should gain clear understanding of why and how the sutras work. This will increase your "faith" in the sutras (i.e., dharma) and your "ability to practice" them. From a DO stand point (as causation and not just the 12-links), this would place you on what some call the radiant wheel of DO. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- ... -----Original Message----- Hi Charles, Howard, All I want to see if we are on a similar track with this ... Let's say a mind is currently paying attention to one thing at a time. For example, we are reading a book. Attention, consciousness, etc., are focused on a sequence of connecting events within the books contents. All of a sudden, we hear a police siren go by and attention is distracted to a different sense base reaction. In order to be distract away from one base to another, it seems to me that all the sense bases need some level of subconscious awareness that is more or less always active. Is this the type of thing you mean when you are talking about parallel processing? Or are you speaking about a different thing? Thank for the feedback. TG 54881 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] On Number 10 :Nitpicking the Nitpicking (RePleasedon'trun away yet, DAN 1.ii) dacostacharles Hi all, I am just being Nitpicky. I did not read everything, but found one point to ... The aggregate of Intellect, either (1) knows and understands, or (2) does not. Ignorance (i.e., #2) does not ignore, in fact it attaches, because the function of the aggregate of Intellect is to develop wisdom (i.e., #1). The aggregate of Consciousness either (1) is aware, or (2) is not aware. Therefore: (1) the aggregate of Intellect (as wisdom) knows the three general characteristics of all objects are impermanence, dukkha, and anatta; (2) the aggregate of Consciousness detects an object; (3) aggregate of Memory and perception recognizes and labels the object as impermant, a source of dukkha, and uncontrollable (anatta); and (4) the aggregate of feelings do not value the object. Or: (1) the aggregate of Consciousness detects an object; (2) aggregate of Memory and perception does not recognizes the object; (3) the aggregate of Intellect (as ignorance) searches for connections to the object; and (4) the aggregate of feelings value the object because it is an unknown. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta PS: sorry for butting in like this but I am fighting sleep. I think I will stop now that I understand what is going on in my head. Why do I shun going to sleep? I think I will miss somehing. Yep it is time for bed. Now I am writing to my self :-[) -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of m. nease Sent: Wednesday, 18 January, 2006 03:04 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] On Number 10 :Nitpicking the Nitpicking (RePleasedon'trun away yet, DAN 1.ii) Hi Larry, ... > L: Consciousness knows the object and ignorance ignores the object. Agreed, but citta with moha still experiences the object--but the object is obscured. I have liked 'ignorance ignores' in the past and maybe it does make some sense. Still I think that moha muula citta does experience the object just as does any other citta. Just my understanding of course. > It > is said in Vism. that consciousness knows the three general > characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, and anatta) so I would suppose > ignorance ignores some part of that. It might be helpful to me if you could cite the Vism. specifically to this effect. I would think that vipassanaa or pa~n~naa or ~naa.na would know the three characteristics, so consciousness with any of those factors would know them. Consciousness with moha would either fail to understand them or misunderstand them I think. Still citta with moha would nevertheless experience whatever dhamma or concept with which it came into contact through the mind- or sense- door as I see it. ... mike 54882 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, "We can use the word contact, contacting in different ways. Phassa cetasika, contact, accompanies every citta and assists citta in the experiencing of an object. It is quite different from physical contact." Nina ----- S: Thank you very much. I should have known but learning that phassa is cetasika clears it up. I'll go back and study this, I must have already read it once. ----- "It is sometimes said that a sense object contacts a sense-base, but I would rather use the word impinges on, so that there is no confusion. The manifestation of contact is the coinciding of physical base, object and citta." Nina ----- S: Placing the "field of action" on the inside makes things much clearer. ----- "Here it is said that phassa is a condition for feeling. Citta experiences pleasant and unpleasant objects and phassa contacts these, and on account of these contacts different feelings arise. However, also in D.O. phassa conditions the conascent feeling. In D.O. the purpose is teaching that we are kept in the cycle. We are under the sway of feeling." Nina ----- S: That makes sense. Again, more study required. ----- "Parallel processing outside of or beyond processing, these expressions I do not find clear. I have not come across them." Nina. ----- S: I'm with you. Well, I have come across them but I was pretty sure they were not part of the Abhidhamma. Sincerely, Scott. 54883 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 0:55am Subject: The Ocean of Stimuli ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The expanse of attractive objects can never ever be filled! The Blessed Buddha once said: The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body & the mind, Bhikkhus, is an ocean of attractive stimuli for any uninstructed ordinary person... It's stream of water consists of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and mental states, that all are seductive, gorgeous, alluring, agreeable, pleasing, enticing, tempting and tantalizing.... Here this entire world and it's devas, it's maras, and brahmas, this generation with it's recluses & priests, it's kings and normal people, almost all are submerged, being like an entangled & knotted coil of thread, like intertwined weeds, who all are unable to pass beyond this dimension of misery, these painful destinations, the lower worlds, this ocean of Suffering by repeated death, Samsara... One who withstands that mighty and strapping current consisting of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and mental states is said to have crossed this sensual ocean of the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind, with it's great waves, whirlpools, terrifying sharks, and demons! Crossed over, gone all beyond, such hero now stands safe on high ground... Having extinguished all attraction, aversion & blind ignorance, One has crossed this ocean so hard to cross with many dangers of terrifying sharks, scary whirlpools, waves & creepy demons... Such chain-breaker and death-forsaker, without accumulations, Has eliminated all Suffering by leaving all renewed existence... So transcended, he cannot ever be measured or recognized!!! I tell you, Bhikkhus: He has confused even the King of Death... Source (extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [157-8] Section 35 Salayatana: On The 6 Senses. The Ocean: Samudda 228-9. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 54884 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:39am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma course - Session 1 philofillet Hi Jon (and Sarah at the end) ph > >In one of the > >recorded talks, A. Sujin talks about "dark citta" or something, > >really gets at the essence of what citta is, experiencing, bare > >experiencing, and nothing else. I don't seem to be coming across > >that talk again, but if I do I will try to transcribe it here. It > >was helpful, momentarily - but now what I heard is all gone! :) > > > > > jon> ;-)). (I remember some reference to there being darkness whenever there > is no visible object being experienced.) Ph: There was also something about the womb, using that first citta in the womb as an example of the way citta always is, when there isn't visible object. It's so difficult for us to grasp that there are only moments of seeing and so many "dark" moments rising between, moments of hearing, moments of touch, and bhavangas as well between these moments. We look at the computer screen and our experience tells us the seeing is continuous. Another example of how examined experience will mislead us. Thus we have to take some things on faith. Dark citta faith! Same goes for something I heard you talking about with Acharn Sujin. No way for us to directly understand, yet, that the rupas of the body are constantly arising and falling away. We touch our back, expecting to find it, and do, and think that it is always there, that it is permanent (though ageing etc.) Examined experience cannot take us very far yet, so we must have faith in the Buddha's teaching in the tipitaka. Perhaps those of us who are keen on Abhidhamma and do not insist on being able to confirm everything through experience, knowing that our panna is not developed an iota of that of the Buddha - perhaps there are accumulated tendencies for faith. Or perhaps there is just a lot of clinging to the comfort of not being able to prove things, to the comfort of having something sublime to believe in, our Abhidhamma lollipop. Who knows? A lot of both and all sorts of other akusala, all the time. But moments of right understanding that condition more of the same. We press on patiently. I'm always so impressed by the way Nina and Sarah and you and Rob K and others have pressed on patiently for so many years, still understanding how rare moments of kusala are, still willing to do without fast injections of kusala, on order. > PS Sorry to hear you won't be joining us in Bangkok this time. Hope > you can make it on another occasion. Thanks for the similar note in another thread, Sarah. I'm sorry too. The trip to Canada is going to cost more than we expected. I'm fortunate that I can listen to you all on the talks. You can't hear me, but actually as the two Robs could testify I'm a lot quieter and far less likely to ramble on like I do when my fingers do the talking. Phil 54885 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na philofillet Hi Nina (and anyone who heard the talk I refer to towards the end) > > > Ph: It's no fault of your explaining. It is the listeners conditions > > to understand that are the biggest factor. > ------ > N: Lodewijk tells me to think of the position of different listeners, and he > finds their remarks to me very understandable. Ph: People say many understandable things that are wrong. For example, it's perfectly understandable to say that it is kusala to want to be a more loving-kindly person. >I should think of different > angles of explaining if one way does not help. Maybe it depends on the topic. If you are talking about anger, for example, sometimes you can talk about the anattaness of cittas, at other times you can talk about the danger of akusala, for example. (This is just about verbatim of something I heard Sarah say as I walked home today - don't worry, she was in the i-pod, not hovering next to my ear like an angel. But if you are talking about something complex like I was asking about, knowing mind door from sense door, there is know point in trying to change your ways of explaining. If there are not conditions to understand, as there are not for me, it will not click. > > Ph: I heard that, generally speaking, it is harder to understood > > visible object than sound, for example. Is this because there is so > > much seeing, compared to the other sense doors, it is always > > happening, so there has been more ignorance accumulated that needs > > to be penetrated? (snip) > > Could I ask you to write a few thoughts on knowing visible object > > as compared to knowing sound, or smell or touch etc? > ------- > N: I see not much point in doing this. It depends on the individual what is > more difficult for him, who can tell what his accumulations are? I would > say: all dhammas are difficult to understand because of our ignorance. Ph; What you've written is exactly what I would have expected Acharn Sujin say, but the interesting thing it is she herself who was insisting on this point in a talk. I wonder if I can explain what I heard, what I can recall. There is always so much seeing. And so much to think about based on the seeing. When we have seen visible object and conceptualized a person, we can think back on it, do more conceptualizing, proliferate, grasp the sign, welcome it, find delight in it. (this is not what A. Sujin said, exactly) But when there is hardness, for example, can we think back on it and proliferate on it? Also, there is so much seeing, all the time. More than hearing, more than smelling. Any time our eyes our open there is seeing. That cannot be said about hearing, smelling, tasting etc to the same degree. So it was something to do with that. Does it ring a bell? Now whether it is useful to reflect on this or not, I don't know. But since Acharn Sujin stressed it, I find myself reflecting on it. Would anyone else who heard that talk like to add some thoughts on what Acharn Sujin was getting at there? Phil 54886 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:24am Subject: To Christine re compassion and social issues ( Re: kamma of eight hundred an...) philofillet Hi Chris I've been wanting to write to you for awhile because I'm always so impressed by the way you bring up these kind of issues. Impressed at times, and - to be honest - at other times full of mana to the tune of "oh, Chris is at it again, why doesn't she just *get* it like *I* do...there is no self that can control the way things work our do to kamma and vipaka, conditions etc." So, as always in anything, sometimes there is kusala appreciation when I hear you talking about Bush or women's rights, or animal rights, and sometimes there is akusala, arrogant mana. So both will be coming up as I write, I'm sure. Right now I sense there is mudita, appreciation of your compassionate tendencies. > Aren't those of us who buy and eat meat creating the demand that is > responsible for encouraging the continuing slaughter of millions of > beings as well (causing to kill)? It seems too pat an answer to > fall back on the rules made in ancient days for monks who had no > choice as to what was put into their bowls ... Ph: I've thought the same thing, I'm sure we all have. As it happens, I am on one of my periodic semi-vegetarian trips. (I eat seafood.) But since the Buddha didn't teach it, we should drop it as a Dhamma principle, I think, and instead practice what the Buddha *did* teach - knowing what dhammas are appearing. So when I do without eating meat, I can sense there's a lot of satisfaction and mana again about being the type of person who doesn't eat meat. And I also find myself clinging to that famous quotation from George Bernard Shaw saying that when he dies he expects all the animals that he spared by not eating meat to parade in his honour or something. I.e I cling to the notion of having a better rebirth or a less awful rebirth because of not contributing to killing. In your case, I suspect, there is a lot more compassion at work. Compassion, karuna. It's a mystery to me. We know that if there is sadness, or pity, it is not compassion. And we know that if there is pleasant feeling, it is suspect. Aren't we comforted by the notion of being compassionate people, isn't the emotional pain we feel at seeing other's suffering (I use "we" without including myself - I'm pretty cold-hearted about that kind of thing) removed by replacing it with a pleasant object, the concept of karuna, thinking about compassion? But if this is so, why not? It motivates us to help other people, that's good. Well, good for the other people, but what does it do to our development of understanding the way things really work? We help others, but if the helping is rooted in ignorance of realities, we are not helping ourselves. Perhaps if we press patiently ahead with our study of what is arising through the six doors, if we press patiently ahead towards that first moment of knowing rupa from nama, perhaps we move closer to the true karuna, that is accompanied by right understanding of the anattaness, the utterly conditioned nature of the wholesome cittas when they arise. And perhaps the understanding that accumulates in that way can condition our developing in a way that allows us to help others *and* ourselves. For we know that the only way we can help ourselves is by developing right understanding. Well, a bit of a ramble there. Again, I do always appreciate hearing you bring up the social issues. Except for the moments when I feel superior - and there are a lot of those, alas. :) Phil 54887 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:36am Subject: To Christine re compassion and social issues ( Re: kamma of eight hundred an...) philofillet Hi again Chris, an afterthought If we abstain thanks to right understanding from wanting to be a more compassionate person, etc, if we press ahead on studying ayatanas, etc, without indulging in the pleasure of thinking about attractive cetasikas such as metta, karuna etc, it doesn't mean that we will stop doing things to help people, obviously. You have such wonderful accumulations in that direction so you will help people whether you want to or not! :) Also, re metta meditation as I said a couple of months ago I think we should all do it whenever we have a lot of harsh stress that could lead to physical or mental collapse. I do it on some days when I am feeling that I could go at somebody with a hammer. But the development of right understanding will allow us to rely less and less on soothing balms, in my opinion. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Chris > > I've been wanting to write to you for awhile because I'm always so > impressed by the way you bring up these kind of issues. Impressed at > times, 54888 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:52am Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 2, no 2 philofillet Hi Nina With my internet time cut down, I haven't been able to follow this series. Time to catch up. > The development of satipatthåna is the development of right understanding > that sees visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, whatever appears, as a > dhamma that arises because of the appropriate conditions. Acharn Sujin said > many times that seeing arises because of eyesense, which is rúpa, and > visible object which is also rúpa. Ph: I am still reading and reflecting on suttas from SN 35 every morning. There are so many I would like to praise here, but I think everyone has access to them. I think you will be covering ayatanas in the Vism series in a few months (?) so I am looking forward to that. It is fascinating that the nama of seeing arises conditioned by two kinds of rupa. I think we would tend to think that we decide to see something and that it is conditioned by the mind, or something. (ie self) There is no controlling what we see, only the illusion of control. We have to learn that from that beginning, accept that from the beginning. Thus Acharn Sujin often says "there has to be detachment from the beginning" or "it must be the path of detachment." At first I wondered about this and asked here - how can there be detachment from the beginning? Detachment is the goal? But there is a kind of detachment that comes with right intellectual understanding, the flavour of detachment, not the actual detachment. But it has to be there at the beginning. We must understand that there is no self that controls what we see, that there is no self that can control the arising of kusala, that there are no people in reality, only conditioned nama and rupa. Things like that. We have to reach the point that we accept these things intellectually at the beginnning. Is this the detachment from the beginning that Acharn Sujin talks about? . > Acharn Sujin untiringly helps us to understand what is appearing now, such > as seeing and visible object. She repeats time and again ³Is there seeing > now?² I can never hear this enough these days. When she brings conceptual topics back to present dhammas it is so refreshing, so invigorating, I find. "Just understand, just understand." Next month I will be spending time with my mother who has developed Alzheimer's. I hope there will be remembering - "just understand, just understand." (No, I won't be saying that to her, to myself!) Understanding paramattha dhammas intellecutally doesn't make us cold or unfeeling, of course. I will still be Phil loving his mother, feeling sad or whatever about her condition. Or perhaps aloof Phil, protecting himself emotionally by keeping his distance. There are tendencies there, I've always been a bit like that. But I do believe there will be a bit more wise and *warm* detachment than there would have been if I hadn't come across Dhamma. And thus I will be beter for my mother as well. Phil 54889 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:18am Subject: RE: [dsg] Nagarjuna's doctrine and Theravada dacostacharles Hi TG and Howard, Very good dialog, it obligated me to make a "pocket philosophy" reply: "Delusion is real to the deluded; therefore the mental processing must be the same for the real and the delusion." What is the difference between real and unreal, imagined and experienced, etc..? Outside the mind/brain (form), there are great differences; but inside the mind/brain, ... I "guess" they are the same, just patterns of nerve firings that can occupy attention and cause suffering. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- [ CUT .connie, sorry. "my mouse ate it". <....> 54890 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:39am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 4 nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 4 Any kind of kusala through body, speech and mind brings calm, and at such moments one does not think of oneself or one's problems. Each kusala citta is accompanied by calm (passadhi). Different kinds of kusala have been classified as the ten bases of meritorious deeds and these can be developed in daily life. These include three kinds of dåna: giving away useful things to others, appreciating the kusala of others, and extending merit, which means: making known one¹s kusala to others, no matter whether they are alive or have passed away to another plane where they are able to rejoice in one¹s kusala. Moreover, they include three kinds of síla: abstaining from akusala, helping others and paying respect to others. Then there is bhåvanå, which includes: studying or explaining the Dhamma, samatha and vipassanå. Furthermore, the tenth base is rectifying one¹s views (ditthujukamma). This is connected with all other kinds of kusala and there are different degrees of it. One degree of rectifying one¹s views is knowing the value of kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Another level is understanding that one can eliminate akusala by means of generosity, síla and other good deeds. Another degree is knowing that one can subdue defilements by developing calm and another level is understanding that paññå can be developed with the purpose to eradicate defilements. The ten bases of merotorious deeds show us that there are always opportunities for kusala in daily life. When we read in the texts about calm we should not forget that there are many kinds and degrees of calm. Calm does not only pertain to the calm of jhåna, but also to calm that accompanies the different ways of kusala performed in daily life, dåna, síla and bhåvanå, mental development. We read in the subcommentary to the Satipatthånasutta (M.N. 10) about meditation subjects that can condition calm in daily life: ³The words, the meditation subjects on all occasions, mean: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, mindfulness of death, and meditation of foulness. This set of four meditations which is guarded by the yogi (practitioner), he called Œthe meditation subjects on all occasions¹. They should be guarded by the power of thorough comprehension, uninterruptedly, with sati that is called samatha, calm, because of its being included in the group of concentration, samaadhi.² The factors of the eightfold Path can be classified as three divisions: as wisdom, síla and samådhi, concentration or calm. Right understanding and right thinking constitute the wisdom of the eightfold Path, right speech, action and livelihood the síla of the eightfold Path, and sati, right effort and right concentration the calm of the eightfold Path. The factors of the eightfold Path are developed together. When right understanding develops, also calm develops together with it. ***** Nina. 54891 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nagarjuna's doctrine and Theravada upasaka_howard Hi, Charles (and TG) - In a message dated 1/21/06 6:58:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: > Hi TG and Howard, > > Very good dialog, it obligated me to make a "pocket philosophy" reply: > > "Delusion is real to the deluded; therefore the mental processing must be > the same for the real and the delusion." > > What is the difference between real and unreal, imagined and experienced, > etc..? > Outside the mind/brain (form), there are great differences; but inside the > mind/brain, ... I "guess" they are the same, just patterns of nerve firings > that can occupy attention and cause suffering. > > Best Regards, > Charles A. DaCosta > =========================== I don't agree that delusive states are inindistinguishable from more or less undeluded ones. The analogy I would use is between ordinary dreaming and awakened awareness. There are, of course, false awakenings. But the bottom line is that more awake trumps less awake, and fully awake "rules". 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) 54892 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:34am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 224, and Tiika nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 224 Intro: In the previous section similes were given pertaining to the five khandhas collectively, which is how they are seen in brief. In this section (224), there are similes pertaining to each of the five khandhas separately and this is how they are seen in detail. --------- Text Vis.: In detail [that is, individually] matter should be regarded as a lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because it deceives (S.iii,140-142, Foam, Phe.na sutta). ------- N: The Tiika elaborates on these similes, and the text is partly similar to the ŒDispeller of Delusion¹ (p. 36-38). Ruupa is just like a lump of froth without any substance and it cannot be grasped, since it breaks up immediately. Ruupa is like wood surrounding the pith of a tree, without core or substance, it is weak, and it should not be taken as ³I² or ³mine². Ruupa continually breaks up from the first stage of a foetus on, until it finally breaks up at death. The Dispeller adds: ----------- Feeling is like a bubble of water. Just as a bubble of water is unsubstantial, is ungraspable, and does not last long, so is feeling. Just as a bubble arises due to four causes: the water surface, the drop of water, wetness of the water and the air which holds it up by drawing it together as an envelope, just so feeling also arises due to four causes: the physical base, the object, the flame of defilements and the impact of contact (phassa). The Tiika states that here feeling is meant that is connected with the cycle (va.t.ta), while the rootcause are the defilements that are not eradicated and the object is food for it. Feeling can only be enjoyed for a short while. ------------- Saññaa is like a mirage, since it is unsubstantial and cannot be grasped. One cannot grasp it, drink it, wash in it, bathe in it or fill a pot with it. A mirage quivers and deceives many people. The Dispeller of Delusion adds that it makes people say that they saw a full lake or a full river. Saññaa deceives the world by being a cause of wrong view, of seeing things as beautiful, happiness, permanent and self. ---------- The khandha of formations is like a plantain stem since it is unsubstantial and cannot be grasped. Just as a plantain stem is a combination of many sheets and is without core, evenso the khandha of formations which is a combination of many dhammas, the cetasikas, it is without core, and cannot be grasped. It cannot be taken as permanent, etc. By combining the characteristic of contact and other characteristics of volition and so on, it is called the khandha of formations. N: The Dispeller adds: ŒAnd just as a plantain stem has many characteristics, for one has the appearance of an outer sheath of leaf, but there is another within and another within that, so indeed the formations aggregate...