55400 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/2/06 7:42:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I thought you would give me something difficult like"if" or "yesterday". > Each of the two names refer to the 5 khandhas. ---------------------------------------- Howard: C'mon, Larry. The five khandhas is a collection of five collections! Pure pa~n~nati!! ------------------------------------- Self view is a wrong view> > of the 5 khandhas, not a wrong view of an idea. If there is no khandha > there is no self view. Can you think of Larry or Howard without thinking > of realities? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: When I think of Larry and Howard, I'm thinking of a whole bunch of things in some order or other, but not of any one paramattha dhamma. ----------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ps: I'm leaning more toward the idea that pa~n~natti (ideas, etc.) > belong in the 5 khandhas, but that's a secondary issue. > > ========================= 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) 55401 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 2/2/06 8:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > When I think of Larry and Howard, I'm thinking of a whole bunch of > things in some order or other, but not of any one paramattha dhamma. > ----------------------------------------------- > ========================= One more point, Larry: Evenwhen I'm thinking about a paramattha dhamma, that dhamma is not there! When I'm "thinking about hardness," ther's no hardness, just thinking!! 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) 55402 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote: > Btw, a useful resource for the searching the archives of this group is to > go to www.dhammastudygroup.org and to key in the search phrase in ` google' > there at the top. I just did this for `sabbe dhamma anatta'. You get > several entries, click on `cache' for the first two or three and scroll Hi Sarah, I did search for sabbe dhamma anatta in the net using google, that is why I am giving a fresh thing here :P. If it is really the truth, it won't exist in the messages of a single group only right :D I will give another reason for my argument. If I use the anattalakkhana sutta and I state that "the pancakkhandha are anatta" please tell me how will you put nibbana into context of the sutta (below). ---------------------------------------------------- Anattalakkhana Sutta(Samyutta Nikaya XXII, 59) The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu For free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks: "The body, monks, is not self. If the body were the self, this body would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to the body, 'Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus.' But precisely because the body is not self, the body lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to the body, ' Let my body be thus. Let my body not be thus.' "Feeling is not self. If feeling were the self, this feeling would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to feeling, 'Let my feeling be thus. Let my feeling not be thus.' But precisely because feeling is not self, feeling lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to feeling, 'Let my feeling be thus. Let my feeling not be thus.' "Perception is not self. If perception were the self, this perception would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to perception, 'Let my perception be thus. Let my perception not be thus.' But precisely because perception is not self, perception lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to perception, 'Let my perception be thus. Let my perception not be thus.' "Mental processes are not self. If mental processes were the self, these mental processes would not lend themselves to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to mental processes, 'Let my mental processes be thus. Let my mental processes not be thus.' But precisely because mental processes are not self, mental processes lend themselves to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to mental processes, 'Let my mental processes be thus. Let my mental processes not be thus.' "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' "How do you construe thus, monks -- Is the body constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "How do you construe thus, monks -- Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "How do you construe thus, monks -- Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "How do you construe thus, monks -- Are mental processes constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "How do you construe thus, monks -- Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" "No, lord." "Thus, monks, any body whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any feeling whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every feeling -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any perception whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every perception -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any mental processes whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: all mental processes -- are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Any consciousness whatsoever -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness -- is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' "Seeing thus, the instructed Noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with mental processes, & disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. "With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that, ' Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Glad at heart, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through lack of clinging, were released from the mental effluents. ==================================================== 55403 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 6:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta lbidd2 Anattalakkhana Sutta: "And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through lack of clinging, were released