¹ The plantain tree has no pith, no core. Evenso the khandha of formations that is a combination of many cetasikas, has no core. ---------- The khandha of consciousness, viññaa.na, is like an illusion (maya). It is without substance or core, and it cannot be grasped. Just as an illusion is changeable and appears swiftly, so is citta. The Dispeller adds that citta is more changeable and appears more briefly. Just as an illusion deceives many people and causes them to see as a jewel what is not a jewel, evenso citta that is without a core and swift to change deceives people and makes them think that there is one lasting citta at the time of coming, going, standing and sitting. However, there is another citta during each of these postures. Thus citta is like an illusion. -------- Text Vis.: In particular, even sublime internal materiality should be regarded as foul (ugly); feeling should be regarded as painful because it is never free from the three kinds of suffering (see Ch. XVI,34); perception and formations as not-self because they are unmanageable; and consciousness as impermanent because it has the nature of rise and fall. ------ N: This last section is like a postscriptum that summarizes what is explained previously. Internal materiality, ajjhattika ruupa, are one¹s own ruupas, the ruupas of one¹s body (Vis. 192). All of them, even if they are sublime, should be seen as foul. Feeling is not free from intrinsic dukkha (unpleasant bodily feeling, unhappy mental feeling), dukkha in change, and dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities. Saññaa and the khandha of formations are unmanageable, in Paali: avidheyya. Vidhi means rule or direction. They cannot be directed. As we have seen, they cannot be grasped, they fall away already before control could be exerted over them. Citta is impermanent, it arises and then falls away immediately. --------- Conclusion: We are reminded that each of the khandhas are without core, without substance. The body we are attached to are ruupas that are constantly breaking up, like a lump of foam. We like pleasant feeling and are disturbed by unpleasant feeling, but they are like a bubble of water, breaking up as soon as seized. Saññaa is like a mirage that will deceive us so that we are subject to perversity of saññaa, not seeing things as they really are. Sa.nkhaarakkhandha, the cetasikas other than feeling and saññaa, are without core, they are unmanageable, they cannot be directed. Citta is like an illusion, it deceives many people. When we are forgetful it seems that there is one long lasting citta when we are coming, going, standing and sitting. The Buddha exhorted us in the Satipa.t.thaanasutta to have clear comprehension of naama and ruupa during all the postures. All these similes are meant as an exhortation to develop right understanding of realities. When insight has been fully developed we shall not be deceived anymore by mrages and illusions. The khandhas will be seen as impermanent, dukkha and non-self. ***** Nina. 54893 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. Alone with Dhamma, Ch 2, no 2 nilovg Hi Phil, op 21-01-2006 12:52 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > > Ph: I am still reading and reflecting on suttas from SN 35 every > morning. There are so many I would like to praise here, but I think > everyone has access to them. ------ N: Such a pleasure if you praise them! Even we have access to these suttas, I like to hear you. -------- Ph: I think you will be covering ayatanas > in the Vism series in a few months (?) so I am looking forward to > that. -------- N: Alas no. Our lives are short, and so Larry and I think that after my Bgk stay we start with Ch 17, which may take more than two years. But you and I can still discuss Ch 15. --------- > Ph: It is fascinating that the nama of seeing arises conditioned by > two kinds of rupa. ------- N: And more conditions. Kamma produces seeing. There is also the eye-door adverting-consciousness, the previous citta as a condition. ---------- I think we would tend to think that we decide to > see something and that it is conditioned by the mind, or something. > (ie self) There is no controlling what we see, only the illusion of > control. We have to learn that from that beginning, accept that from > the beginning. Thus Acharn Sujin often says "there has to be > detachment from the beginning" or "it must be the path of > detachment." .... We must understand that > there is no self that controls what we see, that there is no self > that can control the arising of kusala, that there are no people in > reality, only conditioned nama and rupa. Things like that. We have > to reach the point that we accept these things intellectually at the > beginnning. Is this the detachment from the beginning that Acharn > Sujin talks about? --------- N: Detachment, alobha, arises with each kusala citta. But there are degrees of it. Detachment can grow as understanding grows. But now it can begin when listening and reflecting that there is no self who controls. Whatever we experience is conditioned already, we cannot change it or exert control over it. But it is not always easy to apply this. This morning, during our walk, I was reflecting on feeling that is like a bubble of water, breaking up immediately. Unpleasant feeling is likely to arise when hearing harsh speech. Is feeling still like a bubble of water to us? Hard to take at times. We go on reflecting with unpleasant feeling about an event. But the texts are a good exhortation. ------- Ph: Acharn Sujin untiringly helps us to understand what is appearing > now, such >> as seeing and visible object. She repeats time and again ³Is there > seeing >> now?² > > I can never hear this enough these days. When she brings > conceptual topics back to present dhammas it is so refreshing, so > invigorating, I find. "Just understand, just understand." Next month > I will be spending time with my mother who has developed > Alzheimer's. I hope there will be remembering - "just understand, > just understand." ------- N: I know how difficult such situations are, remembering all the problems with my father. But now we are happy that we could do something for him. It is a useful way of spending one's life. --------- Ph: Understanding paramattha dhammas intellecutally doesn't make us cold > or unfeeling, of course. ------- N: This makes me think of Joop's insistence on the social aspects, which I appreciate very much. Understanding of one's different cittas also is a condition for kusala, and it helps not taking for kusala what is selfishness. There is a sutta, if one guiards oneself one also guards someone else. I will miss our weekly Dhamma chats, I will be away from febr 2- 20. But you are also away then? Nina. 54894 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 1/19/2006 9:45:11 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > LBIDD@w... writes: > > "Not self" is not the same as "empty of own nature". A paramattha > dhamma is not self because it is impermanent. A compound is empty of own > nature because it cannot be said to be a single particular experience. > > > > Hi Larry > > This is where we disagree. Something with "own nature" is by definition a > self. There is no difference IMO. > > It is precisely because states don't have "own nature" that they have > no-self. States have "conditioned nature." Not "own nature." > > Own nature = self > > Conditioned nature = no-self. > > A self does not exist because nothing has "own nature." > > TG Hi TG, Well, you're in good company. Many exalted beings have had the same view. I should correct one misconception though. The Dalai Lama's view has nothing to do with the abhidhamma pitaka or Buddhaghosa. It's all about sutras. His view is based on a work by Je Tsongkhapa called "The Essence of True Eloquence". Tsongkhapa is the founder of the Gelugpa sect, of which the Dalai Lama is the head. In this work Tsongkhapa makes the argument that there are two kinds of sutra: the interpretable and the definitive. Interpretable sutras require interpretation because they were spoken for the benefit of simple, naive people who were incapable of understanding the profound ultimate truth of the definitive sutras, i.e., "whatever depends upon conditions is empty of intrinsic reality". This work is primarily concerned with resolving differences between Yogacara sutras and Madhyamaka sutras, but there is a passing reference to what might be construed as Theravada views. If you are interested in pursuing this, I would recommend Robert Thurman's "The Central Philosophy of Tibet, A Study and Translation of Jey Tsong Khapa's 'Essence of True Eloquence' ". If that doesn't give you a headache and you want to go further there is Jeffrey Hopkin's three volume collection of commentaries on one small section of the root text: "Emptiness in the Mind-only School of Buddhism", "Reflections On Reality", and "Absorption In No External World". I can just about guarantee a headache with that. This last volume, "Absorption In No External World" is coming out later this month and promises to have more discussion of Theravada views. Here's a taste from Thurman's trans. This is a quotation from a Mahayana Sutra called "The Elucidation Of Intention Scripture" and is meant to set the parameters of the discussion: Paramarthasamudgata states, in the "Elucidation Of Intention Scripture": "The Lord proclaims in many discourses the intrinsic identity of the aggregates, their characteristics of production and destruction, their abandonment, and full understanding. As with the aggregates, so does he proclaim the twelve media, the dependent origination, and the four foods. Thus does he proclaim the intrinsic identity, the thorough knowledge, the abandonment, the realization, and the meditation of the four holy truths; the intrinsic identity, variety, plurality, abandonment and full understanding of the elements; and the intrinsic identities, resistances, remedies, initial productions, maintenances, preservations, developments, and increases of the thirty-seven accessories of enlightenment. On the other hand, the Lord also proclaims the intrinsic unreality, non-production, non- cessation, primordial peace, and natural, total liberation of all things." There is verbal contradiction between the statements in some scriptures that all things are devoid of intrinsic reality, and so on, of the aggregates, and so on. Yet the scriptures should be free of contradictions. Hence (Paramarthasamudgata) inquires into the intended meaning of the declarations of intrinsic unreality, thereby also inquiring by implication into the intended meaning of the declarations of intrinsic identity, and so on. Incidentally, there is a popular story that when the Buddha first taught the Prajna Paramitta Sutras all the Arahants in the audience had heart attacks and died. 54895 From: "mlnease" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] On Number 10 :Nitpicking the Nitpicking (RePleasedon'trun away yet, DAN 1.ii) mlnease Hi Charles, Which aggregate do you mean by 'aggregate of intellect'? Thanks, mike --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi all, > I am just being Nitpicky. I did not read everything, but found one point to > ... > > The aggregate of Intellect, either (1) knows and understands, or (2) does > not. 54896 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... Hi Larry Thanks for going to all the trouble to provide all the excellent information! TG In a message dated 1/21/2006 11:49:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: The Dalai Lama's view has nothing to do with the abhidhamma pitaka or Buddhaghosa. It's all about sutras. His view is based on a work by Je Tsongkhapa called "The Essence of True Eloquence". Tsongkhapa is the founder of the Gelugpa sect, of which the Dalai Lama is the head. In this work Tsongkhapa makes the argument that there are two kinds of sutra: the interpretable and the definitive. Interpretable sutras require interpretation because they were spoken for the benefit of simple, naive people who were incapable of understanding the profound ultimate truth of the definitive sutras, i.e., "whatever depends upon conditions is empty of intrinsic reality". This work is primarily concerned with resolving differences between Yogacara sutras and Madhyamaka sutras, but there is a passing reference to what might be construed as Theravada views. If you are interested in pursuing this, I would recommend Robert Thurman's "The Central Philosophy of Tibet, A Study and Translation of Jey Tsong Khapa's 'Essence of True Eloquence' ". If that doesn't give you a headache and you want to go further there is Jeffrey Hopkin's three volume collection of commentaries on one small section of the root text: "Emptiness in the Mind-only School of Buddhism", "Reflections On Reality", and "Absorption In No External World". I can just about guarantee a headache with that. 54897 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:46am Subject: Re: Question to Sujin (Was: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individ nilovg Hi Joop, You have very good questions and put them in a sympathetic way. I shall print them out and try to defend your cause. Lodewijk will like them too. op 20-01-2006 22:02 schreef Joop op jwromeijn@...: cf my remarks at the (MP3-recorded) discussion with Erik in > which she showed no interest in the ideas of Erik but wanted to teach > him. > I don't know Erik, perhaps she had good reasons to do so, as Nina > states. ------------- N: I listened again, but Eric has the power to speak twice as fast as most people. I find it hard to follow and thus Kh Sujin may have had trouble. But what is more important: the words someone says or the citta which motivates them? J: The main question is: > WHAT CAN WE (THERAVADINS) LEARN FROM MAHAYANA > > Another topic is that of compassion. In Mahayana "KARUNA" is > primarely something else as a cetasika; it's a basic attitude for > helping other beings, especially on the spiritual path. > Referring to AN VII-64, the stereotype that Mahayanists are primarely > concerned with the welfare and salvation of others; and that > Theravadin who is solely concerned with striving for his own > salvation, is not correct. ------- N: You will be surprised when you read Kh Sujin's book on the perfections,telling us how we all should develop the perfections, paramitas or paramis, the Bodhisatta developed. You will see, that is not far away from mahayana. If one also learns to investigate one's own cittas one will not take for metta and karuna what is akusala. One will not delude oneself. When kusala is pure kusala it comes over differently from when it is counterfeit. One can sense that. I have a spare CD of Lodewijk's reading of this book on the perfections. You have trouble downloading it from Tom's web. So, no trouble to send it to you if you have time to listen to it. Nina. 54898 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. nilovg Hi Cherry, op 20-01-2006 18:02 schreef Charles op cherry_avium@...: > I wonder maybe the Buddha taught about anicca, dukkha, and anatta > only for those that can understand the Dhamma by mere listening. > While for those who need to practice the full path, the Buddha taught > them the way to see the three, not confusing them with something they > cannot understand (without practice). So I think I'll better off > thinking about core and coreless and start thinking about how can I > practice to see it by myself. ------ N: The Path is not thinking, as you also know. But one cannot begin realizing the three characteristtics, without knowing, characteristics of what? They are characteristics of realities, of nama and rupa. so, we have to know first more clearly what nama is and what rupa is. We have to begin at the beginning and have more understanding of what paramattha dhammas are. That is, rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbaana. But we leave nibbaana for now, we only speak about rupa and nama in our daily life. Nina. 54899 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, characterstic nilovg Hi TG, Yes, you have a point. I looked up lakkhana in PED, many meanings: sign, a distinguishing mark, salient feature, property, quality. adj: having the marks of, characterized by, of such or such character (kamma). Then it refers to the way the Atthasalini uses it in definitions which I follow. specific or generic attribute, characteristic mark. It is always together with function (rasa), manifestation and proximate cause. We can use the characteristic of nama and of rupa, since we learn that they are completely ephemeral. If put in the right context, there is no danger. Or even when we use quality, people may still be deluded. It is not so much the word that matters, but the understanding one has of what is represented by a word. But it is very personal what word one prefers to use. Nina. op 20-01-2006 18:41 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > I believe the word "characteristic" is a poor one for our needs. The root > "character" has a strong and definite "self" sense to it in English. In > fact, > we often call someone a "character" when their "self-expression" is at a > uniquely high level. Also the part "actor" or "acter" is anti no-self. > Buddhist commentaries would say there is no "actor" just acting. > > I would much prefer the word "quality." To say that experiences have > "qualities" seems to me to imbue much less of a sense-of-self into the > description. 54900 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na nilovg Hi Phil, Yes, it seems that there is seeing continuously. The Buddha also mentioned seeing and visible object first, before the dhammas connected with the other doors. I read somewhere (in the Vis.?) because seeing is so obvious, if I remember correctly. I asked once in India, why I seem to think more and longer of concepts on account of seeing, than on account of the other sense cognitions. She asnwered that when there is more awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter. Nina. op 21-01-2006 11:57 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > Also, there is so much seeing, all the time. More than hearing, > more than smelling. Any time our eyes our open there is seeing. That > cannot be said about hearing, smelling, tasting etc to the same > degree. 54901 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:13pm Subject: Vism.XIV,225 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 225. 6. 'As to good for one seeing thus': good comes to be accomplished in one who sees in the two ways thus in brief and in detail. And the way of definition should be known according to that, that is to say, firstly, one who sees the five aggregates as objects of clinging in the form of an enemy with drawn sword, etc., is not worried by the aggregates, but one who sees materiality, etc., in detail as a lump of froth, etc., is not one who sees a core in the coreless. ****************************** 225. eva.m passantassatthasiddhitoti eva~nca sa"nkhepavitthaaravasena dvidhaa passato yaa atthasiddhi hoti, tatopi vinicchayanayo vi~n~naatabbo. seyyathida.m. sa"nkhepato taava pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhe ukkhittaasikapaccatthikaadibhaavena passanto khandhehi na viha~n~nati. vitthaarato pana ruupaadiini phe.napi.n.daadisadisabhaavena passanto na asaaresu saaradassii hoti, 54902 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:46pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 632 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa`nkhara paccayaa vi~n~naanaa'. Formation conditions consciousness. These consciousness are all resultant consciousness or vipaaka cittas. There are 32 vipaaka cittas or 32 resultant consciousness that are conditioned by formation or sankhaara. Again among these 32 consciousness there are rebirth consciousness or linking consciousness which directly join between the last consciousness in a life with the consciousness in the next life. These rebirth consciousness are 1. apunnaabhisankhaara conditioned consciousness a)1 akusala santira.na citta (rebirth consciousness in 4 lower realms) 2. punnaabhisankhaara conditioned consciousness are a) 1 kusala santiira.na citta (rebirth consciousness with defect) b) 8 mahaavipaaka cittas (rebirth consciousness in kaama bhuumi) c) 5 ruupavipaaka cittas (rebirth consciousness in ruupa brahmaa) ----- ++14 consciousness 3. anenjaabhisankhaara conditioned consciousness are a) 4 aruupavipaaka cittas (rebirth consciousness of aruupa brahmaa) So there are altogether 19 consciousness that are conditioned by 3 different sankraara. They are a) 1 consciousness for apunnaabhisankhaara b)14 consciuousness for punnaabhisankhaara c) 4 consciousness for anenjaabhisankhaara ----- ++19 consciousness Still there is another rebirth. It is ruupa-rebirth. It is asannaasatta. As they do not have any consciousness this rebirth is not vinnaana. But conditioning factor for this ruupa-rebirth is punnaabhisankhaara of 4th ruupa-jhaana kusala cittas which do not have abhinnaa and which dispassionate sannaa or perception. Because of this dispassion there is no sannaa or perception. So they all become non-percipient beings. Here it is not like other rebirth. That is they are not 'sankhaara paccayaa vinnaana' as there is no vinnaana at all in that realm. But sankhaara does condition that rebirth. So there are altogether 20 rebirth. Among vinnaana there are 19 vinnaana which are rebirth consciousness. So there left 13 consciousness whcih are also resultant consciousness. There are 32 resultant consciousness that are the results of sankhaara. There are another 4 vipaaka cittas. They are lokuttaraa vipaaka cittas. They are 4 phala cittas or 4 fruition consciousness. Here again it is not 'sankhaara paccayaa vinnaana' and it is not in the cycle of D.O. Because the sankhaara of magga kusala cetanaa is not the result of avijjaa but vijjaa naana. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 2. Here there are many technical terms and technical speaking. I left these as they are. If there are questions there will be further elucidation on the points. 54903 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, characterstic TGrand458@... Hi Nina, I agree with what you said below. "Attribute" is another good term. I think "quality" and "attribute" are the two best. I'm sure you're aware that many of us are uncomfortable with what we see as a tendency for a "substantialist" outlook with Abhidhamma commentarial studies. There are several reasons for this concern. The term "characteristic," in my view, is on a lower tier in raising that concern than some other points; yet, it is a contributing factor. If terms such as "ultimate reality" and "own characteristic" are being applied to "dhammas," I think the concern is easily justified. This type and style of describing states does not occur in the Suttas and for good reason IMO. Such language is not well suited for detaching the mind. Thanks for the feedback below. TG In a message dated 1/21/2006 12:48:14 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG, Yes, you have a point. I looked up lakkhana in PED, many meanings: sign, a distinguishing mark, salient feature, property, quality. adj: having the marks of, characterized by, of such or such character (kamma). Then it refers to the way the Atthasalini uses it in definitions which I follow. specific or generic attribute, characteristic mark. It is always together with function (rasa), manifestation and proximate cause. We can use the characteristic of nama and of rupa, since we learn that they are completely ephemeral. If put in the right context, there is no danger. Or even when we use quality, people may still be deluded. It is not so much the word that matters, but the understanding one has of what is represented by a word. But it is very personal what word one prefers to use. Nina. op 20-01-2006 18:41 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > I believe the word "characteristic" is a poor one for our needs. The root > "character" has a strong and definite "self" sense to it in English. In > fact, > we often call someone a "character" when their "self-expression" is at a > uniquely high level. Also the part "actor" or "acter" is anti no-self. > Buddhist commentaries would say there is no "actor" just acting. > > I would much prefer the word "quality." To say that experiences have > "qualities" seems to me to imbue much less of a sense-of-self into the > description. 54904 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, characterstic nilovg Hi TG, op 22-01-2006 04:53 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > I agree with what you said below. "Attribute" is another good term. I > think "quality" and "attribute" are the two best. ------- N: each term has its disadvantages. Attribute may seem something extra carried by dhammas. To me, characteristic reminds me that dhammas show their own salient features. Like seeing, it experiences visible object through the eye-door, and it is different from hearing that experiences sound through the ear-door. When there can be mindfulness of these dhammas, we shall see that we do not need to name them. Then we will not stumble over the terms. If the Abhidhamma does not go together with satipatthana, one cannot understand paramattha dhammas, different from conventional realities such as brain or nerves. --------- TG: I'm sure you're aware that many of us are uncomfortable with what we see as > a tendency for a "substantialist" outlook with Abhidhamma commentarial > studies. ------- N: Did you read the last Vis. and Tiika study, no. 224? It faithfully follows the Phenasutta. I repeat my conclusion: Do you see the connection with vipassanaa/satipatthana? If insight is not developed one will continue to have misunderstandings about characteristics of dhammas. Next Tiika postings will be about the four kinds of nutrition, also in the suttas. If you think that there is any form of substantiality, you could, perhaps, give some concrete examples. ---------- TG: This type and style of describing states does not occur in > the Suttas and for good reason IMO. Such language is not well suited for > detaching the mind. ------ N: We read about Elements in the suttas and also in the Abhidhamma, and the Commentaries. Learning about elements that are ephemeral and cannot be controlled (there is no time!) really leads to detachment from taking them for self. The whole Tipitaka, Abhidhamma included, teaches the non-self. Does this not lead to detachment? We can discuss more about paramattha dhammas when I am back from Thailand. Or, if you like, you can formulate some questions to be discussed in Bgk. When you feel unwell about Abhidhamma and Commentaries, please shout, and I will give first aid. I am sure there are many unnecessary misunderstandings. Nina. 54905 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 0:47am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 5 nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 5 The four meditation subjects mentioned above are very suitable for daily life, for all occasions (sabbatthika). There may be conditions for their arising, but one should not cling to such moments. When calm arises there can be awareness and right understanding of it as a type of nåma. Kusala, akusala, all types of dhammas arise because of their own conditions and nobody can make them arise or prevent them from arising. When we develop understanding of nåma and rúpa we can think with gratefulness of the Buddha who taught us the Path leading to the end of defilements. This is a short recollection of the Buddha and at that moment mindfulness can arise of kusala citta as a conditioned nåma which is non-self. In addition, lovingkindness is to be developed in daily life. However, we should know that it is very difficult to see the difference between true mettå and selfish affection, which is called the near enemy of mettå. Akusala citta follows upon kusala citta very closely and they succeed one another extremely rapidly. We are likely to mislead ourselves time and again and take for kusala what is akusala. In India we were time and again disturbed, even molested by beggars, and we were inclined to turn away from them. Acharn Sujin said that if we think of life as a beggar, of kamma that conditions such vipåka, kusala citta with compassion and lovingkindness can arise instead of akusala citta with aversion. We can see other people, beggars included, as our children. At such moments we can notice that kusala citta has a characteristic different from akusala citta. When kusala citta arises, we are calm and not disturbed by someone else¹s contrarious behaviour. Both samatha and vipassanå can be developed together in daily life. We read that when bhikkhus wanted to leave the order the Buddha adviced them to contemplate asubha, foulness. When one contemplates foulness one does not indulge in sense pleasures. Some people believe that, before one develops satipatthana, one should subdue sense desires by focussing the mind on foulness. This, however is not correct. There is no rule that one should perform particular actions before one develops satipatthåna. Through satipatthåna right understanding is developed of whatever dhamma appears, be it kusala or akusala. But also when one thinks of foulness, sati can be aware of a reality, for example of the dhamma that thinks of foulness. ***** Nina. 54906 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:03am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 363- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (b) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] There are four kåyaganthas, “bodily ties” (Dhammasangaùi, §1135- 1140): -the bodily tie of covetousness (abhijjhå kåyagantha) -the bodily tie of ill-will (vyåpåda kåyagantha) -the bodily tie of clinging to rules and rituals or wrong practice(sílabbata paråmåsa kåyagantha) -the bodily tie of dogmatism (idaÿ-saccåbhinivesa kåyagantha) The first tie comprises all kinds of covetousness, all degrees of lobha, be they gross or subtle. We should know that there can also be lobha in the form of hopes and expectations: we hope for good health, we hope that other people will like us, we hope for honour and praise, for success in our undertakings. All degrees and shades of lobha are a tie which binds us to the cycle of birth and death. The tie of ill-will is dosa. All degrees of dosa such as irritation, ill-temper, ill-will or hostility are a tie which binds us to the round of rebirths. The tie of clinging to rules and rituals is wrong practice and this is a form of wrong view. People are entangled by this tie when they erroneously believe that, in order to develop the way leading to enlightenment, they have to follow certain rules such as abstaining from particular kinds of food or refraining from reading or talking. So long as wrong view has not been eradicated one may have many moments of wrong practice, and one may mistake the wrong practice for the right practice. People may cling to particular places or situations as being favourable for the development of satipaììhåna. They believe that mindfulness can only arise in such places or situations. Then there is bound to be wrong practice. If we know when there is wrong practice we can be cured of it. The tie of dogmatism (idaÿ-saccåbhinivesa, the belief: this alone is truth) comprises all forms of wrong view, except wrong practice which is the third tie, as we have seen. People are entangled by the fourth tie when they have a wrong interpretation of reality and when they believe that only their interpretation is the truth. When someone, for example, believes that there is no kamma and no result of kamma, he is entangled by the fourth tie. The view that there is no kamma and no result of kamma is very dangerous, it can condition unwholesome deeds. One may believe that, after death, one will be annihilated, that there is no rebirth. Then one is entangled by the fourth tie. As we have seen, wrong view, diììhi, has been classified as canker, as flood, as yoke and as (bodily) tie. Under the aspect of tie diììhi has been classified as twofold: as wrong practice and as false view. ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 54907 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:11am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 633 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa`nkhara paccayaa vi~n~naanaa'. There are 89 vinnaanas or 89 cittas or 89 consciousness. Let us see whether they all are the result of sankhaara or not. Let us see whether they all are conditioned by sankhaara. Sankhaara paccayaa vinnaana. Formation as a supporting condition consciousness has to arise. I have discussed that there are 32 consciousness that are resultant consciousness and they all are conditioned by sankhaara and they are the direct result of sankhaara. What about other vinnaana or citta. There are 4 magga cittas and 4 phala cittas. Are they in the cycle of D.O? That is are they the results of avijjaa and sankhaara? No, definitely not. Avijjaa will never lead to magga and phala. There are 81 consciousness left. Let us see on the top 12 consciousness. These 12 consciousness are aruupa cittas or consciousness of non-material beings or consciousness in non-material realms. 4 cittas are aruupakusala cittas, 4 are aruupavipaaka cittas and 4 are aruupakiriyaa cittas. 4 aruupakiriyaa cittas are cittas or arahats and they will not be the result of avijjaa and sankhaara. When we look into 4 aruupakusala cittas they may well be the result of avijjaa. Because avijjaa does not know 4 Noble Truths and it will not see the danger of rebirth and the danger of samsaraa. But what sankhaara directly produces these arupakusala cittas. Apart from co-existing cetanaa there is no other force that can give rise to these higher cittas. Likewise ruupakiriyaa cittas are not the result of avijjaa and sankhaara. Ruupavipaaka cittas are the direct results of sankhaara which again is the result of avijjaa. But ruupakusala cittas behave the same as aruupakusala cittas. That is they are not the direct result of sankhaara. If so it has to be cetanaa in the same citta of ruupakusala citta. If this happen where is avijjaa? Avijjaa or moha does not reside in tihetuka cittas like ruupakusala cittas. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 54908 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles sarahprocter... Hi Charles G (Cherry to some:-)), Thanks for your intro. Whereabouts in Indonesia do you live? How did you come across the Abhidhamma? --- Charles wrote: >Honestly I like to > count other people cows and I think that's what I am doing here, > hoping someday I can count my own cows (http://www.path.homestead.com/ > cows.html). I do not speak english so please forgive any mistaken > words. ... S: No problem at all, though I got a bit lost with the cows:-/ .... > > I like abhidhamma studies, although I'm pessimist that anyone can > really understand it only by studying other than direct knowledge. > But at least it can add something to my knowledge :D .... S: I think the only studying that counts is the direct knowledge...but if we've not heard and considered a lot about the present dhammas, there won't be any direct knowledge as I see it. You seem to be very much on the right track as far as I can tell from your perceptive questions and comments. Have you read Nina's 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'? You seem to have read and considered a lot. Metta, Sarah p.s Thx for giving me a name to address you by! If you can help us by indicating at the beginning of your posts who you're addressing, that would help too! =================== 54909 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. jonoabb Hi Scott Just butting in, if I may (and welcome to the list from me). Scott Duncan wrote: >I was wondering about whether the >Abhidhamma deals with this whole aspect of the thread - parallel >processing outside of or beyond processing. My guess is no, and all >the theories being propounded are simply other interesting theories. > > As I understand the discussion so far, the question is whether the experiencing of sense-door objects can occur at a level that we're not conscious of. I think such an occurrence is easily explainable by the possibility of (a) varying intensities of experiences through the different sense doors (a much higher rate of experience of objects through one doorway than another) and (b) different intensities of thinking about (paying attention to) the objects experienced through the different sense-doors. An example would be, if we are engrossed in reading a book, the relative rate of (a) moments of ear-door consciousness and (b) thinking about ('processing') the sound that is the object of those moments of consciousness, may be very low and, at times, below the threshold of what we would call conscious experience. As regards the (a) factor kamma plays a significant role, while accumulated tendencies play a large role in the (b) factor. Jon 54910 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:45am Subject: RE: [dsg] Trees and Anger (was Re: Did Buddhaghosa (formal) meditate? (Was: Reasons for staying on DSG sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, Many thanks for your detailed reply sometime ago now(!) and also for the helpful prompts indicating where you’d like me to respond:-)) Starting at the end of your post: --- Charles DaCosta wrote:  C: So thoughts are not real, ideas are not real? > > S: "" > S: The thinking about ideas is real. But the ideas or thoughts or concepts about what has been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched are not real. If there’s no thinking about them, they’re not experienced in any way. They don’t arise or fall. Only the thinking does. There can be awareness of the characteristic of thinking, but not of an idea. .... <...> S: Back to the start now – > Charles: "What do you mean by this, learning and directly knowing what > the > realities are?" > > Sarah: "" S: Take thinking or seeing or hearing or visible object or sound now – they have characteristics, there can be awareness of them when they appear, one at a time. At that moment, no other ‘world’, no other dhamma appears or can be known. This is in contrast to ideas. ..... <...> > C: What you say is partially true, "these thoughts" are experienced on account of what is coming in from all the gates, and the order may not be important, but the dominate gate will have the most influence. This also means that thoughts about another, seemingly unrelated, object (the mind gate can detect memories from any combination of previous inputs to the sense gates) can be triggered by the current situation; including re-experiencing 'rough hardness' when the object we commonly call tree is at the visual gate and consciousness/perception with a type of recognition is present in the mind. > > S: "" .... S: This is wise considering, but it’s not the direct awareness of those dhammas appearing. Even when we think along the right tracks like this, there can be awareness of that thinking (regardless of the ideas involved) and this direct awareness is most useful. Then gradually we can begin to learn the difference between direct awareness of realities and thinking about realities. .... <...> > C: Yes. > > No, it would be better to say, "the computer is all that is noticed > (i.e., attachment too)" instead of "...all that is seen". > > Ok, but usually the term "emotion" is used to express more than likes > and dislikes -- this is more often considered "feelings" in the interms of the 5 aggregates. > > Yes. > > S: "" ... S: In terms of direct awareness, it doesn’t much matter how we label the various dhammas (realities), but the point we’re discussing here is to understand what is experienced when we look at a computer and what can be directly known. Yes, the visible object is real, so is the thinking about it and so is the attachment. There can be awareness of any of these realities now when they appear. .... <...> > C: Yes, but the time frame is relative unless you do not believe the > sub-processes of the mind/body, or of the 5 aggregates (this includes > consciousness), can function in parallel. I believe they do function in > parallel and therefore a being can remain in a hot hell, e.g. > anger/aggression, for many years (even during sleep). > > S: "" .... S: This is just thinking about ideas. When there’s growing awareness of anger, it gradually becomes evident that it doesn’t last a ‘finger-snap’. When it seems to last a long time, it’s just a story about anger. In between there’s seeing, hearing, attachments and all sorts of other realities arising and falling away. .... <...> > C: Anger is only a term/label used to represent a sensed object (i.e., a state of mind & body). Tree is only a term use to represent a sensed object (i.e., a object type, another being). Is this where/why you want to consider them different? > > S:"" ... S: We can use the term anger to represent many states as you suggest, but when the actual reality of anger arises and is mad or even just mildly irritated or frustrated with anything, it has a characteristic, a quality that can be recognized and known. There can be direct awareness of this state without any name or label. Tree on the other hand is a label which represents something thought about. It’s a concept about a concept. Test it out now: how is ‘tree’ experienced? ..... <...> > C: The problem, with looking at sensory input as just sensory input, is you don't acknowledge the features of the input. By these very features, we differentiate between objects, even objects of the same gate. Being aware of these features is apart of being fully aware. > So to stop at "there is motion" is impractical, because you are only > partially aware. > > S: "" .... S: I think your questions in this thread and comments are excellent, Charles. Thank you. When there’s no awareness (like all day long:)), we’re busy paying attention to the features of the input, differentiating between objects and building up long stories on account of these features and details. We don’t need any assistance in this. We’re experts already. The Buddha reminded us again and again not to be overwhelmed by these features and lost in the stories about them, but to ‘guard’ the doorways by being aware of the realities appearing such as the visual input and so on as they are. When there’s awareness of a reality, such as visual input (or visual object), the awareness is aware of that reality just as it is. Each reality has its own characteristic (no two visual objects are the same), but at that moment of awareness, there’s no paying attention or conceptualising about the details. This doesn’t mean it’s impractical or that we will suddently stop thinking. No. It just means we won’t be so ‘overwhelemed’ by the objects, we won’t be ‘imprisoned’ by them, but they’ll be known for what they are – mere passing rupas (and namas) of no importance or value. .... <...> > C: What do you mean by "idea of 'something' in the visible or tangible > objects," do you mean an essence? I am not sure what you mean here. > > S: "" .... S: If we have an idea that ‘tree’ or ‘computer’ is in the visible object, then it’s just an idea about visible object, not just the characteristic of just that which is seen. .... <...> > C: To me, these ideas are not the real problem. We should strive to see these more clearly too. And yet be fully aware of the features of the sensed object, not just the fact that it exists. We also need to know the nature of our relationship to the object. This includes what caused this relationship and what will end this relationship. > > S: "" ... S: This is all thinking about the object, features, about relationships, causes and so on. It’s Ok, but by thinking and thinking in this way, there will never be the development of satipatthana which is not thinking, but direct awareness of the realities appearing now as we speak. ..... <....> > C: Features also, you must be aware of the features also. > > S: "" ... S: In conventional language, we are aware of the features and details of what is experienced all day long....but this is not ‘sati’ or the awareness of realities. It is the attending to and thinking about details, about the colours, about the beauty, about the marks of what has been experienced. Usually we’re lost in these details, lost in our dream worlds. Here are some relevant references on paying attention or not to nimitta anubya~njana (signs and details) which Jon gave in an old post here: .... Jon (#9070) <<(2) Restraint of the senses (indriya-samvara-síla). "Whenever the monk perceives a form with the eye, a sound with the ear, an odour with the nose, a taste with the tongue, an impression with the body, an object with the mind, *he neither adheres to the appearance [J: nimitta?] as a whole, nor to its parts [J: anubyanjana?]*. And he strives to ward off that through which evil and unwholesome things, greed and sorrow, would arise, if he remained with unguarded senses; and he watches over his senses, restrains his senses" (M 38).>> Visudhimagga I, 42, 54 At I, 42, a discussion of ‘Virtue as restraint of sense faculties’: <<‘On seeing a visible object with the eye, he apprehends *neither the signs nor the particulars* through which, if he left the eye faculty unguarded, evil and unprofitable states of covetousness and grief might invade him, he enters upon the way of its restraint, he guards the eye faculty, he undertakes the restraint of the eye faculty. … [and so on for the other sense doors] …’ (M.i, 180) [This] is virtue of restraint of the sense faculties.>> At I, 54, an explanation of the 2 terms: <<”Apprehends neither the signs”: he does not apprehend the sign of woman or man, or any sign that is a basis for defilement such as the sign of beauty, etc.: he stops at what is merely seen. “Nor the particulars”: he does not apprehend any aspect classed as hand, foot , smile, laughter, talk, looking ahead, looking aside, etc., which has acquired the name ‘particular (anubya~njana)’ because of its particularising ( anu anu bya~njanato) defilements, because of its making them manifest themselves. He only apprehends what is really there.>>............................................................................ S: Thank you again for your excellent questions and helpful comments. Please send more in the same format, indicating where you’d like me to respond (which will probably be after I return from Thailand). Metta, Sarah p.s When will you be visiting Hong Kong? We’ll look forward to meeting you then. ========= 54911 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jonoabb Hi Howard, Larry and others Just coming in with my two cents worth ;-)) upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Larry - > >In a message dated 1/19/06 7:46:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... >writes: > > >>Hi Howard, >> >>To say hardness is empty of hardness makes no sense. >> >> >--------------------------------------- >Howard: > Yes, put that way it sounds just plain wrong. But what any hardness >experience lacks is exactly own-being. It is nothing in and of itself. That is >different from being nothing at all. > > As I see it, what dhammas lack is substance or core. They do however have (i.e., exhibit) characteristics, namely, the unique characteristic that makes that dhamma what it is and the 3 general characteristics that all conditioned dhammas share in common. One of those general characteristic is of course that of 'not-self'. This is sometimes explained in the texts by saying that dhammas are empty of self. To my understanding, the expressions 'empty of self' and 'having the characteristic of not-self' refer to one and the same thing. I'm not sure about the expression 'own-being'. It sounds rather similar to the Pali term 'sabhava' which I believe refers to the unique characteristic mentioned above. But of course it depends on how it is being used. It may be intended to describe the conditioned nature of all (lokiya) dhammas. Jon 54912 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jonoabb Hi Larry and TG LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi TG, > >Notice I said Nagarjuna was only referring to compounds as empty of own >nature. Both the Buddha and Buddhaghosa say paramattha dhammas are not >self. "Not self" is not the same as "empty of own nature". > Right. "Not self" is not the same as "having no unique [individual] characteristic". As you go on to say, only dhammas have this "unique [individual] characteristic". To put it another way, anything that has a unique characteristic is a dhamma, i.e., is to be known by panna as it truly is. Jon >A paramattha >dhamma is not self because it is impermanent. A compound is empty of own >nature because it cannot be said to be a single particular experience. >For example, the compound of dhammas that make up a tree is not a single >experience, therefore a tree is empty of own nature. The nun Vajira said >there is no carriage, just khandhas arising and ceasing. It would be odd >to say the carriage is not self; because there isn't a carriage. We >_could_ say the carriage is empty of own nature. And given that all our >experience is compounded (sankhara), perhaps that is a useful way to >look at it. Satipatthana also deals with compounded experience, but >differently. > >I agree with Suan that the Tibetans in general have a ways to go in >understanding Pali Buddhism. > >Larry > > 54913 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: (OOT) Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote: > Thanks for your intro. Whereabouts in Indonesia do you live? How did you > come across the Abhidhamma? Hi Sarah, I live around Jakarta. Fortunately my middle highschool have a small library of Buddhism books (it's founded by a Buddhist organization) so I had the chance to read some books. > S: I think the only studying that counts is the direct knowledge... but if > we've not heard and considered a lot about the present dhammas, there > won't be any direct knowledge as I see it. I think direct knowledge is influenced by learning knowledge. To know we need to practice, to practice we need good faith, and good faith needs good information. But I think I am missing something because my faith does not develop :| > Have you read Nina's 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'? You seem to have read and > considered a lot. I think I have read some parts. It is great to see how we can use the knowledge of abhidhamma in practice. Currently I'm interested in investigating the true practice of Buddhism, ie how to develop concentration and wisdom in the right way. > Sarah > p.s Thx for giving me a name to address you by! If you can help us by > indicating at the beginning of your posts who you're addressing, that > would help too! Thanks, I usually keep the header: in dhammastudygroups@..., " the person" wrote ... :D 54914 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:34am Subject: [dsg] Trees and Anger (was Re: Did Buddhaghosa (formal) meditate? (Was: Reasons for staying on DSG cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote: > Even when we think along the right tracks like this,there can be > awareness of that thinking (regardless of the ideas involved)and > this direct awareness is most useful. Hi Sarah and others, It sounds like satipatthana. I wonder is satipatthana defined as sati cetasika so it can appear at the same time with the thinking (so we can aware of the thinking the same time the thinking arise) or is it a mahakusala citta, therefore the satipatthana arise after the thinking, having its object the previous thought process ? Another way is that, is it - to aware of the thinking or - to think with awareness 54915 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I'm not sure about the expression 'own-being'. It sounds rather similar > to the Pali term 'sabhava' which I believe refers to the unique > characteristic mentioned above. Hi, I do not understand what is meant by own-being too but at this time I take it like, for example wave is caused by wind, so the wave does not be by its own, therefore own-being. While sabhava only means something, thus it can be identified. Empty space is not sabhava. 54916 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:18am Subject: Causality and Destiny cherry_avium Hi everyone, I'm confused. If everything is caused by other thing, then 1. It is completely an autonomous process, so this being practice the way, other being realize Nibbana, other being keeps swimming in the samsara is autonomous processes, it's like being destined by the causes to be that way. So it seems like everything is out of control. Even if there is control, the control is caused, and the cause is caused by other cause. What I mean is that if A is caused by B, and B is caused by C, then there is a line between A, B, and C, with the latter can be traced from the previous, isn't it sounds like a destiny line? Here I assume that the result from a cause is predictable. But if it is not predictable, then the whole thing is a random process. 54917 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:25am Subject: Some questions about kamma cherry_avium Hi everyone, Another questions about kamma. I hope you don't mind with too many questions :D 1. Is the vipaka cittas a kamma-vipaka (or is it caused by kamma or caused by citta?) 2. If someone does a crime and get arrested, is this the law of kamma (many many people think it is), or in other words, is the (unpleasant) sense objects the man senses (because of being arrested) caused by the kamma of doing the crime. I usually think that the kamma done is not strong enough to give its result immediately :P 54918 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. dacostacharles Hi Charles, I think you have an excellent idea. Experience is the best teacher (even from a Buddhist prospective). That became my approach once I realized that being a walking text book was not enough. Good luck! Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Sent: Friday, 20 January, 2006 18:03 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle Difference, no core and sabhaava, Dalai Lama. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: . Direct understanding is understanding of > different characteristics that appear, though it is for an extremely short > moment. > When direct understanding develops the three general characteristics > (samañña lakkhana) can be penetrated. Thanks nice explanation. Talking about anatta (core, substance), actually I had and got several views on this (thanks to the friends on DSG :]). Thinking this and that and I simply could not choose which one will I believe to the point that the last decision I took is that I do not care again. I wonder maybe the Buddha taught about anicca, dukkha, and anatta only for those that can understand the Dhamma by mere listening. While for those who need to practice the full path, the Buddha taught them the way to see the three, not confusing them with something they cannot understand (without practice). So I think I'll better off thinking about core and coreless and start thinking about how can I practice to see it by myself. Maybe if someone there feeling confused too would like to do the same :D Just an idea :P 54919 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:12am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles dacostacharles Hi all, I liked the following: "... They do however have (i.e., exhibit) characteristics, namely, the unique characteristic that makes that dhamma what it is and the 3 general characteristics that all conditioned dhammas share in common." And would add: these characteristics that can be used to distinguish one dharma from another are commonly called "the self" today. And that it is interesting how back in the 60's and 70's (when I first started studying Buddhism), the issue of self was non-existent, the issue of atman was the debate over the present of an eternal soul (essence, god), nothingness, or something in-between. Back then, I was taught that the Buddha argue for something in-between, a balancing of the two views, a middle way. I have even herd (read) Buddhist's teachers claiming that there are "higher" and "lower" selves. Today, the term higher-self has been replace by terms like Buddha-nature and Arhatship; and the term lower-self has been replace by terms like desire-body and clouded mind. I have to ask, is it wrong to call the "six-aggregates plus that in others" the self? If so, then why? Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonothan Abbott <....