from the mental effluents." Hi Charles, This (above) is why nibbana is not self. Self view only arises with clinging. When there is no clinging there is no self view. Nibbana is the cessation of self view. Larry 55404 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 6:52pm Subject: clinging to concepts lbidd2 Howard: "When I think of Larry and Howard, I'm thinking of a whole bunch of things in some order or other, but not of any one paramattha dhamma." Hi Howard, You think of a whole bunch of things one thing at a time and each thing you think of, you think of as Larry or Howard. That is the meaning of thinking rupa etc. is self, or self possesses rupa, or self is in rupa, or rupa is in self. H: "One more point, Larry: Even when I'm thinking about a paramattha dhamma, that dhamma is not there! When I'm "thinking about hardness," there's no hardness, just thinking!!" L: Agreed, but if you thought Larry possessed (owned) hardness (Larry's hardness), which is a self view, that isn't the same as thinking Larry possessed the idea of hardness. Larry ps: I'm bouncing a lot of emails. If I don't respond, please remind me. 55405 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 2:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/2/06 9:55:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Howard: "When I think of Larry and Howard, I'm thinking of a whole bunch > of things in some order or other, but not of any one paramattha dhamma." > > Hi Howard, > > You think of a whole bunch of things one thing at a time and each thing > you think of, you think of as Larry or Howard. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I don't think that's so, Larry. Not each thing. There is a grouping or summing- up operation which then may or may not involve a labeling. ------------------------------------------- That is the meaning of> > thinking rupa etc. is self, or self possesses rupa, or self is in rupa, > or rupa is in self. ------------------------------------------ Howard: That sort of talk of rupa is conventional, and it refers to the body. Nobody thinks that a hardness is oneself. Nobody thinks that an itch is oneself. People generally think of themselves as a conglomerate - for example the whole body, or the mind, or the body-mind. We think "I felt hardness". We think "I'm itchy" or "I have an itch." What that "I" is seems to vary from minute to minute. Often it is something deemed to be entirely separate from any of the khandhic elements. Even when it is identified with consciousness, that is not a real consciousness, an operation that arises and ceases, but is a thought-of consciousness principle that is an alleged continuing, substantial "mindstuff" as in Sati's error. ---------------------------------------- > > H: "One more point, Larry: Even when I'm thinking about a paramattha > dhamma, that dhamma is not there! When I'm "thinking about hardness," > there's no hardness, just thinking!!" > > L: Agreed, but if you thought Larry possessed (owned) hardness (Larry's > hardness), which is a self view, that isn't the same as thinking Larry > possessed the idea of hardness. > > Larry > > ps: I'm bouncing a lot of emails. If I don't respond, please remind me. > ======================== With metta, A cetasika (LOLOL!) /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) 55406 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 7:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > This (above) is why nibbana is not self. Self view only arises with > clinging. When there is no clinging there is no self view. Nibbana is > the cessation of self view. Hi Larry, I do not have disagreement with this, but if anatta is defined as lacking of self view then the pancakkhandha are not anatta because they are associated with self-view. But if anatta means that the pancakkhandha are not atta (of beings) then nibbana as the cessation of the view of atta would not be appropriate if stated as anatta. Or if the meaning of anatta is different on pancakkhandha and on nibbana, then the phrase sabbe dhamma anatta is actually different context merged into one which I believe must be defined explicitly or it will cause wrong assumptions. The problem arise when anatta is viewed from the point of abhidhamma where there is no satta (being) other than the rupa, citta, and cetasika. But some people still trying to get the characteristic of anatta into these paramattha dhammas and thus defining anatta as the lack of essence of the paramattha dhammas itself, ie the dhammas itself exist but is without essence. Now I think this is different from the meaning of anatta the Buddha taught in the suttas. In the suttas, beings view the pancakkhandha as their atta (ie essence). But as the pancakkhandhas are composed (sankhara) and is impermanent and unsatisfying, thus it is not the essence of being. 55407 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 7:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Larry: "That is the meaning of> thinking rupa etc. is self, or self possesses rupa, or self is in rupa, or rupa is in self. " ------------------------------------------ Howard: "That sort of talk of rupa is conventional, and it refers to the body. Nobody thinks that a hardness is oneself. Nobody thinks that an itch is oneself. People generally think of themselves as a conglomerate - for example the whole body, or the mind, or the body-mind. We think "I felt hardness". We think "I'm itchy" or "I have an itch." What that "I" is seems to vary from minute to minute. Often it is something deemed to be entirely separate from any of the khandhic elements. Even when it is identified with consciousness, that is not a real consciousness, an operation that arises and ceases, but is a thought-of consciousness principle that is an alleged continuing, substantial "mindstuff" as in Sati's error." " Hi Howard, This is new to me. The Buddha talking about the 5 khandhas is conventional? Self view is identifying with the idea of the 5 khandhas??? I don't see that. For one thing, the idea of the 5 khandhas is, according to abhidhamma, not impermanent. Larry 55408 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 8:13pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Joop, ---------- J: > I think you are interested in some quotes of Karunadasa about that topic in a DSG-message I just send. ---------- Thanks, but I only got halfway through it and skimmed over the rest. I didn't notice anything new or controversial. Which parts did you find of particular interest? ----------------- <. . .