> As I see it, what dhammas lack is substance or core. They do however have (i.e., exhibit) characteristics, namely, the unique characteristic that makes that dhamma what it is and the 3 general characteristics that all conditioned dhammas share in common. One of those general characteristic is of course that of 'not-self'. This is sometimes explained in the texts by saying that dhammas are empty of self. To my understanding, the expressions 'empty of self' and 'having the characteristic of not-self' refer to one and the same thing. I'm not sure about the expression 'own-being'. It sounds rather similar to the Pali term 'sabhava' which I believe refers to the unique characteristic mentioned above. But of course it depends on how it is being used. It may be intended to describe the conditioned nature of all (lokiya) dhammas. Jon 54920 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Jonathan, J: "Just butting in, if I may (and welcome to the list from me)." ----- Thanks for "butting in!" Clear instruction is what I need. I appreciate this study group and your kind welcome. ----- J: "As I understand the discussion so far, the question is whether the experiencing of sense-door objects can occur at a level that we're not conscious of. I think such an occurrence is easily explainable by the possibility of (a) varying intensities of experiences through the different sense doors(a much higher rate of experience of objects through one doorway than another) and (b) different intensities of thinking about (paying attention to) the objects experienced through the different sense-doors. An example would be, if we are engrossed in reading a book, the relative rate of (a) moments of ear-door consciousness and (b) thinking about('processing') the sound that is the object of those moments of consciousness, may be very low and, at times, below the threshold of what we would call conscious experience." ----- I may have been misunderstanding the discussion to be considering the possibility of simultaneous ("parallel") processing - that is two or more processes occuring at the same time. This notion of parallel processing would not be consistent, as I understand it, with the seemingly clear "rule" that only one citta arises at a time from the point of view of Abhidhamma teaching. In other words, there could not be an arising citta within two sense doors at once. Am I getting this correctly? I see the point of the question because with the complexity of things it does seem as if there is a parallel process. I am aware of thinking, for example. A sound impinges and derails my train of thought. Now I am thinking about the sound. That's at the speed I am able to be conscious of. The intensity of the new stimulus "overcame" the lower intensity of the previous thinking about something, and then the thoughts were related to the sound. And, all the while, there were inumerable processes of citta occuring. You implicitly define intensity as rate of experience. Does this mean quantity of cittas arising within a given sense door? Is there then a displacement factor? It would seem to me that the ultimate level of experience would be different than the mundane level of conscious awareness. I guess I'm still wanting to learn how the idea that there can only be one citta arising at a time fits with the "illusion(?)" that there are parallel processes wherein, at different levels many things seem to be going on at once. I don't mean to be obtuse. I'm just trying learn. ----- "As regards the (a) factor kamma plays a significant role, while accumulated tendencies play a large role in the (b) factor." ----- Kamma plays a role in intensity of experience through a given sense-door. Is this, then, how each experience is vipakka and was the fruit of kamma? Is the intensity a function of kamma? Accumulated tendencies result in what I pay attention to, for how long, and the like - my getting caught up in something and where this takes me. Is that what you are saying? Thanks for your kind reply. Sincerely, Scott. 54921 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Larry, and TG & all) - In a message dated 1/22/06 5:59:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > As I see it, what dhammas lack is substance or core. They do however > have (i.e., exhibit) characteristics, namely, the unique characteristic > that makes that dhamma what it is and the 3 general characteristics that > all conditioned dhammas share in common. --------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with this, Jon. Every dhamma, being distinguishable from others, certainly has (or, perhaps better, *is*) a distinctive quality. --------------------------------------- > > One of those general characteristic is of course that of 'not-self'. > This is sometimes explained in the texts by saying that dhammas are > empty of self. To my understanding, the expressions 'empty of self' and > 'having the characteristic of not-self' refer to one and the same thing. -------------------------------------- Yes, indeed, The crux of this, however, is what, exactly, is meant by 'not-self'. I don't think that "impersonal" in the sense of neither "me" nor "mine" is the whole of it, though it is certainly an important aspect, and is central as regards the empirical person. I think that the crucial meaning is to not be an independent entity, to not be a thing-in-itself. The self or core that is lacking is a self-existence and self-sufficiency. The "existence" of all conditioned dhammas is not only fleeting, but is also not its own, but "borrowed," so to speak, arising out of the dustpile of already gone and equally empty conditions, and dependent in addition on other concurrent conditions that support it. What any conditioned dhamma lacks is its own self as an independent, stand-alone entity. Not-self isn't nothingness, but it is not a simple matter, either, but, like dependent origination, and, in fact, the other face of that coin, is deep, hard to see, and hard to describe. As to nibbana being not-self, whatever nibbana is, in additional to its not being a self underlying persons and being entirely impersonal, it is also lacking in any and all conditions whereby it could be positively described. As regards all things we can speak of, nibbana is empty of them. The not-self of nibbana goes beyond that even of conditioned dhammas, in that from our world-bound perspective it cannot even be adequately described negatively. Nothing can be truly said of it, and, in fact, an error is made even as soon as we say "it" with regard to it. It is this last point, I think, that makes nibbana quintessentially empty. Seriously thinking of nibbana as an "it" is, as I see it, the Buddhist analogue of idol making. ---------------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure about the expression 'own-being'. It sounds rather similar > to the Pali term 'sabhava' which I believe refers to the unique > characteristic mentioned above. But of course it depends on how it is > being used. It may be intended to describe the conditioned nature of > all (lokiya) dhammas. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: When I say "own being," I am just using a very clear expression meaning "self". I don't mean the sabhava that is a synonym for characteristic. Own being = self = identity = independent existence, as I use the terms. The point is, what every conditioned dhamma lacks is *exactly* OWN being! ----------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 54922 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, Charles (and Jon) - In a message dated 1/22/06 6:46:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: > Hi, > > I do not understand what is meant by own-being too but at this time I > take it like, for example wave is caused by wind, so the wave does > not be by its own, therefore own-being. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Exactly! ---------------------------------- While sabhava only means > > something, thus it can be identified. Empty space is not sabhava. > > ================ 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) 54923 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: . And that it is > interesting how back in the 60's and 70's (when I first started studying > Buddhism), the issue of self was non-existent, the issue of atman was the > debate over the present of an eternal soul (essence, god), nothingness, or > something in-between. Back then, I was taught that the Buddha argue for > something in-between, a balancing of the two views, a middle way. Hi Charles D. Nice balance, enlightening fact :D By the way, I wonder, someone with sakkaya-ditthi speaking about atta will always speak based on atta. It's like speaking how dust in a planet at other galaxy look like, we'll always take it based on dust in earth. Or people can said that it's nothing like dust in earth, but then it's still based on dust in earth. (Try to imagine the alien dust yourself and see if you can free yourself from the concept of dust found in earth :P). Then where is the truth? The truth can only be known by directly experiencing the alien dust. In the same way I wonder if speaking about atta (or anatta) at this stage (unless you' re a sotapanna at least) would only strengten the sakkaya ditthi. Maybe it's better to talk about something under our grasp. Suttamaya panna can be known from talks. Cintamaya panna can be known by thought. Bhavanamaya panna can only be understand by practice. Simply put sabbe dhamma anatta, it simply is. To understand it needs something higher than thought. What a millist like this share is in my opinion suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna. Discussing about something in the field of bhavana is like flying without wings. But of course this is only my opinion. My faith is in it, but not my attachment (I hope :P). If there is a better light, please shed some light upon me :D 54924 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > > ----- > "As regards the (a) factor kamma plays a significant role, while > accumulated tendencies play a large role in the (b) factor." > ----- > Kamma plays a role in intensity of experience through a given > sense-door. Is this, then, how each experience is vipakka and was the > fruit of kamma? Is the intensity a function of kamma? Accumulated > tendencies result in what I pay attention to, for how long, and the > like - my getting caught up in something and where this takes me. Is > that what you are saying? > > _________ Dear Scott, Every citta, every different moment has an object arammana paccaya (object condition). Say I see my children doing something wrong. Because of attachment the citta takes this object again and again. If it were someone else's children, and happened say in a shopping center, the citta would take the object only for a few moments and then take a new object because there is not the same degree of accumulated clinging to this object(as to 'my' children) . Or if it happened only once and there was no memory (composed of sanna and thinking about concept)then the supporting conditions (such as upanissaya paccaya) would not be strong. But when it happens many times, and it is taken as arammana repeatedly, if there isn't awareness or other kusala, it very quickly conditions aversion (pariyutthana) that can break out to the degree of vitikkama (perhaps harsh speech in this case). Robertk 54925 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Causality and Destiny TGrand458@... Hi Charles Great logic below IMO. Example: We might feel like we have control with our Buddhist studies, but without the Buddha, none of us would have these studies. (Not in the same way.) This shows it is not in our control, but rather, it is the conditions of the past and present that determine how things "come about." This makes education all the more important IMO. Suffering is also a powerful teacher. TG In a message dated 1/22/2006 5:18:58 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, cherry_avium@... writes: Hi everyone, I'm confused. If everything is caused by other thing, then 1. It is completely an autonomous process, so this being practice the way, other being realize Nibbana, other being keeps swimming in the samsara is autonomous processes, it's like being destined by the causes to be that way. So it seems like everything is out of control. Even if there is control, the control is caused, and the cause is caused by other cause. What I mean is that if A is caused by B, and B is caused by C, then there is a line between A, B, and C, with the latter can be traced from the previous, isn't it sounds like a destiny line? Here I assume that the result from a cause is predictable. But if it is not predictable, then the whole thing is a random process. 54926 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... Hi Howard "Distinctive quality" is good but still has an "odor" of something to itself. How about --"distinguishable quality" or "discriminate-able quality"? or "distinctive conditional quality." The last term is almost a contradiction in terms, which highlights the fact that the terms being used today are in the direction of self view. At the very least they do not project of sense of conditionality. TG 54927 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. nilovg Hi Cherry, op 22-01-2006 12:26 schreef Charles op cherry_avium@...: > I live around Jakarta. Fortunately my middle highschool have a small > library of Buddhism books (it's founded by a Buddhist organization) > so I had the chance to read some books. ----------- N: Do you know the Bogor group of Selamat Rojali? They translated my Buddhism in Daily Life into Bahasa Indonesia. They are an active group. This is his Email addres: Nina. 54928 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:43am Subject: Re: Parallel Processing, rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Robert, Thank you. Good to hear from you. "Every citta, every different moment has an object arammana paccaya (object condition). Say I see my children doing something wrong . . ." The object (arammana) in this case is "my children." My clinging to them (arammana paccaya), and its accumulations (upanissaya paccaya)supported by sanna and thinking about them, strengthens the tendency for citta to take "my children" as object, as well as conditioning pariyutthana which might lead to vitikamma (harsh speech) minus awareness or other kusula. Is that like what you were saying? Any corrections? Sincerely, Scott. 54929 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/22/06 1:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > "Distinctive quality" is good but still has an "odor" of something to > itself. How about --"distinguishable quality" or "discriminate-able > quality"? or > "distinctive conditional quality." --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, to the extent that something is distinguishable at all, I think that an element of "something to itself" is unavoidable. After all, the extreme of nihilism has to be avoided as well. Not-self and emptiness constitute a middle-way mode of existence, neither self, nor other, nor nothing at all. I understand your wish to stay as close as possible to an anatta connotation in the terminology, but I tend to think that 'distinctive' is an okay choice. See, for example, the following, 1a in particular: - - - - - - - - - - - Main Entry: dis·tinc·tive Pronunciation: di-'sti[ng](k)-tiv Function: adjective 1 a : serving to distinguish b : having or giving style or distinction 2 : capable of making a segment of utterance different in meaning as well as in sound from an otherwise identical utterance synonym see CHARACTERISTIC - dis·tinc·tive·ly adverb - - - - - - - - - - On the other hand, 'distinguishing' may indeed be even better. It is a perfectly good synonym with a possibly even better connotation. So, I think I might opt for neither 'distinctive' nor 'distinguishable', but 'distinguishing'. ---------------------------------------------------- > > The last term is almost a contradiction in terms, which highlights the fact > > that the terms being used today are in the direction of self view. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: A bit of a strange locution, I'd say! ;-) ---------------------------------------- At the > > very least they do not project of sense of conditionality. > > TG > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 54930 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2006 12:51:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: On the other hand, 'distinguishing' may indeed be even better. It is a perfectly good synonym with a possibly even better connotation. So, I think I might opt for neither 'distinctive' nor 'distinguishable', but 'distinguishing'. Hi Howard, (Nina, Charles, All) A state (dhamma) has qualities/conditions that at one particular moment are distinguishable. It is probably not the state that is distinctive, it is the interpretive process of the mind that is "distinctive-ing." I.E., discriminating. The so called "characteristics" of a dhamma are really in our (deluded) mind are they not? It is, perhaps, not that states have characteristics; it is that "mere conditions" are being characterised by the mind. IMO, when the mind characterizes things, it is imbuing upon them "characters" that only make sense in a "subjective reality." I.E., self-viewpoint. Hence, ACTUALITY is arrived at...not by emersing the mind in distinguishing dhammas, but rather, by DETACHING the mind from them. However, the 'discovery process' is achieved by developing insight into the conditional nature of phenomena and this is partly and importantly achieved by paying close attention to the conditional activities of experience. It is important to keep in mind, though, that at this stage of investigation, the "sense-of-self" is still part of the mental process. The Abhidhamma terminology, if adhered to, with its "ultimate realities" of "dhammas" with their "own characteristics" is a track ... that in my view makes escaping the sense-of-self or other related "entity" type viewpoints next to impossible. Abhidhamma commentarial terminology is replacing one type of delusion with a more subtle type of delusion. (As Howard indicated last week.) If this subtle delusion is not clearly recognized as a delusion, then it becomes a trap and a road block that thwarts further progress. TG 54931 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 0:55pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 363- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (b) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] > > There are four kåyaganthas, "bodily ties" (Dhammasangaùi, §1135- > 1140): > ***** > (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) > > Metta, > > Sarah --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, Thanks for your post on Gantha Dhamma. And I also thank to Nina. May I copy this and post at another list? With respect, Htoo Naing PS: I mean 'partly copy'. > ====== > 54932 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:55am Subject: Distinguishing Quality TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2006 12:51:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: On the other hand, 'distinguishing' may indeed be even better. It is a perfectly good synonym with a possibly even better connotation. So, I think I might opt for neither 'distinctive' nor 'distinguishable', but 'distinguishing'. Hi Howard I agree that it may be best... I think "distinguishing quality" ties the "form of the object" and "interpretive states" (mental processes) together pretty equally. I probably would prefer "distinguishable quality" because that tends to indicate that the "quality" is more in "the mind of the beholder" than in the object. Just plain "quality" or "distinctive quality" is probably easier to communicate to others although possibly less accurate. TG 54933 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Distinguishing Quality upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/22/06 3:58:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I agree that it may be best... > > I think "distinguishing quality" ties the "form of the object" and > "interpretive states" (mental processes) together pretty equally. > > I probably would prefer "distinguishable quality" because that tends to > indicate that the "quality" is more in "the mind of the beholder" than in > the > object. > > Just plain "quality" or "distinctive quality" is probably easier to > communicate to others although possibly less accurate. > > TG > ====================== I think that 'distinctive', 'distinguishable', and 'distinguishing' are all good. I prefer the last. Note that 'distinguishing characteristic' is a common phrase. Where I tend to disgree with you is with regard to your statement "I probably would prefer "distinguishable quality" because that tends to indicate that the "quality" is more in "the mind of the beholder" than in the object." As far as I'm concerned, there is a distinction between hardness and sour taste, for example, that is not merely imposed. 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) 54934 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles dacostacharles Dear TG, I know I should not have jumped into this discussion about ... you know ... :-) so I know I asked for it. It is true that the terms being used today are in the direction of self view. However, I think you overlook the fact that the "self view" projects of sense of conditionality. For example, birth is a condition for a "self". Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- Hi Howard "Distinctive quality" is good but still has an "odor" of something to itself. How about --"distinguishable quality" or "discriminate-able quality"? or "distinctive conditional quality." The last term is almost a contradiction in terms, which highlights the fact that the terms being used today are in the direction of self view. At the very least they do not project of sense of conditionality. TG 54935 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:07pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Some questions about kamma dacostacharles Hi Charles, Your second question I can try to answer, the first I can't (I don't know enough pali). "2. If someone does a crime and get arrested, is this the law of kamma (many people think it is), or in other words, is the (unpleasant) sense objects the man senses (because of being arrested) caused by the kamma of doing the crime. I usually think that the kamma done is not strong enough to give its result immediately." Karma has many levels and there are many types. 1. Hindu -- getting arrested and all the following unpleasantness (including the effects on the other beings), all that is karma; 2. Some sects of Buddhism -- karma is defined as cause-&-effect. Therefore, even the pleasant experiences related to the two events, which are also karmic, would be considered ripples of karma. And, this includes the effects on the other beings. The main difference is as follows. To Hindus, bad karma yields punishment (by the gods or the forces of life). To Buddhist, bad karma conditions to mind in a way that makes it easier to suffer; it clouds the mind making it harder to permanently end suffering. In both cases, the punishment and the unpleasantness are karmic. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Sent: Sunday, 22 January, 2006 13:25 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Some questions about kamma Hi everyone, Another questions about kamma. I hope you don't mind with too many questions :D 1. Is the vipaka cittas a kamma-vipaka (or is it caused by kamma or caused by citta?) 2. If someone does a crime and get arrested, is this the law of kamma (many many people think it is), or in other words, is the (unpleasant) sense objects the man senses (because of being arrested) caused by the kamma of doing the crime. I usually think that the kamma done is not strong enough to give its result immediately :P 54936 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:26pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Effort to burn defilements Four Right Exertions dacostacharles Thanks Tep, I need the practice too. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tep Sastri Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2006 15:47 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Effort to burn defilements Four Right Exertions Hi, Charles D. - Thank you for the useful suggestion. > Charles D. : > From what I can remember of the 6 perceptions you spoke of: > 1. skeletal perception > 2. worm-eaten perception > 3. livid perception > 4. festering perception > 5. falling apart perception > 6. bloated perception > They are part of a meditation/chanting practice to help you become >free from attachment to the physical body. >Therefore, they are one of the prescriptions for one of the >sicknesses, the Noble Right Effort cures. > Tep: Yes. We drill on the six perceptions above in order to replace subha-sanna with asubha-sanna. That requires a right effort - exertion - to get the job done. Warm regards, Tep 54937 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. dacostacharles Hi all, Jon, you said some thing interesting: "the question is whether the experiencing of sense-door objects can occur at a level that we're not conscious of." If we were conscious of all things going on in the mind, then we would be conscious of "the switching of ... every billionth of a second." Therefore, there is a level where things take place that we are not aware of, and you can call it sub- or un- conscious, or what ever you like. If this level does not exist, then "the switching of ... every billionth of a second" must not be true or we would sense it (even as a child). Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonothan Abbott Sent: Sunday, 22 January, 2006 11:33 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. Hi Scott Just butting in, if I may (and welcome to the list from me). Scott Duncan wrote: >I was wondering about whether the >Abhidhamma deals with this whole aspect of the thread - parallel >processing outside of or beyond processing. My guess is no, and all >the theories being propounded are simply other interesting theories. > > As I understand the discussion so far, the question is whether the experiencing of sense-door objects can occur at a level that we're not conscious of. I think such an occurrence is easily explainable by the possibility of (a) varying intensities of experiences through the different sense doors (a much higher rate of experience of objects through one doorway than another) and (b) different intensities of thinking about (paying attention to) the objects experienced through the different sense-doors. An example would be, if we are engrossed in reading a book, the relative rate of (a) moments of ear-door consciousness and (b) thinking about ('processing') the sound that is the object of those moments of consciousness, may be very low and, at times, below the threshold of what we would call conscious experience. As regards the (a) factor kamma plays a significant role, while accumulated tendencies play a large role in the (b) factor. Jon 54938 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > N: Do you know the Bogor group of Selamat Rojali? They translated my > Buddhism in Daily Life into Bahasa Indonesia. They are an active group. Hi Nina, Thanks. I didn't know, but now I know :D. Bogor is to the east from where I live. But I know the website of the Bogor Group, http://www. buddhistonline.com/, I think it has the 'most' active Buddhist forum in Indonesia, but 'most' here is in the sense of 1 post / day :P (the forum is currently unavailable). 54939 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Distinguishing Quality TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2006 2:15:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I think that 'distinctive', 'distinguishable', and 'distinguishing' are all good. I prefer the last. Note that 'distinguishing characteristic' is a common phrase. Where I tend to disgree with you is with regard to your statement "I probably would prefer "distinguishable quality" because that tends to indicate that the "quality" is more in "the mind of the beholder" than in the object." As far as I'm concerned, there is a distinction between hardness and sour taste, for example, that is not merely imposed. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I appreciate your ideas and find them useful to reflect off of. Notice I said "more in the mind of the beholder" and not "just in the mind of the beholder." Nevertheless, I understand your point and agree with it...and think its nice that I'm on the phenomenological side in this exchange and your on the material side. ;-) That won't happen too often. [Settle down now. ;-) ] What was the (Zen?) saying ... once you open your mouth, your already wrong. Perhaps an idea taken from this Sutta passage... "... in whatever way it is conceived, the fact (actuality) is ever other than that." In the same discourse, referring to the enlightened mind, the Buddha said - "...it does not conceive anything, it does not conceive in regard to anything, it does not conceive in any way." (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 911, The True Man, (Sappurisa Sutta, #113) TG 54940 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2006 2:50:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: Dear TG, I know I should not have jumped into this discussion about ... you know ... :-) so I know I asked for it. It is true that the terms being used today are in the direction of self view. However, I think you overlook the fact that the "self view" projects of sense of conditionality. For example, birth is a condition for a "self". Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta Hi Charles I tried to read this carefully but I really didn't understand it. So I must have overlooked it as you say. :-) TG 54941 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/22/2006 3:16:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, dacostas@... writes: Hi all, Jon, you said some thing interesting: "the question is whether the experiencing of sense-door objects can occur at a level that we're not conscious of." If we were conscious of all things going on in the mind, then we would be conscious of "the switching of ... every billionth of a second." Therefore, there is a level where things take place that we are not aware of, and you can call it sub- or un- conscious, or what ever you like. If this level does not exist, then "the switching of ... every billionth of a second" must not be true or we would sense it (even as a child). Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta This is a good point Charles. Even if Abhidhamma analysis is right, its probably only addressing 1% of the minds functionality. In my case I concede to only attempt to understand the principles behind the minds operation...with a minimal amount of supporting detailed knowledge. TG 54942 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 0:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Distinguishing Quality upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/22/06 7:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > > Hi Howard > > I appreciate your ideas and find them useful to reflect off of. > > Notice I said "more in the mind of the beholder" and not "just in the mind > of the beholder." Nevertheless, I understand your point and agree with > it...and think its nice that I'm on the phenomenological side in this > exchange and > your on the material side. ;-) That won't happen too often. [Settle down > > now. ;-) ] ------------------------------------ Howard: LOL! I'll let it slide. ;-) ------------------------------------ > > What was the (Zen?) saying ... once you open your mouth, your already > wrong. ------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. "Open mouth, already a mistake!" :-) ------------------------------------- > Perhaps an idea taken from this Sutta passage... > > > "... in whatever way it is conceived, the fact (actuality) is ever other than > > that." In the same discourse, referring to the enlightened mind, the > Buddha > said - "...it does not conceive anything, it does not conceive in regard to > anything, it does not conceive in any way." ------------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent!! I love it!! :-) ----------------------------------------- > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 911, The True Man, (Sappurisa Sutta, #113) > TG > > ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 54943 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na kenhowardau Hi TG, Nina and all, I am back after another unscheduled absence. This time with an excuse - computer breakdown. Welcome from me to Scott and Charles G. Catching up on messages I notice the question of "own sabhava" has risen again. TG, I believe you generally disagree with the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, K Sujin and several DSG'ers on the basis that they "reify" dhammas when they hold them to be absolutely real (with their own, inherent characteristics). In other words, you believe they are not being sufficiently literal in their interpretation of anatta. This is odd because you usually complain that they take anatta too far - making formal meditation impractical. :-) I would like to apply the two approaches (yours and the Abhidhamma's) to the following quote from Nina's conversation with Phil: Nina wrote [about K Sujin]: > I asked once in India, why I seem to think more and longer of concepts on account of seeing, than on account of the other sense cognitions. She answered that when there is more awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter. > (end quote) Some Dhamma-students might react to that by thinking, "I will keep the stories shorter," or, "I will continue thinking long stories, but I will know them for what they are." In either case, I believe this would be a kind of formal practice and not consistent with anatta. Other Dhamma students will simply understand,'When there is awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter.' That is, they won't cling; "I want to have this awareness," and they won't conceitedly maintain, "This awareness is mine," and they won't have wrong view; "This awareness is my self." It seems to me it is in this second way that a student rightly refuses to "reify" a dhamma. I hope you won't mind my saying so but I find your way (the way of denying the absolute reality of dhammas) is wide of the mark and counterproductive. Ken H 54944 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na scottduncan2 ". . . Other Dhamma students will simply understand,'When there is awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter.' That is, they won't cling; "I want to have this awareness," and they won't conceitedly maintain, 'This awareness is mine,' and they won't have wrong view; 'This awareness is my self.' > It seems to me it is in this second way that a student rightly refuses to 'reify' a dhamma. I hope you won't mind my saying so but I find your way (the way of denying the absolute reality of dhammas) is wide of the mark and counterproductive." Dear Ken, Thanks for the welcome. To corroborate what I think you are getting at: I'm new at meditating. In light of what you were saying, the other day, in the midst of a good session, I suddenly experienced the fifth jhana for the first time. It was quick as a flash and then the thought arose, just about as quickly, "Its the Sense-base of Infinite Space!" and I totally fell off the ladder. Mr. Big-Mouth. Sincerely, Scott. 54945 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:52pm Subject: Re: Parallel Processing, rupas. rjkjp1 Dear Scott, Yes that is right, but the clinging comes under mula paccya (root condition) Here is another example. Several people are in a car which passes a beautiful woman(say 20years old)walking on the road. In the car is a man in his twenties, his sister, aged 20, and their grandmother. The man glimpses the woman (visible object - arammana paccaya) and because of latent lobha turns to look further. The sister also glimpses and because of latent dosa has a touch of jealousy towards the womans beauty, she also looks more intently. The grandmother glimpses the woman but barely notices, she is uninterested. All these mental and physical reactions or non-rections are simply the outcome of the various conditions. It seems we are chosing to do this or that- but really we are puppets, moved by the paccaya. The way is not so much to try to resist the various defilements that condition movement and thinking, but to understand that there is no self, that there are only diverse conditions. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > Thank you. Good to hear from you. > > "Every citta, every different moment has an object arammana paccaya > (object condition). Say I see my children doing something wrong . . ." > > The object (arammana) in this case is "my children." My clinging to > them (arammana paccaya), and its accumulations (upanissaya > paccaya)supported by sanna and thinking about them, strengthens the > tendency for citta to take "my children" as object, as well as > conditioning pariyutthana which might lead to vitikamma (harsh speech) > minus awareness or other kusula. Is that like what you were saying? > Any corrections? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 54946 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:54pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 364- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (c) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] The magga-citta of the sotåpanna eradicates the third and the fourth ties. The sotåpanna knows the right Path and he cannot deviate from it anymore, he has no conditions for wrong practice. He has no wrong view of realities. He still has the first tie, covetousness, and the second tie, ill-will, but they are not of the degree that they lead to an unhappy rebirth. The magga-citta of the anågåmí eradicates the second tie, ill-will. As regards the first tie, the anågåmí does not cling to sensuous objects, but he has not eradicated the more subtle forms of clinging, which is clinging to rebirth in rúpa-brahma planes and arúpabrahma planes. Thus, he still clings to rebirth. He has not eradicated the first tie. The magga-citta of the arahat eradicates the first tie. He has no more clinging, no clinging to rebirth; he is no longer entangled by any of the four ties. ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 54947 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:37pm Subject: Vism.XIV,226 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 226. And in particular, one who sees internal materiality as foul (ugly) fully understands nutriment consisting of physical nutriment. He abandons the perversion [of perceiving] beauty in the foul (ugly), he crosses the flood of sense desire, he is loosed from the bond of sense desire, he becomes canker-free as regards the canker of sense desire, he breaks the bodily tie of covetousness. He does not cling with sense-desire clinging. **************************** 226. visesato ca ajjhattikaruupa.m asubhato passanto kaba.liikaaraahaara.m parijaanaati, asubhe subhanti vipallaasa.m pajahati. kaamogha.m uttarati, kaamayogena visa.myujjati, kaamaasavena anaasavo hoti, abhijjhaakaayagantha.m bhindati, kaamupaadaana.m na upaadiyati. 54948 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:54pm Subject: The Fisherman's Hook ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Any being Hooked by Sense Addiction gather much Panic & Fear! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, imagine a fisherman, who have thrown a baited hook into a deep lake, and then an yearning fish, hungry for food, would swallow it at first sight... That fish, having swallowed the fisherman's hook, would indeed meet with much pain, disaster and tragedy, since the fisherman would do with it as he wishes... So too, Bhikkhus, there are these six hooks in the world for the pain, disaster and tragedy of beings, for the slaughter of living beings: Forms experienceable by the eye, sounds experienceable by the ear, smells experienceable by the nose, tastes experienceable by the tongue, touches experienceable by the body, & mental states experienceable by the mind, that all are seductive, gorgeous, alluring, agreeable, pleasing, enticing, tempting and tantalizing. If a bhikkhu search for delight in them, welcomes them, and thus remains clinging to them, he is called a Bhikkhu, who has swallowed Mara's hook !!! He has met with pain, disaster & tragedy, & the Evil One can do with him, as he wishes. However, one who does neither hunt delight in them, nor does he welcome them, nor does he remain clinging to them, such is a Bhikkhu, who has resisted Mara's hook, who has broken, destroyed, and defeated this Hook! He will neither gather nor meet any pain, disaster nor tragedy, & verily the Evil One cannot do with him, as he wishes... Source (extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [157-8] Section 35 Salayatana: On The 6 Senses. The Fisherman Simile: Balisiko 230. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 54949 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na TGrand458@... Hi Ken H In a message dated 1/22/2006 7:33:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: Hi TG, Nina and all, I am back after another unscheduled absence. This time with an excuse - computer breakdown. Welcome from me to Scott and Charles G. Catching up on messages I notice the question of "own sabhava" has risen again. TG, I believe you generally disagree with the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, K Sujin and several DSG'ers on the basis that they "reify" dhammas when they hold them to be absolutely real (with their own, inherent characteristics). In other words, you believe they are not being sufficiently literal in their interpretation of anatta. This is odd because you usually complain that they take anatta too far - making formal meditation impractical. :-) TG: Two points: 1) I do not generally disagree with Abhidhamma as found in the seven texts. I largely agree with it. I also generally agree with the commentaries. 2) Regarding the last sentence...you must have someone else in mind as I don't believe I've never addressed the issue, I'm not sure how anatta could be taken too far, and I highly approve of formal meditation. I would like to apply the two approaches (yours and the Abhidhamma's) to the following quote from Nina's conversation with Phil: Nina wrote [about K Sujin]: > I asked once in India, why I seem to think more and longer of concepts on account of seeing, than on account of the other sense cognitions. She answered that when there is more awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter. > (end quote) Some Dhamma-students might react to that by thinking, "I will keep the stories shorter," or, "I will continue thinking long stories, but I will know them for what they are." In either case, I believe this would be a kind of formal practice and not consistent with anatta. Other Dhamma students will simply understand,'When there is awareness the stories will become shorter and shorter.' That is, they won't cling; "I want to have this awareness," and they won't conceitedly maintain, "This awareness is mine," and they won't have wrong view; "This awareness is my self." It seems to me it is in this second way that a student rightly refuses to "reify" a dhamma. I hope you won't mind my saying so but I find your way (the way of denying the absolute reality of dhammas) is wide of the mark and counterproductive. TG: Two more points: 1) Sorry, I'm not sure what you're driving at in the "stories examples." 2) In the last paragraph, I don't believe I deny what you say I deny. What I dislike is such lofty and substantive terminology to describe an empty afflicting state/condition. I am more comfortable with the way the Buddha described states, events, dhammas.... "Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it toward the deathless element thus: `This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana (Nirvana). Standing upon that, he attains the destruction of the taints [mental corruptions]." (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 540, The Great Discourse to Malunkyaputta, Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) I believe if the terms --"ultimate reality" or "own characteristic" -- were added to the above list of how the Buddha recommends one should see the 5 aggregates, it would be the opposite sensibility of what the Buddha wanted to instill in the mind. Therefore I think "ultimate reality" and "own characteristic" are wide of the mark and partially counter-productive. In your post you have attributed several positions to me that I don't take and then, I think, have argued "my supposed point of view" based on those positions. For the clarity of others, I want to retract such attributed positions and arguments as being mine. I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting dhamma to be presented properly and effectively. I feel the same way, but have a different way of approaching it then you do. When it comes right down to it though, I suspect that the vast majority of our differences are in the way we prefer to use terminology. I am biased toward the Sutta approach of describing states. Ken H TG 54950 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:37am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 The contemplation of foulness can lead one to a deeper way of contemplation, the realization of impermanence. This is the development of insight. We read in the Theragathå, Canto CXVIII, Kimbila, that the Buddha, in order to stir him, conjured up a beautiful woman in her prime, and showed her to him passing to old age. Kimbila uttered the verse: ³As bidden by some power age over her falls. Her shape is as another, yet the same. Now this myself, who never have left myself, Seems other than the self I recollect.² Thus, when a person becomes older his body change although he is still the same individual. The body consists of rúpas that arise and fall away. What arises and falls away is not beautiful, not attractive. The colour a person sees is only colour, not feminine beauty. That colour falls away, never to return. Where is the beauty? At the first stage of principal insight the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa is realized. Kimbila listened to the Buddha and developed understanding. One may want realities to be different from what they are, but the dhammas that have arisen already cannot be changed. One may unknowingly cling to an idea of a self who must subdue lobha and dosa. One may cling to the idea of wanting to be a good person without defilements. When one fails to suppress lobha and dosa there is frustration and disappointment, even despair. We may notice that we have aversion, dosa, but we do not realize it as a dhamma, arising because of its proper conditions. At the first stage of insight, the difference between the characteristic of nåma and of rúpa is clearly realized, not before that. One begins to understand nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. This means, we begin to see the nåma that appears as a dhamma and the rúpa that appears as a dhamma. Before this stage of insight is attained, there is still a notion of ³my aversion², and ³my attachment², even though we have intellectual understanding of the fact that they are cetasikas, non-self. We have not really penetrated the truth of anattå. Acharn Sujin said: ²You have to understand your own life, your accumulated inclinations, otherwise you can never become a sotåpanna. One should be very courageous in order to develop the real Path, not the wrong Path.² ******* Nina 54951 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 0:52am Subject: RE: [dsg] Nagarjuna's doctrine and Theravada dacostacharles Hi Howard You stated that, "... delusive states are distinguishable [edit by cad, was: in indistinguishable] from more or less undeluded ones. The analogy I would use is between ordinary dreaming and awakened awareness. There are, of course, false awakenings. But the bottom line is that more awake trumps less awake, and fully awake "rules"." I can understand your point and it is true, most of the time we know we are just day-dreaming. However, delusion in the Buddhist since has more to do with seeing that apple as a source of happiness, seeing the "self" as an eternal unchanging being. And again, we know when we think this or that way. My point was that in the brain, both realities and imaginings can trigger the same types of mental processing, nerve patterns being fired, and thus triggering the release of different chemicals in the body. And yes, I believe that in healthy individuals, there are probably also groups of nerve patterns that signal whether an experience is real or imagined. I am sure the process of brain washing tries to breakdown these patterns so the patient loses site of what is real and what has been imagined. Experiencing Memories Also, how could psychosomatic diseases take effect? Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta <...> I don't agree that delusive states are inindistinguishable from more or less undeluded ones. The analogy I would use is between ordinary dreaming and awakened awareness. There are, of course, false awakenings. But the bottom line is that more awake trumps less awake, and fully awake "rules". With metta, Howard <...> 54952 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 0:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] On Number 10 :Nitpicking the Nitpicking (RePleasedon'trun away yet, DAN 1.ii) dacostacharles Hi mike, I was taught humans were a complex of 5 aggregate (i.e., form, memories/perception, feelings, Intellect, consciousness), and a 6th called the personality aggregate, motivations. When I made that original post, I forgot to say because of memories & perception, the aggregate of Intellect, either (1) knows and understands, or (2) does not know." Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta ... <...> Hi Larry, ... > L: Consciousness knows the object and ignorance ignores the object. Agreed, but citta with moha still experiences the object--but the object is obscured. I have liked 'ignorance ignores' in the past and maybe it does make some sense. Still I think that moha muula citta does experience the object just as does any other citta. Just my understanding of course. > It > is said in Vism. that consciousness knows the three general > characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, and anatta) so I would suppose > ignorance ignores some part of that. It might be helpful to me if you could cite the Vism. specifically to this effect. I would think that vipassanaa or pa~n~naa or ~naa.na would know the three characteristics, so consciousness with any of those factors would know them. Consciousness with moha would either fail to understand them or misunderstand them I think. Still citta with moha would nevertheless experience whatever dhamma or concept with which it came into contact through the mind- or sense- door as I see it. ... mike 54953 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:37am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 225, comments. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 225. Text Vis.: 'As to good for one seeing thus': good comes to be accomplished in one who sees in the two ways thus in brief and in detail. ------- N: the word¹good¹ is the translation of the Pali siddhi, accomplishment, success. This refers to someone who has developed insight and has right understanding of naama and ruupa that are classified as five khandhas. -------- Text Vis.: And the way of definition should be known according to that, that is to say, firstly, one who sees the five aggregates as objects of clinging in the form of an enemy with drawn sword, etc., is not worried by the aggregates, ------- N: As we have seen, this refers to seeing them in brief, that is, seeing the khandhas collectively as dangerous, murderous, as a burden. The word Œworried¹ is a translation of the Pali vihaññati, which means: he is not vexed nor grieved. Thus, one who is accomplished in insight and sees the five khandhas as impermanent, dukkha and not-self will be liberated from the danger and the burden of the five khandhas. He is not vexed by the worldly conditions of gain and loss, praise and blame, honour and dishonour, bodily ease and misery. -------- Text Vis.: but one who sees materiality, etc., in detail as a lump of froth, etc., is not one who sees a core in the coreless. ------ N: Seeing the khandhas in detail refers to seeing each of the khandhas separately as coreless. They are compared to a lump of froth, a bubble of water, etc. This can only be accomplished by the development of right understanding of whatever dhamma appears at this moment. ******** Nina. 54954 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na kenhowardau Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply: -------------- S: > To corroborate what I think you are getting at: I'm new at meditating -------------- If you haven't quite followed what I was getting at that would be no surprise: the strictly Abhidhamma approach to Buddhism takes some time to sink in. I too (after four or so years with DSG) am only beginning to get the gist of it. It is totally a matter of understanding the Buddha's teaching - and that is no small order. ------------------------ . . . S: > the other day, in the midst of a good session, I suddenly experienced the fifth jhana for the first time. It was quick as a flash and then the thought arose, just about as quickly, "Its the Sense-base of Infinite Space!" and I totally fell off the ladder. Mr. Big-Mouth. ------------------------ :-) You are too hard on yourself. And if the jhanas you experience (however briefly) are the same as the jhanas described in the Pali Canon (which I doubt, but that is another topic) you deserve a much better accolade than "Mr Big-Mouth." :-) Your example is similar to the one Nina gave: " When there is more awareness [of sense cognitions] the stories will become shorter and shorter." However, I don't see the need for awareness of jhana factors. What is wrong with the seeing and hearing etc that are occurring right now as we speak? Do you have right understanding of them? If not, then you (like the rest of us) need to get back to your Dhamma studies. Ken H 54955 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:09am Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 > The contemplation of foulness can lead one to a deeper way of contemplation, the realization of impermanence. This is the development of insight. We read in the Theragathå, Canto CXVIII, Kimbila, that the Buddha, in order to stir him, conjured up a beautiful woman in her prime, and showed her to him passing to old age. Kimbila uttered the verse: --------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Is contemplation of foulness not attending pannatti? Is it satipatthaana? With respect, Htoo Naing 54956 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:12am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 364- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (c) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom > > http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > > Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) > ========================================== > [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] > > The magga-citta of the sotåpanna eradicates the third and the > fourth ties. The sotåpanna knows the right Path and he cannot > deviate from it anymore, he has no conditions for wrong practice. > He has no wrong view of realities. He still has the first tie, > covetousness, and the second tie, ill-will, but they are not of the degree > that they lead to an unhappy rebirth. > > The magga-citta of the anågåmí eradicates the second tie, ill- will. As > regards the first tie, the anågåmí does not cling to sensuous objects, but > he has not eradicated the more subtle forms of clinging, which is clinging > to rebirth in rúpa-brahma planes and arúpabrahma planes. Thus, he still > clings to rebirth. He has not eradicated the first tie. > > The magga-citta of the arahat eradicates the first tie. He has no > more clinging, no clinging to rebirth; he is no longer entangled > by any of the four ties. > ***** > (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== ------------------------ Dear Sarah, Thanks for this post on tie or Gantha Dhamma. It is very clear and I feel as if reading the original script. With respect, Htoo Naing 54957 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, ". . . if the jhanas you experience (however briefly) are the same as the jhanas described in the Pali Canon (which I doubt, but that is another topic)" ". . . I don't see the need for awareness of jhana factors. What is wrong with the seeing and hearing etc that are occurring right now as we speak? Do you have right understanding of them? If not, then you (like the rest of us) need to get back to your Dhamma studies." My apologies if I came across as bragging or something. The anecdote did seem to fit, although from a different angle. I'd be curious to hear more regarding the difference you note between the jhanas of experience and the jhanas described in the Pali Canon. This might warrant a new topic as you say. Why, may I ask, don't you see the need for awareness of jhana factors? I gather that meditation is not the main aspect of your practise. I don't know much but I think meditation is meant to be more than just learning to experience jhana. Cultivating mindfulness, which I think you are referring to, is very important. If I may ask, what are some of the ways in which you do this? As far as getting back to the Dhamma studies, you need only read any of my statements to realise that I definitely need to do that! I'm getting to most Dhamma study for the first time, let alone "back to it." Sincerely, Scott. 54958 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 634 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa`nkhara paccayaa vi~n~naanaa'. There are 89 vinnaana. There are 32 lokiya vipaaka vinnaana. Still there are 4 lokuttaraa vipaaka vinnaana, which are phala cittas or fruition consciousness. These 4 fruition consciousness are not in Dependent Origination as it is not the result of avijjaa etc. 32 vinnaana have been explained in connection with different sankhaara and their implications and meaning. If we consider all 89 vinnaana in the third place of Dependent Origination then Dependent Origination would be different. There are 12 akusala cittas. There are 8 mahaakusala cittas. There are 5 ruupakusala cittas. There are 4 aruupakusala cittas. These 29 cittas or 29 vinnaanas, in my opinion, are not vinnaana in the third place of Dependent Origination. Let us see these 29 cittas to some details. As they are cittas they do have associated mental factors. Among cetasikas the culprit of action or kamma-producer or formation- former or kamma or action is performed by cetanaa cetasika. That cetanaa is sa`nkhaara. If sa`nkhaara paccayaa vinnaana is all 89 cittas it would mean that cetanaa in all cittas condition arising of all those cittas. Patthaana will explain that this is sahajaata-kamma-paccaya or conascent-kamma condition. But what about avijjaa here. Is cetana arise because of avijjaa? It is partly yes and partly no. Partly yes is that it is true when apunnaabhisankhaara, punnaabhisankhara and anenjaabhisankhaara are considered they are true to arise because of avijjaa. This means that avijjaa conditions these 29 cittas. Especially on cetanaa or kamma. All these 29 kamma are sankhaara. 12 akusala citta are apunnaabhisabkhaara. 8 mahaakusala citta and 5 ruupakusala cittas are punnaabhisankhaara and 4 aruupakusala cittas are anenjaabhisankhaara. But these 29 cittas themselves are not the result of themselves when avijjaa and sankhaara are considered in line with Dependent Origination. I did nopt find any commentaries that say all 89 cittas are conditioned by apunnaabhisankhaara, punnaabhisankhaara and anenjaabhisankhaara. But what I found was that there are 32 vipaaka cittas or resultant consciousness and these 32 cittas or vinnaanas are the results of sankhaara and sankhaara condition them to arise. Arahatta magga citta is one of cittas of 89. It is not conditioned by avijjaa and them sankhaara. Any thought? May you 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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 54959 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >I may have been misunderstanding the discussion to be considering the >possibility of simultaneous ("parallel") processing - that is two or >more processes occuring at the same time. This notion of parallel >processing would not be consistent, as I understand it, with the >seemingly clear "rule" that only one citta arises at a time from the >point of view of Abhidhamma teaching. In other words, there could not >be an arising citta within two sense doors at once. Am I getting this >correctly? I see the point of the question because with the >complexity of things it does seem as if there is a parallel process. > > Yes, it does seem as if there is parallel processing, but what we assume to be parallel processing is readily explainable on the basis of only one citta arising at a time. To my understanding of the Abhidhamma, there is only ever one citta at a time (and hence there could not in fact be parallel processing). >I am aware of thinking, for example. A sound impinges and derails my >train of thought. Now I am thinking about the sound. That's at the >speed I am able to be conscious of. The intensity of the new stimulus >"overcame" the lower intensity of the previous thinking about >something, and then the thoughts were related to the sound. And, all >the while, there were inumerable processes of citta occuring. > > I did not mean to suggest a model by which an existing sense-door object is 'displaced' by one of a higher intensity from another sense-door. The reference to 'intensity' is of my own making, it is not something found in the Abhidhamma. >You implicitly define intensity as rate of experience. Does this mean >quantity of cittas arising within a given sense door? Is there then a >displacement factor? > I was just trying to say that cittas presumably do not arise in equal numbers at each of the six doorways, but I have no idea what governs this,other than something called citta niyama (the law of consciousness). >It would seem to me that the ultimate level of >experience would be different than the mundane level of conscious >awareness. > > The arahant has eradicated all ignorance and wrong view, so there is no mistake about the way things truly are. >I guess I'm still wanting to learn how the idea that there can only be >one citta arising at a time fits with the "illusion(?)" that there are >parallel processes wherein, at different levels many things seem to be >going on at once. I don't mean to be obtuse. I'm just trying learn. > > As I see it, the explanation is that the cittas experiencing objects at the different doorways arise intermingled with each other but not in equal measure, and that the very rapidity with which this happens gives the appearance of parallel processing. >----- >"As regards the (a) factor kamma plays a significant role, while >accumulated tendencies play a large role in the (b) factor." >----- >Kamma plays a role in intensity of experience through a given >sense-door. Is this, then, how each experience is vipakka and was the >fruit of kamma? Is the intensity a function of kamma? > I was just referring to the fact that the citta that experiences an object through a sense door is vipaka citta (but there are also other conditions applying), whereas the citta that thinks about an object is a kusala or aksuala citta (broadly speaking). >Accumulated >tendencies result in what I pay attention to, for how long, and the >like - my getting caught up in something and where this takes me. Is >that what you are saying? > > Yes, it is by virtue of accumulated tendencies that a person becomes engrossed in reading a book and is oblivious to the objects being experienced through the other doorways. Hoping this has helped make my earlier post a little clearer. Jon 54960 From: "nanapalo" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:11am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. nana_palo@... Hi Charles, we translated Nina's book "Buddhism in Daily Life" which is very usefull for our practical aspect of Buddhism. we are at Bogor. We use many of Nina's books in our Abhidhamma discussion. They are very good for us in developing understanding of realities. Greatly appreciate of Nina's effort in writing her valuable books. Every Saturday morning 7.30 am-9.15 am, we have a coffee morning and discussion on Abhidhamma in daily life. You are welcome to join at Jalan Belitung No. 2 Bogor. Feel free to contact me 0812.110.8290 (Selamat Rodjali). Or if you have time in the afternoon, we have 3 other Dhamma discussions: 2 pm - 3.30 pm 4 pm - 5.30 pm 6 pm - 7.30 pm the last three discussions are at our centre (Dhamma Study Group Bogor), at Jl. Suryakencana No. 258 Bogor (in front of BCA Gang Aut Bogor). We also put our Abhidhamma discussion material (in Bahasa Indonesia) at buddhistonline.com which is maintained by one of Dhamma friends in Surabaya. kind regards, selamat rodjali -----Original Message----- From: Charles [mailto:cherry_avium@...] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:10 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > N: Do you know the Bogor group of Selamat Rojali? They translated my > Buddhism in Daily Life into Bahasa Indonesia. They are an active group. Hi Nina, Thanks. I didn't know, but now I know :D. Bogor is to the east from where I live. But I know the website of the Bogor Group, http://www. buddhistonline.com/, I think it has the 'most' active Buddhist forum in Indonesia, but 'most' here is in the sense of 1 post / day :P (the forum is currently unavailable). 54961 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. nilovg Apa Kabar, Selamat, I was hoping you would see my post to Cherry. I am so glad to hear of your activities, and greatly appreciate them. If Cherry can join, I hope he can give us some more news about these. It is so good to hear from you and your group, Nina. op 23-01-2006 15:11 schreef nanapalo op nana_palo@...: > Hi Charles, > we translated Nina's book "Buddhism in Daily Life" ... > > Every Saturday morning 7.30 am-9.15 am, we have a coffee morning and > discussion on Abhidhamma in daily life. ... 54962 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 nilovg Dear Htoo, op 23-01-2006 14:09 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > Is contemplation of foulness not attending pannatti? Is it > satipatthaana? -------- N: I am glad you ask. I am just working on the Tiika to the Vis. Ch XIV, 226, and this explains about the vipallaasas that are abandoned by insight. It emphasizes the pariññas, as you will see. By satipatthaana the vipallaasas are abandoned. This means, by mindfulness of nama and rupa, not just by thinking of a concept. But the citta that thinks of foulness is nama, and thus fit to be contemplated as non-self. This is also the purpose of the cemetery contemplations that are included in Mindfulness of the Body. In the context of this application of mindfulness the cemetery contemplations are not meant as only a subject of samatha. It is by insight that one is not misled into seeing beauty in what is foul. Nina. 54963 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles nilovg Hi TG, it is good you speak your heart out. op 22-01-2006 21:34 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > Abhidhamma commentarial terminology is replacing one type of delusion with a > more subtle type of delusion. (As Howard indicated last week.) If this > subtle delusion is not clearly recognized as a delusion, then it becomes a > trap > and a road block that thwarts further progress. -------- N: Can you, while I am in Bgk, give more concrete examples, then it will be clearer what you mean. You could dive into the Vis. texts that Larry posted to the archives. Then we have examples at hand with Pali and all! Without Pali there is not much precision. I saw that you amended your expression about distinctive features of dhammas being in the beholder's mind. I agree with Howard. Lobha is not dosa, they have different distinctive features. The Buddha explained it all in the suttas so that there can be mindfulness of them without thinking. We do not need to think at all. Nina. 54964 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 363- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (b) nilovg Dear Htoo, Any time, no need to ask first. Nina. op 22-01-2006 21:55 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > Thanks for your post on Gantha Dhamma. And I also thank to Nina. May > I copy this and post at another list? 54965 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Trees and Anger (was Re: Did Buddhaghosa (formal) meditate? (Was: Reasons for staying on DSG nilovg Hi Cherry, op 22-01-2006 12:34 schreef Charles op cherry_avium@...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < > sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote: >> Even when we think along the right tracks like this,there can be >> awareness of that thinking (regardless of the ideas involved)and >> this direct awareness is most useful. > Ch: It sounds like satipatthana. I wonder is satipatthana defined as sati > cetasika so it can appear at the same time with the thinking (so we > can aware of the thinking the same time the thinking arise) or is it > a mahakusala citta, therefore the satipatthana arise after the > thinking, having its object the previous thought process ? -------- N: Sati of satipatthana can be aware of thinking that has just fallen away in a preceding process. It can be aware of kusala thinking or of akusala thinking. If there is forgetfulness we have the idea of 'I think' all the time. -------- Ch: Another way is that, is it > - to aware of the thinking or > - to think with awareness ------------- N: Sati of satipatthana is aware of nama and rupa, and it does not think. But in between thinking can arise, kusala thinking of the Dhamma one heard, reflection with kusala citta. Nina. 54966 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/23/2006 8:44:53 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG, it is good you speak your heart out. op 22-01-2006 21:34 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > Abhidhamma commentarial terminology is replacing one type of delusion with a > more subtle type of delusion. (As Howard indicated last week.) If this > subtle delusion is not clearly recognized as a delusion, then it becomes a > trap > and a road block that thwarts further progress. -------- N: Can you, while I am in Bgk, give more concrete examples, then it will be clearer what you mean. You could dive into the Vis. texts that Larry posted to the archives. Then we have examples at hand with Pali and all! Without Pali there is not much precision. TG: Hi Nina There is a Sutta, don't have it handy, where the Buddha is talking to two people who hold non-Buddhist views about the world. One of them holds the view that "all the world exists." The other one holds that "all the world does not exists." The Buddha praises the latter view more and the reason was that it is closer to detachment. There is no reason to believe they are speaking about delusive states, but rather, I believe they were talking about real things. To say that states are "ultimate realities" is sort of a "super-charged" version of saying that "they exist." It is my view that this style of language tends toward attachment, not non-attachment. That isn't to say that it has to, just that it tends in that direction IMO. The teaching about "realities" may be useful to those who are completely unaware that the things they take as real -- such as jobs, games, houses, cars, etc., are really more of an imaginative narrative, mentally weaved over underlying actualities. Stressing the aggregates and elements as the "underlying reality" might make a mind break that delusion. After a mind has achieved the understanding that "actuality" consists of -- ever altering aggregates and elements, then continuing to call these states "ultimate realities" is counter-productive IMO. Once they are understood for what they are, attention and effort should turn to detaching from them. The Buddha recommends viewing states as "void." You like viewing them as "ultimate realities." Its not that the states are different in either case. What is different is a non-substantive way of describing or viewing them -- vs -- a substantive way of describing or viewing them. I think using Pali has its pros and cons. It might make certain points clearer and it might make other points cloudier. (That in part depends on the integrity of the person using it.) If I hope to teach others Buddhism I am not going to insist that they master Pali, especially since I have not. The Buddha spoke to that issue as well. Not sure how to pull up the archival material you suggest. Not sure if it would serve our purpose. I saw that you amended your expression about distinctive features of dhammas being in the beholder's mind. I agree with Howard. Lobha is not dosa, they have different distinctive features. The Buddha explained it all in the suttas so that there can be mindfulness of them without thinking. We do not need to think at all. Nina. TG: Isn't mindfulness also in the mind? My original statement said -- "more in the mind" ... not "all in the mind." :-) (Most people claim I'm a "materialist" so I find it interesting to be arguing this side. But I'm not rigid in defending it.) It was nice though to once in my life out phenomenologize Howard! ;-) TG 54967 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference , ultimate realities. nilovg Hi TG, Good, I think paramattha dhammas is a good discussion point also for Bgk. I think it is mostly the terms that you object to. I am not so for something 'underlying'. I do not use this expression. Larry could help you looking at Visuddhimagga, or else, read them from now on. Then you can see for yourself. Nina. op 23-01-2006 19:58 schreef TGrand458@... op TGrand458@...: > To say that states are "ultimate realities" is sort of a "super-charged" > version of saying that "they exist." 54968 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:47am Subject: Mahayana and social issues nilovg Hello Joop, Could you just say a little more on suññatta in your Q. to Kh Sujin? It is explained in the suttas as empty of self, or the same as anatta. Does it imply more in Mahayana, or are certain aspects emphasized more, like in the case of karuna? Nina. 54969 From: "mlnease" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 0:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On Number 10 :Nitpicking the Nitpicking (RePleasedon'trun away yet, DAN 1.ii) mlnease Hi Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: Thanks for the response-- > I was taught humans were a complex of 5 aggregate (i.e., form, > memories/perception, feelings, Intellect, consciousness), and a 6th called > the personality aggregate, motivations. Interesting, I'm not familiar with the aggregates enumerated or translated in this way. > When I made that original post, I forgot to say because of memories & > perception, the aggregate of Intellect, either (1) knows and understands, or > (2) does not know." Thanks for the clarification. As I understand them, the first aggregate (ruupa) experiences or knows nothing; the second through fourth (vedanaa, sa~n~naa, sankhaara) all experience or know the object of the fifth (vi~n~naa.na) with which they arise. The intellect aggregate and the sixth you mention are unfamiliar to me. I hope this is of some use to our discussion. mike 54970 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 0:52pm Subject: Re: Mahayana and social issues htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hello Joop, > Could you just say a little more on suññatta in your Q. to Kh Sujin? It is > explained in the suttas as empty of self, or the same as anatta. Does it > imply more in Mahayana, or are certain aspects emphasized more, like in the > case of karuna? > Nina. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Sometimes I feel strange when Mahayana speak. Theravada emphasises anicca while Mahayana emphasises anatta, Mahayana say. Another word Mahayana use is 'Buddha-nature'. Sunnata is also spoken. Alaya is another word. When a Mahayana spoke to me he asked how many rules for bhikkhu sangha and I answered 'at least 227'. He admitted it was close to Mahayana and in Mahayana, he said, it was 225. While Theravadan disciple says there are 10 perfections, Mahayana would say there are 6 paramita. I wanted to know 'Buddha-nature' what Mahayana say it is present in all beings. But when I asked I did not received enough information to work over that 'Buddha-nature'. With respect, Htoo Naing 54971 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 0:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > op 23-01-2006 14:09 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > > Is contemplation of foulness not attending pannatti? Is it > > satipatthaana? > -------- > N: I am glad you ask. I am just working on the Tiika to the Vis. Ch XIV, > 226, and this explains about the vipallaasas that are abandoned by insight. > It emphasizes the pariññas, as you will see. > By satipatthaana the vipallaasas are abandoned. This means, by mindfulness > of nama and rupa, not just by thinking of a concept. But the citta that > thinks of foulness is nama, and thus fit to be contemplated as non- self. > > This is also the purpose of the cemetery contemplations that are included in > Mindfulness of the Body. In the context of this application of mindfulness > the cemetery contemplations are not meant as only a subject of samatha. > It is by insight that one is not misled into seeing beauty in what is foul. > Nina. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Thanks. I read in Myanmar very well regarding Satipatthaana. But when I posted on 'foulness' I was thinking that someone might see the matter as it is not satipatthaana if it is on 'name, concept, pannatti'. In one of my post I wrote there are 261 contemplation on body. 15 for breathing, 15 for posture, 63 for daily activities, 99 for body part like teeth, hair, nail, bone etc, 15 for body-element and 54 for foulness. While contemplating on hair, nail, teeth, skin.. well this is the area where paramattha lovers may make problem. With respect, Htoo Naing 54972 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference , ultimate realities. TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/23/2006 12:47:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG, Good, I think paramattha dhammas is a good discussion point also for Bgk. I think it is mostly the terms that you object to. I am not so for something 'underlying'. I do not use this expression. Hi Nina Yes, its the terms. I use 'underlying' like -- the mattress is underlying the blanket. Or Ignorance is underlying suffering. Is that a usage you would not technically or aesthetically approve of? Thanks in advance. TG 54973 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:48pm Subject: Re: Mahayana and social issues jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hello Joop, > Could you just say a little more on suññatta in your Q. to Kh Sujin? It is > explained in the suttas as empty of self, or the same as anatta. Does it > imply more in Mahayana, or are certain aspects emphasized more, like in the > case of karuna? > Nina. > Hallo Nina Emptiness or voidness (sunyatta in sanskriet) is in Mahayana not especially empty of self; more it's empty of everything; I more think of anicca than of anatta. But it's very difficult to translate two frames of reference in each other. In june 2005 we had here in DSG a discussion about the Heart Sutra, one of the most important (most recited) Mahayana sutra's; and "emptiness" is playing a central role in that sutra. The core of it (you will notice of course that form=rupa): "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non- attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita. Since there is no obscuration of mind, there is no fear. They transcend falsity and attain complete nirvana. All the buddhas of the three times, by means of prajnaparamita, fully awaken to unsurpassable, true, complete enlightenment. …." Below a reaction of Larry to a question of me Something else is in how far Mahayana really takes "anatta" serious. Htoo already mentioned the term "BuddhaNature", I don't know either what it exactly means but in my intuition it's near to atta. A second (and still more difficult) example: especially in Tibetan buddhists not only belief in rebirth but also in reincarnation, for example of lama's: complete with personality the lama "comes back"; that again is in my opinion nearly atta-belief (and thus wrong view). Metta Joop 46887 Hi Joop, I think the emptiness of the Heart Sutra is different from nothingness. The emptiness of the Heart Sutra has to do with the ungraspable nature of dhammas. It is a characteristic of dhammas rather than an absence of dhammas. See the Phena Sutta (SN.XXII,95) for something very similar: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-095-tb0.html Seeing directly that dhammas are ungraspable, the upadana (grasping) link in Dependent Arising doesn't arise. ….. Larry 54974 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 Nina to TG: "You could dive into the Vis. texts that Larry posted to the archives." Hi Nina and TG, If you are referring to Ven. ~Nanamoli's discussion of sabhava, this is it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24246 and here is Nina's trans. of the commentary to Vism.XIV,7: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24600 I will post a full index as soon as Nina finishes with XIV. Larry 54975 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mahayana and social issues lbidd2 Htoo: "I wanted to know 'Buddha-nature' what Mahayana say it is present in all beings. But when I asked I did not received enough information to work over that 'Buddha-nature'." Hi Htoo, Mahayana tends to be mystical so it is hard to get a straight answer to any question. I would say Buddha-nature is the seed of dispassion (alobha). In a sort of mystical or poetic way you could say everything about your experience that isn't specifically lobha is alobha, or potentially alobha. Theravada usually rejects Buddha-nature because its description often sounds exactly the same as the Vedanta experience of Atman (Self). Mahayana of course rejects this accusation, but their defense usually misrepresents Vedanta. Larry 54976 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:16pm Subject: Re: Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na kenhowardau Hi Scott, --------------------------------- S: > My apologies if I came across as bragging or something. The anecdote did seem to fit, although from a different angle. I'd be curious to hear more regarding the difference you note between the jhanas of experience and the jhanas described in the Pali Canon. ------------------------------------ I didn't think you were bragging at all. You simply mentioned your jhana practice in the context of our discussion. In my meditation days I followed the instructions for beginners found in a book called What the Buddha Really Taught (by David Maurice), which advised me not to skip ahead too quickly but to spend a few minutes in each jhana. That is what I did and I genuinely thought I was experiencing the real thing. I wasn't bragging: I thought jhana could be practised by anyone who had a mind to do it. Then I discovered DSG and learned a little Abhidhamma. I learned that the things we think are practised by living beings are actually practised by fleeting, conditioned, impersonal namas and rupas. Jhana, like any other reality, will arise when the conditions for its arising are present. It will not arise when "I" decide it should. Learning a little more Abhidhamma (in particular from the Visuddhimagga) I found that the conditions for jhana were extraordinarily rare - about as rare as the conditions for enlightenment. Basically, I think we can say jhana is possible for people who have "mastered" morality (and not even for all of them). If, in every situation, you can tell the difference between kindness and affection, generosity and expectation-of-reward, wisdom and arrogance, etc, etc, then you have the potential to master morality. Also, of course, you will need enormous powers of detachment to resist the unwholesome alternatives. So jhana is a *follow on* from other extraordinarily wholesome attainments, and it is practised exclusively by truly rare individuals. And even then, it is almost impossible without permanently giving up the household life. ------------------- . . . S: > Why, may I ask, don't you see the need for awareness of jhana factors? ------------------- Any idea of waiting for a "suitable object" (such as jhana or some other kusala dhamma) betrays a lack of understanding of the Buddha's teaching: the past has gone forever and the future has never existed - there is only the present moment. As you know, the way to enlightenment is satipatthana - direct awareness (with right understanding) of a conditioned dhamma. Direct is the key word. Satipatthana is always about knowing a presently arisen dhamma. That knowing, if it is to happen at all, will happen less than a billionth of a second after the object dhamma has fallen away - most likely in the immediately succeeding mind-door citta process. ------------------- S: > I gather that meditation is not the main aspect of your practise. I don't know much but I think meditation is meant to be more than just learning to experience jhana. -------------------- Strictly speaking, the Dhamma is practised only in moments of satipatthana (patipatti), but there is also be a lesser degree of practice - right intellectual understanding (pariyatti). Like all realities pariyatti occurs when the conditions for its occurring are present - not when I want it to occur. So I don't read Dhamma books or take part in DSG discussions with any expectations that I am "practising right intellectual understanding." I do those things because they are what interest me most. --------------------- S: > Cultivating mindfulness, which I think you are referring to, is very important. If I may ask, what are some of the ways in which you do this? ---------------------- Adding to my previous answer, I would remind you there is no self: right mindfulness and insight must be regarded as mere conditioned dhammas. That is, they must be regarded with no attachment at all - they are not I or you or anyone else. So rather than think of myself as cultivating mindfulness, I prefer to know the Dhamma where it lists the factors for enlightenment. They are 1) association with wise friends, 2) hearing the Dhamma, 3) wisely considering the Dhamma, and 4) applying knowledge of the Dhamma to the present moment. (Sorry, no reference but I can find it for you if you like.) ------------------------- S: > As far as getting back to the Dhamma studies, you need only read any of my statements to realise that I definitely need to do that! I'm getting to most Dhamma study for the first time, let alone "back to it." ------------------------- I love hearing the words of K Sujin (as in the "Alone with the Dhamma" series) where she says we must continually start our studies again from the beginning. And so I like to go back to asking, "What is ultimately real and what is ultimately illusory? How are the ultimate realities classified? What is the difference between nama and rupa, citta and cetasika, visible object and audible object (and so on and so forth)?" That was my point: I was not implying that you were in any more need of Dhamma study than are the rest of us. :-) Ken H 54977 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles TGrand458@... Hi Larry, Nina, All Thanks Larry for the source below. Do you happen to know which text is meant by the following... In the Pitakas the word "sabhava" seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). Is it the Patisambhidamagga? At any rate, only one reference in the entire Pitakas. And if I'm correct, a Pitaka considered to be commentarial anyway. It seems the Buddha did not find it a useful term. TG In a message dated 1/23/2006 9:07:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Nina to TG: "You could dive into the Vis. texts that Larry posted to the archives." Hi Nina and TG, If you are referring to Ven. ~Nanamoli's discussion of sabhava, this is it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24246 and here is Nina's trans. of the commentary to Vism.XIV,7: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24600 I will post a full index as soon as Nina finishes with XIV. Larry 54978 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:47pm Subject: Fear & Hatred: same mindstate? antony272b2 Dear Group, I've been taught that fear and hatred are both dosa (aversion). However it seems that people who are afraid receive a lot more compassion than people who are angry. I appreciate the dangers of hatred but I worry a lot and it would wake me up if I learned about the dangers of worry, the dangers that worry has in common with hatred (e.g. ugliness ) Thanks / Antony. 54979 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:12pm Subject: Re: Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na kenhowardau Hi TG, I might owe you an apology. Perhaps I have confused you with another DSG member. Have you not said on several occasions that the Buddha did not teach about paramattha dhammas? And have you not denied the view that dhammas are ultimately real (with their own inherent characteristics) while living beings (for example) are ultimately unreal with no inherent characteristics at all? ------------- TG: > 2) Regarding the last sentence...you must have someone else in mind as I don't believe I've never addressed the issue, I'm not sure how anatta could be taken too far, and I highly approve of formal meditation. -------------- Maybe I was generalising too much. I knew you highly approved of formal meditation, and I was assuming you employed the same arguments other formal meditators have employed against non-meditators. They have said we were putting the cart (understanding) before the horse (practice). They have said anatta should not be taken so far as to mean there is no self that can practice (can direct mindfulness), and thereby become an obstacle to formal (planned, deliberate) meditation. -------------------------- . . . TG: > 2) In the last paragraph, I don't believe I deny what you say I deny. What I dislike is such lofty and substantive terminology to describe an empty afflicting state/condition. I am more comfortable with the way the Buddha described states, events, dhammas.... "Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it toward the deathless element thus: -------------------------- Yes, that is what I have understood you to be saying. I think you are saying we should not be studying the various conditioned dhammas - we should be turning our minds away from such unworthy afflictions. But I understand the above sutta to be saying there is no self that can do such a thing. There are only dhammas, and the way dhammas "turn away" from other dhammas is by thoroughly knowing them exactly the way they are. The study we do here at DSG is just a tiny fraction of the study that is needed. To begin with, we must understand that dhammas are precise mental or physical phenomena: contrary to what you have said, they are not "events." -------------- . . . TG: > I believe if the terms --"ultimate reality" or "own characteristic" -- were added to the above list of how the Buddha recommends one should see the 5 aggregates, it would be the opposite sensibility of what the Buddha wanted to instill in the mind. Therefore I think "ultimate reality" and "own characteristic" are wide of the mark and partially counter-productive. In your post you have attributed several positions to me that I don't take and then, I think, have argued "my supposed point of view" based on those positions. For the clarity of others, I want to retract such attributed positions and arguments as being mine. -------------- No doubt I expressed myself very poorly, but the positions I meant to attribute to you were the same ones you have just attributed to yourself. -------------------- TG: > I appreciate your enthusiasm in wanting dhamma to be presented properly and effectively. I feel the same way, but have a different way of approaching it then you do. When it comes right down to it though, I suspect that the vast majority of our differences are in the way we prefer to use terminology. I am biased toward the Sutta approach of describing states. -------------------- Thank you for taking our disagreements in good spirit. I think the study of paramattha dhammas is vitally important. Otherwise, I would not be harassing you with my contrary points of view. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > Hi Ken H > > In a message dated 1/22/2006 7:33:26 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > kenhowa@g... writes: > > Hi TG, Nina and all, > > I am back after another unscheduled absence. This time with an > excuse - computer breakdown. > > Welcome from me to Scott and Charles G. > > Catching up on messages I notice the question of "own sabhava" has > risen again. TG, I believe you generally disagree with the > Abhidhamma, the commentaries, K Sujin and several DSG'ers on the > basis that they "reify" dhammas when they hold them to be absolutely > real (with their own, inherent characteristics). In other words, you > believe they are not being sufficiently literal in their > interpretation of anatta. This is odd because you usually complain > that they take anatta too far - making formal meditation > impractical. :-) > TG: Two points: 1) I do not generally disagree with Abhidhamma as found in > the seven texts. I largely agree with it. I also generally agree with the > commentaries. 54980 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mahayana and social issues lbidd2 Nina: "Hello Joop, Could you just say a little more on suññatta in your Q. to Kh Sujin?" Hi Nina, According to some, emptiness means dependence. To see the dependence of a dhamma is to see its emptiness. I'm not sure if the insight knowledge discerning cause and condition (paccayapariggaha~n~n.na) could be characterized as "emptiness". M.I,259: Just as, monks, dependent on whatever condition a fire burns, it comes to be reckoned in terms of that condition--(that is to say), a fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a "log-fire"; a fire that burns dependent on faggots is reckoned as a "faggot-fire"; a fire that burns dependent on grass is reckoned as a "grass-fire"; a fire that burns dependent on cow-dung is reckoned as a "cow-dung-fire"; a fire that burns dependent on rubbish is reckoned as a "rubbish-fire"--even so, monks, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent on which it arises. A consciousness arising dependent on eye and forms is reckoned as an "eye-consciousness"; a consciousness arising dependent on ear and sounds is reckoned as an "ear-consciousness"; a consciousness arising dependent on nose and smells is reckoned as a "nose-consciousness"; a consciousness arising dependent on tongue and flavours is reckoned as a "tongue-consciousness"; a consciousness arising dependent on body and tangibles is reckoned as a "body-consciousness"; a consciousness arising dependent on mind and ideas is reckoned as a "mind-consciousness." L: I can see how a formation of conditions could be characterized as asabhava. So the question is, is dependence a characteristic? Larry 54981 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles lbidd2 TG: "Do you happen to know which text is meant by the following... In the Pitakas the word "sabhava" seems to appear only once (Ps.ii,178). Is it the Patisambhidamagga?" Hi TG, Yes, p.357,par.5: "Born materiality is void of individual essence". I think a better trans. for sabhava, in this case, would have been "independent arising". It is a different usage than that in Visuddhimagga. There materiality is sabhava. It could be argued that the "born" adds a host of conditions that make it asabhava. Larry 54982 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:07pm Subject: Hands and Feet ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Any Appearance of Pleasure and Pain emerges from Sense-Contact!!! The Blessed Buddha once pointed out this quite evident yet delicate truth: Bhikkhus, when there are hands, picking up and putting down appears as consequence... When there are feet, coming and going appears as consequence... When there are limbs, bending and stretching appears as consequence... When there is the belly, hunger and thirst appears as consequence...!!! Similarly with these 6 sense-organs, Bhikkhus: When there is an eye, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that eye-contact... When there is an ear, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that ear-contact... When there is a nose, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that nose-contact... When there is a tongue, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that tongue-contact... When there is a body, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that body-contact... When there is a mind, internal pleasure & pain appears, arised from that mental-contact... However, Bhikkhus: When there are no hands, picking up and putting down does never appear... When there are no feet, coming and going does never appear... When there are no limbs, bending and stretching does never appear... When there is no belly, hunger and thirst does never appear...!!! Exactly so with these 6 sense-organs, Bhikkhus: When there is no eye, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... When there is no ear, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... When there is no nose, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... When there is no tongue, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... When there is no body, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... When there is no mind, internal pleasure & pain can never ever arise from that absence... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [171-2] Section 35: The 6 Senses. Salayatana. The Simile on Hands & Feet. Hatthapaadupamaa 236. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 54983 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 0:46am Subject: correction post on Vis. Ch XIV, 225, Comments. to Connie and Larry. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 225. .Text Vis.: 'As to good for one seeing thus': good comes to be accomplished in one who sees in the two ways thus in brief and in detail. ------- N: the word¹good¹ is the translation of the Pali siddhi, accomplishment, success. This refers to someone who has developed insight and has right understanding of naama and ruupa that are classified as five khandhas. -------- Text Vis.: And the way of definition should be known according to that, that is to say, firstly, one who sees the five aggregates as objects of clinging in the form of an enemy with drawn sword, etc., is not worried by the aggregates, ------- N: As we have seen, this refers to seeing them in brief, that is, seeing the khandhas collectively as dangerous, murderous, as a burden. He is not worried by the khandhas. The expression Œnot worried¹ is a translation of the Pali 'na vihaññati', which means: he is not vexed or grieved. Thus, one who is accomplished in insight and sees the five khandhas as impermanent, dukkha and not-self will be liberated from the danger and the burden of the five khandhas. He is not vexed by the worldly conditions of gain and loss, praise and blame, honour and dishonour, bodily ease and misery. -------- Text Vis.: but one who sees materiality, etc., in detail as a lump of froth, etc., is not one who sees a core in the coreless. ------ N: Seeing the khandhas in detail refers to seeing each of the khandhas separately as coreless. They are compared to a lump of froth, a bubble of water, etc. This can only be accomplished by the development of right understanding of whatever dhamma appears at this moment. ******** 54984 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 0:46am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 1 nilovg Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 1 Chapter 4. The Present Moment Acharn Sujin brought us back to the present moment time and again by asking us: ³Is there no seeing now?² I was glad because I am always inclined to think of concepts about people and things I perceive. Concepts are not objects of vipassanå, they are different from visible object, sound, and all the objects that appear through the six doorways. However, thinking itself is a citta and it can be an object of insight. We discussed seeing and visible object time and again. Visible object is a rúpa that impinges on the eyesense. It is experienced by seeing-consciousness that arises in a process of cittas. Visible object or colour is an extremely small rúpa arising in a group of rúpas, it does not arise alone. It arises together with the four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, heat, motion, and other rupas which support it. It falls away immediately and soon afterwards it arises and falls away again. There is not one unit of visible object but countless units arising and falling away. We cannot pinpoint which visible object is experienced at the present moment. There is only an impression or mental image, nimitta, of visible object. This causes us to think that visible object does not fall away. The following sutta deals with the notion of Œsign¹ or mental image, nimitta. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Ch II, § 80, Ignorance, translated by Ven. Bodhi) that a bhikkhu asked the Buddha whether there is one thing through the abandoning of which ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge arises. We read that the Buddha answered: ³Ignorance, bhikkhu, is that one thing through the abandoning of which ignorance is abandoned by a bhikkhu and true knowledge arises.² Ven. Bodhi states in a note to this passage: ³Though it may sound redundant to say that ignorance must be abandoned in order to abandon ignorance, this statement underscores the fact that ignorance is the most fundamental cause of bondage, which must be eliminated to eliminate all the other bonds.² We read further on: ³Here, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu has heard, ŒNothing is worth adhering to¹. When a bhikkhu has heard, ŒNothing is worth adhering to¹, he directly knows everything. Having directly known everything, he fully understands everything. Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs (nimitta) differently. He sees the eye differently, he sees forms differently...whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition... that too he sees differently...² As to the term adhere, this pertains to clinging with wrong view. The Commentary explains the words, ³he sees all signs differently (sabbanimittåni aññato passati)² as follows: ³He sees all the signs of formations (sankhåranimittåni) in a way different from that of people who have not fully understood the adherences. For such people see all signs as self, but one who has fully understood the adherences sees them as non-self, not as self. Thus in this sutta the characteristic of non-self is discussed.² ****** Nina. 54985 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mahayana and social issues htootintnaing Dear Larry, Thanks for your explanation. When paramattha dhamma are seen there will not be any more problem on what is true and what is not true in nature. With deep respect, Htoo Naing ------------------------------------------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Htoo: "I wanted to know 'Buddha-nature' what Mahayana say it is present > in all beings. But when I asked I did not received enough information to > work over that 'Buddha-nature'." > > Hi Htoo, > > Mahayana tends to be mystical so it is hard to get a straight answer to > any question. I would say Buddha-nature is the seed of dispassion > (alobha). In a sort of mystical or poetic way you could say everything > about your experience that isn't specifically lobha is alobha, or > potentially alobha. > > Theravada usually rejects Buddha-nature because its description often > sounds exactly the same as the Vedanta experience of Atman (Self). > Mahayana of course rejects this accusation, but their defense usually > misrepresents Vedanta. > > Larry > 54986 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:37am Subject: Re: Mahayana and social issues htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Dear Joop, Interesting. Everything is empty? No khandhaa. No form, no formation, no feeling, no perception, no consciousness, no ageing , no death? Might be counter script to destroy Bhagavaa's teachings. The scripts are cleanly kept in Theravaada tradition. With Metta, Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > > > Hello Joop, > > Could you just say a little more on suññatta in your Q. to Kh > Sujin? It is > > explained in the suttas as empty of self, or the same as anatta. > Does it > > imply more in Mahayana, or are certain aspects emphasized more, > like in the > > case of karuna? > > Nina. > > > Hallo Nina > > Emptiness or voidness (sunyatta in sanskriet) is in Mahayana not > especially empty of self; more it's empty of everything; I more think > of anicca than of anatta. 54987 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:50am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 635 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa`nkhara paccayaa vi~n~naanaa'. Vinnaanaa or consciousness are conditioned by sankhaara. Here, I think, it is sankhaarakkhandhaa sankhaara rather than other dhamma, which general characteristic is anicca or dukkha or anatta. Sankhaara or sankharakkhandhaa which is led by cetanaa who is the leader of all sankharakkhandhaa is the main culprit of all deeds whether they are good or bad or functional. Here functional cetanaa or 'abyaakata cetanaa' does not give rise to arising of any future vinnaana even though they do condition as sahajaata-paccaya or conascent-condition. Sankhaara paccayaa vinnaanaa. Sankhaara conditions vinnaana. Vinnaanas are conditioned by sankhaara. Sankhaara support consciousness. Consciousness are supported by formation. Without formation consciousness cannot arise. Please consult the reverse Dpendent Origination of 'sankhaara nirodho vinaana nirodho'. Sankhaara support arising of consciousness. These consciousness are 32 lokiiya resultant consciousness or lokiiya vipaaka cittas. They are 1. 7 ahetuka akusala-vipaaka cittas (which are vipaaka) 2. 8 ahetuka kusala-vipaaka cittas (which are vipaaka) 3. 8 sahetuka kusala-vipaaka cittas (which are vipaaka) 4. 5 ruupa-vipaaka cittas ( which are vipaaka) 5. 4 aruupa-vipaaka cittas (which are vipaaka) --------- ++32 vipaaka cittas It is sure that these 32 consciousness are all conditioned by sankharakkhandhaa cetana which is kamma and it can be called apunnaabhisankhaara, punnaabhisankhaara, and anenjaabhisankhaara as all these 3 sankhaara are kamma and sankhaarakkhandhaa. May you 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. Any adding, any correction, any support will be very helpful for all. 54988 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 3, no 6 nilovg Dear Htoo, In the texts it may sometimes seem that the subject is paññatti, but if one understands what the object of satipatthaana is, there is not such confusion. See below. op 23-01-2006 21:59 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...: > I read in Myanmar very well regarding Satipatthaana. But when > I posted on 'foulness' I was thinking that someone might see > the matter as it is not satipatthaana if it is on 'name, concept, > pannatti'. > > In one of my post I wrote there are 261 contemplation on body. 15 > for breathing, 15 for posture, 63 for daily activities, 99 for body > part like teeth, hair, nail, bone etc, 15 for body-element and 54 > for foulness. > > While contemplating on hair, nail, teeth, skin.. > > well this is the area where paramattha lovers may make problem. --------- N: No problem. The field (gocara) of satipatthana is very wide. We may reflect on foulness, or a person may attain jhana with this subject, it is all included as the field of satipatthana. One can reflect on foulness, and then also the citta that reflects can be object of mindfulness. It has conditions, without the teachings one would not reflect on this in the right way. Or jhanacitta, also this is a conditioned dhamma. Long ago Kh Sujin gave a very impressive lecture about the objects of satipatthana, using the Milinda Panhaa. For a long time I could not find this text, since the text deals with memory, but actually sati is referred to. It is Book 3, Ch 7. One may remember with sati dukkha or sukha in the past. I was so touched by Howard's story, the happiness because of a beautiful baby, and then the dukkha because of its handicaps. There can be sati when one remembers sukha and dukkha, so that it is understood that it is not self who remembers. Also when looking up texts, remembering numbers can be the object of sati, otherwise there is an idea of self who does so. Arithmatic or calculation are mentioned in this text. It is relaly daily life isn't it? Another example, I see an old man who looks similar to my late father and then I have metta and karuna. Also such moments can be object of mindfulness. Nothing is excluded from the field of mindfulness, and the more we realize the many opportunities for sati, the less obstructions for sati there are. We can see that it really can arise in daily life. Nina. 54989 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:21am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 365- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (d) sarahprocter... 5Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] Another group of defilements is the ways of clinging or upådåna. There are four ways of clinging (Dhammasangaùi, §1213-1217): -sensuous clinging (kåmupådåna) -clinging to wrong view (diììhupådåna) -clinging to “rules and rituals” (sílabbatupådåna) -clinging to personality belief (attavådupådåna) The first way of clinging, sensuous clinging, comprises clinging to all the objects which can be experienced through the senses (Visuddhimagga, XVII, 243). We should scrutinize ourselves whether there is clinging at this moment. We may not notice that there is clinging very often, after seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or on account of the experience of an object through the mind-door. When we sit on a soft chair there is likely to be clinging already to softness, but we do not notice it. We look at birds, dogs and cats and we do not notice that we tend to cling already before we define what it is that is seen. At the moment of clinging we create a new condition for life to go on in the cycle of birth and death. Clinging is one of the links in the “Dependant Origination” (Paìiccasamuppåda), the conditional arising of phenomena in the round of rebirths. Because of craving (taùhå) there is clinging or firm grasping (upådåna). So long as there is any form of clinging we have to continue to be in the cycle of birth and death. ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 54990 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Larry, and TG & all) - > >In a message dated 1/22/06 5:59:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > > > >>As I see it, what dhammas lack is substance or core. They do however >>have (i.e., exhibit) characteristics, namely, the unique characteristic >>that makes that dhamma what it is and the 3 general characteristics that >>all conditioned dhammas share in common. >> > >--------------------------------------- >Howard: > I agree with this, Jon. Every dhamma, being distinguishable from >others, certainly has (or, perhaps better, *is*) a distinctive quality. >--------------------------------------- > > I am glad to find that we have some points of agreement! ;-)) >>One of those general characteristic is of course that of 'not-self'. >>This is sometimes explained in the texts by saying that dhammas are >>empty of self. To my understanding, the expressions 'empty of self' and >>'having the characteristic of not-self' refer to one and the same thing. >> > >-------------------------------------- > Yes, indeed, The crux of this, however, is what, exactly, is meant by >'not-self'. I don't think that "impersonal" in the sense of neither "me" nor >"mine" is the whole of it, though it is certainly an important aspect, and is >central as regards the empirical person. I think that the crucial meaning is to >not be an independent entity, to not be a thing-in-itself. The self or core >that is lacking is a self-existence and self-sufficiency. The "existence" of >all conditioned dhammas is not only fleeting, but is also not its own, but >"borrowed," so to speak, arising out of the dustpile of already gone and equally >empty conditions, and dependent in addition on other concurrent conditions that >support it. What any conditioned dhamma lacks is its own self as an >independent, stand-alone entity. Not-self isn't nothingness, but it is not a simple >matter, either, but, like dependent origination, and, in fact, the other face of >that coin, is deep, hard to see, and hard to describe. > The characteristic of 'not-self' is defined for us in the suttas, as "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself". As panna develops, I'm sure the exact meaning of this becomes clearer. >... >------------------------------------------------ >Howard: > When I say "own being," I am just using a very clear expression >meaning "self". I don't mean the sabhava that is a synonym for characteristic. Own >being = self = identity = independent existence, as I use the terms. The point >is, what every conditioned dhamma lacks is *exactly* OWN being! >----------------------------------------------- > > To me, expressions like 'lacks own-being' and 'is not a thing-in-itself' have quite a different flavour to the description "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself". I prefer not to stray too far from the terminology found in the suttas and commentaries ;-)) Jon 54991 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 215 and Tiika. sarahprocter... Hi Nina & Larry, As usual, I’m appreciating all your Vism threads. I meant to chip in earlier on this section about upadana khandha. Apologies for being rather behind as usual. As you may recall, I had long discussions before with Steve on upadana khandha vs khandha and eventually you’ll hear some of the long discussions we had with K.Sujin on this topic too. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry, > op 09-01-2006 03:24 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > > > It seems to me that objects don't cause clinging. Ignorance causes > > clinging. Therefore, I would say the 5 khandhas _not_ subject to > > clinging are khandhas experienced as paramattha dhammas (by wisdom). > ------ S: I think that you (Larry) raise a good point. As you say, when there is wisdom there is no clinging. Also, the rupas making up the trees in the forest that are not experienced are surely not upadana khandha now? ..... > N: The only objects that cannot be objects of clinging are the four > lokuttara nama-khandhas, and nibbana, but nibbana is not a khandha. > Khandha > is conditioned dhamma that arises and falls away. .... S: right – these are never the object of clinging. .... > There can be awareness and right understanding of the khandhas that are > susceptible to clinging and at that moment there is no clinging. > However, > this does not make the objects themselves any less khandhas of clinging, > objects that are subject to cankers, liable to clinging. We have to > remember > what the objects are that are not subject to clinging. .... S: The way K.Sujin explains upadana khandha is a little different, I think, from your comment here and some of BB’s you quote. As I mentioned before, she stresses that upadana khandha refers to only the khandha which is the object of clinging at the present moment. As we always point out, the teachings always come back to this moment and what can be known now. If there is awareness of a khandha or it is not experienced at all, I don’t believe these are included in upadana khandha. They are not ‘clung to’ now or subject to cankers now. When the Buddha stressed the difference between khandha and upadana khandha, I don’t think it was just to make the point that the lokuttara cittas (which are not our present concern at all) were not included in the latter category. I think the meaning is deeper. ..... > ------- > L: And the 5 khandhas that _are_ subject to clinging are khandhas > experienced > > as compact wholes (by ignorance). Ignorance ignores paramattha dhammas > > and the result is clinging. It is impossible to cling to a paramattha > > dhamma. > ------- > N: You mean, it is impossible to cling while one sees an object as a > paramattha dhamma. > But all paramattha dhammas that are not lokuttara *can* be objects of > clinging. We cling any time to visible object, to sound , to seeing, to > feeling. These are paramattha dhammas that are liable to clinging, .... S: Yes .... N:> and, > as > said, no matter we cling or do not cling to them, they are khandhas of > clinging. ... S: With respect, I think there’s a difference. If we don’t cling to them, how can they be ‘upadana’ khandhas? .... [> N: As to the expression, by non-analysis (abhedena), the Tiika states > that > this means: by not analysing the khandhas, beginning with ruupa, by > taking > them together as a mass (pi.n.da). > As to the expression, assuming a self (attagaaha), the Tiika states that > they have fallen into the flood of wrong view (di.t.thogha)by the > assuming > of a self as mentioned. .... S: As a side note, this is very helpful] ... > N: > Further, there are five khandhas of clinging: these include all > conditioned > dhammas that are not lokuttara. They are liable to clinging, they can be > objects of clinging. ... S: Again, I agree that any mundane dhammas can be the object of clinging, but I don’t think we can say that all conditioned dhammas are upadana khandha at this moment. The cause of dukkha is the clinging to khandhas, not the khandhas themselves. I would suggest (and I may be wrong of course) that an arahant’s khandhas may be upadana khandha for others, but the arahant himself does not experience upadana khandha. He/she experiences khandhas, but never subject to cankers or as ‘clung to’. .... > Lokuttara namadhammas do not fit into the five khandhas of clinging, > thus > they are included in the bare khandhas. > > As Ven. Bodhi states, the five khandhas of clinging are included within > the > five khandhas. He states: ³...for all members of the former set must > also be > members of the latter set." .... S: This is true. .... > It is helpful for the development of insight to remember that the five > khandhas are also khandhas that are liable to clinging. It gives us a > sense > of urgency to develop wisdom so that we see things as they really are. .... S: Isn’t it by directly understanding the clinging when it arises now that the cause of dukkha can be known at this moment (rather than thinking about how khandhas are liable to clinging)? .... > I am glad you brought this up, because when we read the texts it is not > immediately evident what is meant. ... S: I agree ....I think it’s a very deep topic. I always like the sick-room simile... The sick man, the consciousness aggregate ‘as object of clinging’ The sickness which afflicts, the feeling aggregate ‘as object of clinging’ Etc I’m not sure we can refer to the sick man, the sickness etc when there is no clinging (or other kilesa conditioned by clinging)? Metta, Sarah p.s byw, I don’t think I ever thanked you for giving me the ref to KS 11, 3 for wrong practice inc jhanas etc in the context of D.O. Also, I greatly appreciated the Cambodia series (and your present India one) and reflecting on the many good reminders again in print form. In a footnote to Cambodia 14, no6 for the ayatanas, you wrote: ‘The ayatanas are the twelve bases on which the cittas arising in processes depend. They are the five sense-doors and the mind-door, the five sense objects and the mental object.’ I just question this definition as it could lead to misunderstandings perhaps. What do you think? We can also discuss any points further in Bangkok. =================================================== 54992 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mahayana and social issues upasaka_howard HI< Larry & Htoo - In a message dated 1/23/06 11:11:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Htoo: "I wanted to know 'Buddha-nature' what Mahayana say it is present > in all beings. But when I asked I did not received enough information to > work over that 'Buddha-nature'." > > Hi Htoo, > > Mahayana tends to be mystical so it is hard to get a straight answer to > any question. I would say Buddha-nature is the seed of dispassion > (alobha). In a sort of mystical or poetic way you could say everything > about your experience that isn't specifically lobha is alobha, or > potentially alobha. > > Theravada usually rejects Buddha-nature because its description often > sounds exactly the same as the Vedanta experience of Atman (Self). > Mahayana of course rejects this accusation, but their defense usually > misrepresents Vedanta. > > Larry > ====================== To the best of my understanding, "Buddha Nature" is the potential for complete awakening in all sentoent beings, nothing more and nothing less. It is equivalent to the mind being only adventitiously defiled, but inherently luminous as stated in the Pali suttas. With meta, Hward /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) 54993 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:22am Subject: Bangkok trip rjkjp1 Dear Thailand travellers, I just confirmed my booking to arrive in Bangkok on Sunday February 5 and leave on Feb. 9. Looking forward to seeing many dsg members! Robert 54994 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Scott) - In a message dated 1/23/06 11:18:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Scott, > > --------------------------------- > S: >My apologies if I came across as bragging or something. The > anecdote did seem to fit, although from a different angle. > > I'd be curious to hear more regarding the difference you note between > the jhanas of experience and the jhanas described in the Pali Canon. > ------------------------------------ > > I didn't think you were bragging at all. You simply mentioned your > jhana practice in the context of our discussion. > > In my meditation days I followed the instructions for beginners found > in a book called What the Buddha Really Taught (by David Maurice), > which advised me not to skip ahead too quickly but to spend a few > minutes in each jhana. That is what I did and I genuinely thought I > was experiencing the real thing. I wasn't bragging: I thought jhana > could be practised by anyone who had a mind to do it. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: So maybe you did attain the jhanas, and maybe not. You learned it from some book. So, who knows? ----------------------------------------------- > > Then I discovered DSG and learned a little Abhidhamma. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What's that old adage about a little learning? ;-) --------------------------------------------- I learned that > > the things we think are practised by living beings are actually > practised by fleeting, conditioned, impersonal namas and rupas. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, so? (Of course, the fleeting, conditioned, impersonl namas and rupas don't really practice anything. Saying that they do is to oddly mix levels of speech.) ----------------------------------------------- > Jhana, like any other reality, will arise when the conditions for its > arising are present. It will not arise when "I" decide it should. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise, writing an email post won't occur when "you" decide it should, but only when trillions of specific conditions, including acts of cetana in your mindstream, occur. But we *call* that "your deciding to write and your doing so". ---------------------------------------------- > > Learning a little more Abhidhamma (in particular from the > Visuddhimagga) I found that the conditions for jhana were > extraordinarily rare - about as rare as the conditions for > enlightenment. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! And the source for that is exactly what? (It sure was silly, then, for the Buddha, in his suttas, to have again and again and again urged his monks and nuns to practice jhana. That silly Buddha! Or perhaps all those many references indicate that the Sutta Pitaka is terribly corrupted, and thank God (I mean the ancient commentators) that we have the Abhidhamma to give us the straight Buddha word! -------------------------------------------- > Basically, I think we can say jhana is possible for > people who have "mastered" morality (and not even for all of them). -------------------------------------------- Howard: MASTERED it, you say! Complete mastery is required first? So, no reciprocity? So, it's not the case that a certain degree of sila-engendered calm will enable a degree of concentration that in turn induces further calm, that in turn enables still greater morality, that in turn enables some slight experience with jhanas, which suppresses further the effects of our defilements, that enables greater calm and ease in attaining jhanas, and so on and so forth in an ever-widening spiral of development? Somehow one most be a near saint in morality before any jhanic attainement is possible? What would be the source for that? ----------------------------------------- > > If, in every situation, you can tell the difference between kindness > and affection, generosity and expectation-of-reward, wisdom and > arrogance, etc, etc, then you have the potential to master morality. ---------------------------------------- Howard: So, it seems that one must have (somehow) gained near perfect discernment to even gain the potential for mastering morality, and complete mastery of that is required to embark on cultivation of right concentration. And thus it seems that the Buddha must have taught not just those with but little dust in their eyes, but those who were - somehow - near perfect already. (Man, one wonders how Ananda ever made it!) ----------------------------------------- > Also, of course, you will need enormous powers of detachment to > resist the unwholesome alternatives. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm! It would seem that the jhanas are only for the likes of Superman and other comic book heros! ------------------------------------------ > > So jhana is a *follow on* from other extraordinarily wholesome > attainments, and it is practised exclusively by truly rare > individuals. And even then, it is almost impossible without > permanently giving up the household life. > > ------------------- > . . . > S: > Why, may I ask, don't you see the need for awareness of jhana > factors? > ------------------- > > > Any idea of waiting for a "suitable object" (such as jhana or some > other kusala dhamma) betrays a lack of understanding of the Buddha's > teaching: the past has gone forever and the future has never existed - > there is only the present moment. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep. That's when everything happens - now. ----------------------------------------- > > As you know, the way to enlightenment is satipatthana - direct > awareness (with right understanding) of a conditioned dhamma. Direct > is the key word. Satipatthana is always about knowing a presently > arisen dhamma. That knowing, if it is to happen at all, will happen > less than a billionth of a second after the object dhamma has fallen > away - most likely in the immediately succeeding mind-door citta > process. > > ------------------- > S: >I gather that meditation is not the main aspect of your > practise. I don't know much but I think meditation is meant to be > more than just learning to experience jhana. > -------------------- > > Strictly speaking, the Dhamma is practised only in moments of > satipatthana (patipatti), but there is also be a lesser degree of > practice - right intellectual understanding (pariyatti). > -------------------------------------------- Howard: And also meditating, guarding the senses, attending to what is occurring at any moment, and turning the mind towards lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. The entire practice as laid out by the Buddha. The Buddha didn't say that the Dhamma is nothing but Study Hall! -------------------------------------------- Like all > > realities pariyatti occurs when the conditions for its occurring are > present - not when I want it to occur. So I don't read Dhamma books > or take part in DSG discussions with any expectations that I > am "practising right intellectual understanding." I do those things > because they are what interest me most. ------------------------------------------- Howard: What if pornograhy interested you most instead? Would you spend your time on that instead? Or would you still turn to the Dhamma because you have come to believe that that is better for you and will lead to far greater and truer happiness in the long run? Are you led *only* by what peaks your interest? Should we be? ------------------------------------------ > > --------------------- > S: >Cultivating mindfulness, which I think you are referring to, is > very important. If I may ask, what are some of the ways in which you > do this? > ---------------------- > > Adding to my previous answer, I would remind you there is no self: > right mindfulness and insight must be regarded as mere conditioned > dhammas. That is, they must be regarded with no attachment at all - > they are not I or you or anyone else. So rather than think of myself > as cultivating mindfulness, I prefer to know the Dhamma where it > lists the factors for enlightenment. They are 1) association with > wise friends, 2) hearing the Dhamma, 3) wisely considering the > Dhamma, and 4) applying knowledge of the Dhamma to the present moment. > (Sorry, no reference but I can find it for you if you like.) > > ------------------------- > S: >As far as getting back to the Dhamma studies, you need only > read any of my statements to realise that I definitely need to do > that! I'm getting to most Dhamma study for the first time, let alone > "back to it." > ------------------------- > > I love hearing the words of K Sujin (as in the "Alone with the > Dhamma" series) where she says we must continually start our studies > again from the beginning. And so I like to go back to asking, "What > is ultimately real and what is ultimately illusory? How are the > ultimate realities classified? What is the difference between nama > and rupa, citta and cetasika, visible object and audible object (and > so on and so forth)?" > > That was my point: I was not implying that you were in any more need > of Dhamma study than are the rest of us. :-) > > Ken H > ======================== Ken we've had this out before - many times. I don't actually have any serious hope of getting you to reconsider. I'm writing now because Scott is relatively new to the Dhamma, and I care for him and for his not losing a full perspective on Dhamma practice. I am writing here and now to express my opinion for Scott's sake that your take on the Dhamma is, well, let's say "not the norm." 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) 54995 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:41am Subject: Re: Never enough about knowing nama from rupa, eh? ( was Atta -sa~n~na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thank you for your very kind reply. ----- "Jhana, like any other reality, will arise when the conditions for its arising are present. It will not arise when "I" decide it should." "Learning a little more Abhidhamma (in particular from the Visuddhimagga) I found that the conditions for jhana were extraordinarily rare - about as rare as the conditions for enlightenment. Basically, I think we can say jhana is possible for people who have "mastered" morality (and not even for all of them). . . So jhana is a *follow on* from other extraordinarily wholesome attainments, and it is practised exclusively by truly rare individuals. And even then, it is almost impossible without permanently giving up the household life." ----- Might I please have the reference from the Visudhimagga to which you are referring? I have understood, as you note, that jhana "follows on" from out of a broader set of conditions. I am curious as to the rarity of the experience, which you are asserting. To me, a basic learner, you put it forth that jhana experience is nigh on unattainable (well you don't quite say it that way but you do make a strong statement). I don't think that jhana is something you get out of a cereal box (and I am not hearing you to be saying that I do) but I do not have the sense that it is as rare as you say. One is taught to cultivate jhanas in the overall process of meditation practise. If I have misunderstood the relative ease of attainment of jhana as a preliminary to further practise - meditative or otherwise - I'd be happy to learn more. ----- "Any idea of waiting for a "suitable object" (such as jhana or some other kusala dhamma) betrays a lack of understanding of the Buddha's teaching: the past has gone forever and the future has never existed -there is only the present moment." ----- It is my humble understanding that, when the conditions are right, jhana can arise. It is also my sense that jhana prepares for and accompanies wisdom meditation. I agree that longing for a past jhana experience misses the point, as does waiting for the next one. I doubt I have the credibility to make a point but, were I to have it, I would say that setting the conditions for jhana, through sila and diligence in meditation, will simply allow jhana to arise. What arises falls away. A furtherance of the conditions will be conducive to further jhana to arise. Experiencing jhana, I understand, is not the point either. The practise is preparatory, on the one hand, and meshes with a broader practise. ----- "As you know, the way to enlightenment is satipatthana - direct awareness (with right understanding) of a conditioned dhamma." ----- Satipatthana is "the" way, or "one" way, or part of the practise leading to "enlightenment?" We may be discussing different sets of practise. Do you see bhavana and satipatthana as able to coincide in an overall practise? ----- "Strictly speaking, the Dhamma is practised only in moments of satipatthana (patipatti), but there is also be a lesser degree of practice - right intellectual understanding (pariyatti). Like all realities pariyatti occurs when the conditions for its occurring are present - not when I want it to occur." ----- Are satipatthana and patipatti equivalent? Is bhavana also patipatti? ----- "So rather than think of myself as cultivating mindfulness, I prefer to know the Dhamma where it lists the factors for enlightenment. They are 1) association with wise friends, 2) hearing the Dhamma, 3) wisely considering the Dhamma, and 4) applying knowledge of the Dhamma to the present moment.(Sorry, no reference but I can find it for you if you like.)" ----- Yes please, Ken (on the reference). Thank you for a very interesting discussion, Ken. I think it would be unskillful to debate the relative merits of one form of practise over another, because what works for one (so long as it does conform with what the Buddha taught, of course) may not work for another and this likely reflects one's relative accumulations and the like. I would definitely like to hear more of what you have to say about this. I find that my very early understandings of Abhidhamma teaching do help in the daily practise in the present moment. Looking forward to your reply I am, Sincerely, Scott. 54996 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Trees and Anger (was Re: Did Buddhaghosa (formal) meditate? (Was: Reasons for staying on DSG sarahprocter... Hi Charles G (Cherry), --- Charles wrote: > It sounds like satipatthana. I wonder is satipatthana defined as sati > cetasika so it can appear at the same time with the thinking (so we > can aware of the thinking the same time the thinking arise) or is it > a mahakusala citta, therefore the satipatthana arise after the > thinking, having its object the previous thought process ? ... S: Your questions are very sharp (remind me of Ken O's...you'll meet him here sometime)> Satipatthana refers to sati and panna of realities appearing now. When there's awareness of thinking, it is as you say of its characteristic which appears to the following mind door process. It is still referred to (and for all purposes is) the present reality or object. So one moment thinking about a concept, but immediately that thinking can be the object of awareness. (Of course, sati (awareness) arises with all kusala cittas, so if it's wise thinking about concepts, there is sati, but not sati of satipatthana which is only aware of realities). ... > Another way is that, is it > - to aware of the thinking or > - to think with awareness ... S: I think I've answered this. If it's not clear, pls ask me to clarify. When there's awareness of thinking, it's clear that it's different from thinking with awareness (no satipatthana). Thanks for all your other good questions....I'm behind with reading, so I'll check later to see if anyone else has responded first.... Metta, Sarah ========= 54997 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok trip jonoabb Good news, Rob! Looking forward to catching up again. Jon rjkjp1 wrote: >Dear Thailand travellers, >I just confirmed my booking to arrive in Bangkok on Sunday February 5 >and leave on Feb. 9. Looking forward to seeing many dsg members! >Robert > > 54998 From: "nanapalo" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. nana_palo@... Dear Nina, we are fine (kami baik-baik), thank you. I hope you and your family also in a good health. Please forward my regard to your husband. I think Cherry live in Jakarta. since 2 weeks we have 9 new members from Jakarta (6 Buddhist and 3 Catholic). We are so glad if Cherry could join. Currently we discussed Matter (Rupa) in relation with the four elements meditation and application in daily life. It's subtle enough to comprehend. Am sorry not often post to the group, because limitation of the bandwidth in my town. anumodana for your kind attention. best regards, selamat -----Original Message----- From: nina van gorkom [mailto:vangorko@...] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:15 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Bogor group. to Cherry. Apa Kabar, Selamat, I was hoping you would see my post to Cherry. I am so glad to hear of your activities, and greatly appreciate them. If Cherry can join, I hope he can give us some more news about these. It is so good to hear from you and your group, Nina. op 23-01-2006 15:11 schreef nanapalo op nana_palo@...: > Hi Charles, > we translated Nina's book "Buddhism in Daily Life" ... > > Every Saturday morning 7.30 am-9.15 am, we have a coffee morning and > discussion on Abhidhamma in daily life. ... 54999 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mahayana and social issues jwromeijn Hallo Howard, Larry, Htoo Howard: "To the best of my understanding, "Buddha Nature" is the potential for complete awakening in all sentient beings, nothing more and nothing less. It is equivalent to the mind being only adventitiously defiled, but inherently luminous as stated in the Pali suttas. Although I like the basic optimistic attitude behind "Buddha Nature" and although I like the idea that everything is easy, I'm afraid that there is something more (to say) than "nothing more and nothing less" The concept Tathāgatagarbha (Womb of the Tathāgata) has a rich history, only a part of it is important in our (Theravada-based) discussion. See for example a quote of an essay by Stewart McFarlane (below) about it Metta Joop Stewart McFarlane: Nature and Buddha-nature: The Ecological Dimensions of East Asian Buddhism Critically Considered. … the Hua Yen notion of interdependence of Dharmas, and the developed Chinese Mahayana notions of Buddha-nature and the Japanese interpretation of the teaching of original enlightenment, are precisely those which Hakamaya Noriaki condemns as non Buddhist. Further more he sees the supposed Japanese value of harmony with nature as based on such notions, as simply a retreat into quietism and a justification for inaction and ethical stagnation. He regards the uncritical conflation of "Buddhist" teachings of Original Enlightenment with an undifferentiated Tao, and Chinese concepts of nature and spontaneity as having undermined the distinctive character of Buddhist causal analysis (pratitya samutpada). In India the indigenous way of thinking was, as taught in the Upanisads, to posit a fundamenatal basis or substance such as brahman or atman. Buddhism arose in response to this way of thinking. It denied a spatial and unchanging single topos, and instead that the only truth is a temporal process of conditioned arising (paticccasumppada/pratitya samutpada).... when Buddhism was transmitted to China as a "foreign religion" its central teaching was overturned... and as a result not even a smidgen left of the distinctive features of Buddhism - the Buddhist concepts of conditioned arising and causality have been eliminated in favour of teh indigenous Chinese concept of "nature" or "spontaneity" (Jpn,shizen) (Hakamaya in Hubbard, "Pruning the Bodhi tree", 1997 p 95) He argues that true Buddhism should be based on a correct understanding of the teaching of no-self and its ethical implications. Notions of original enlightenment, the Buddha-nature of natural phenomena and the interpenetration of dharmas are in fact not Buddhist at all, according to Hakayama. Hakayama'a position is based on a radical re-interpretation of Buddhist doctrinal tradition, for him prajna is not illuminating insight or non-conceptual awareness, it is discriminatory knowledge with regard to what is not self, and is causally conditioned. He appears to regard every expression of Buddha-nature and original enlightenment as tainted by substantivism (dhatu vada)and as contradicting the teaching of no-self and as therefore unBuddhist. ….. Hakayama's claim that all teachings of Buddha-nature, tathagatha- garbha and Hua Yen Dharma theory are substantivist, needs to be critically examined, given the extensive qualifications offered in the texts themselves. For example, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana sutra, one of the core texts expounding Buddha-nature, repeatedly warns against interpreting Buddha-nature as a self or atman. "Good sons! If someone maintains that all sentient beings definately possess the Buddha-nature which is eternal, blissful, personal and pure, (and further maintains that the Buddh-nature) is neither produced nor born,but is not percieved by sentient beings due to the presence of defilements, it should be understood that he has slandered the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha" Here Buddha-nature is specifically the means of referring to the potential of all beings to be Enlightened and attain Buddhahood. The use of the expression must be understood as metaphoric…. Another way of saying this is that many expressions of Buddha-nature are skilful evocations of the potential for enlightenment. As such they need not be seen as substantivist or essentialist. Dogen is frequently cited by Hakamaya as one who stood out against the universalising, substantivist tendencies of Tendai, as well as a critic of the easy tendencey to harmonise Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. He castigates those who misread Dogen as an exponent of Original Enlightenemnt and as one who rejects confronting the realities of karma, cause and effect, in favour of an easy universalism and subtantivism. … Dogen clearly rejects the notion of an eternal mental nature which is inherently pure and innately Enlightened. He labels as heretical any teaching which suggest such notions, usually dismissing them as forms of the Senika or naturalistic heresy. … The crucial issue for Dogen is not one of correct doctrine, but correct intention and above all, correct practice. … This brings us to the issue of skilful means. The apparently contradictory statements to be found in Dogen with regard to Buddha- nature, are due to the fact that as a Buddhist teacher he is not trying to make statements which are objectively true, so much as statements who are spiritually appropriate. If a listener understands Buddha-nature as a basis for ethical and spiritual inaction then Dogen will tell that person that there is no Buddha-nature. If another person understands Buddha-nature as the urgent requirement follow the practice and conduct of a Buddha then Dogen will give them the teaching of Buddha-nature. What counts is how beings respond to what is said, which depends on their prior orientation and state of mind. This is of course perfectly consistent with methods of skillful means. Examples of this kind of usage abound in the writings of Dogen. … Dogen is using the contradictory statements themselves to challenge listeners and bring them to higher levels of understanding. The apparent contradictions are nothing more than Dogen's skill, teaching on a level appropriate to the understanding of those hearing and bringing them to a higher level. This is why Dogen both asserts and denies the identity of beings and Buddha-nature. Assertions about the possession or non possession of buddhanature are secondary to the demonstration of Buddha-nature in the practice of the Buddhist. His radically immanenetist assertion of the identity of Buddhahood and natural phenomena, is his way of re-articulating the fundamental Mahayana understanding of the non-differentiation of Samsara and Nirvana. To Dogen this confirms rather than undermines the need for practice. At the same time he rejects the separation of practice from enlightenment. So that one does not follow the precepts, meditate and purify oneself in order to become a Buddha, one does those things to express the Buddhahood already apparent. But it only really becomes apparent when the practice of the Buddha is achieved.