> J: > And your question about ordinary logic is a difficult one: I believe the doctrines of anicca, anatta and dukkha are true but they (and my belief in them) are not the result of logic; life is not logic to me. ----------------- I have heard it said that we uninstructed worldlings are mentally ill. There is no denying we believe in some illogical concepts. We live our lives as if the past and the future were all-important and the present moment was inconsequential. On the other hand, the teaching of paramattha dhammas is logical. It maintains that the past no longer exists, the future has never existed and there is only the present moment. Concepts (of things persisting from the past to future future) are mere illusions. I think most of DSG's disagreements occur when one party confuses paramattha reality with conceptual reality. Ken H 55409 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 8:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta lbidd2 Charles: "But some people still trying to get the characteristic of anatta into these paramattha dhammas and thus defining anatta as the lack of essence of the paramattha dhammas itself, ie the dhammas itself exist but is without essence." Hi Charles, These people misunderstand essence (sabhava). Sabhava is impermanent, self is wrongly thought to be permanent, or at least lasting. All conditioned (sankhara) dhammas are impermanent, not lasting for even a second. Their sabhava is their distinguishing characteristic, what makes rupa different from vedana. The sabhava of conditioned dhammas is impermanent. Conditioned dhammas are not self because they are impermanent. Wrong view thinks conditioned dhammas are permanent or lasting. This is a misunderstanding, a mistake. Nibbana's sabhava is said to be peace. This is not impermanent but it is also not self because self is a mistake and nibbana is the end of mistakes. Larry 55410 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 8:29pm Subject: Re: clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > L: Agreed, but if you thought Larry possessed (owned) hardness (Larry's > hardness), which is a self view, that isn't the same as thinking Larry > possessed the idea of hardness. Hi Larry, If you put a bowl of water, and putting two positive and negative electrode in it, hydrogen H2 molecules will be formed on the negative electrode, and oxygen molecules will be formed on the positive electrode (Please forgive me if the location of the electode is false, I do not really remember :D). If only you can see the hydrogen and oxygen flying up to the air, will you say "this is water" or "water posesses this molecules". At the time the hydrogen and oxygen is seen, the idea of water vanishes. The same way, "Larry possesses hardness" is a contradictory statement. A contradictory statement can not even to be said right or wrong. At the time the idea of hardness is seen, the idea of Larry vanishes. Because we cannot see hardness we see Larry. When we see hardness we do not see Larry. Larry and hardness cannot be the same thing. Why? Because Larry's atta is the pancakkhanhas called as Larry. But hardness is not the atta of the pancakkhandhas. Therefore simple logic prove that Larry and hardness cannot be the same thing. But Larry and hardness share the same existence. This cannot be, two different things share the same existence. Therefore only hardness exist, there is no Larry. We cannot mix Larry and hardness, not even as a sentence. We cannot mix samutti and paramattha sacca. If we can then the different of samutti and paramattha would only be to the level of the words used. 55411 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/2/06 11:01:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Howard: > "That sort of talk of rupa is > conventional, and it refers to the body. Nobody thinks that a hardness > is oneself. Nobody thinks that an itch is oneself. People generally > think of themselves as a conglomerate - for example the whole body, or > the mind, or the body-mind. We think "I felt hardness". We think "I'm > itchy" or "I have an itch." What that "I" is seems to vary from minute > to minute. Often it is something deemed to be entirely separate from any > of the khandhic elements. Even when it is identified with consciousness, > that is not a real consciousness, an operation that arises and ceases, > but is a thought-of consciousness principle that is an alleged > continuing, substantial "mindstuff" as in Sati's error." " > > Hi Howard, > > This is new to me. The Buddha talking about the 5 khandhas is > conventional? Self view is identifying with the idea of the 5 > khandhas??? I don't see that. For one thing, the idea of the 5 khandhas > is, according to abhidhamma, not impermanent. > > Larry > ============================ I've seen numerous suttas in which the Buddha uses 'rupa' to refer to the body, particularly showing the inpermanence of "form" by pointing out how the body ages, decays, and dies. There are some really good examples that I've seen, but, unfortunately, I'll have to depend on others to come up with them, for all that I can come up with right now are the following so-so two: (From SN XXII.1, Nakulapita Sutta, To Nakulapita) There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration. [Please note the last sentence!! It the body that definitely is referred to.] _____________________ (From SN XXII.79, Khajjaniya Sutta, Chewed Up) "And why do you call it 'form'?1 Because it is afflicted,2 thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. [What is it if not the body that is afflicted by these 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) 55412 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Larry I think this sutta will "fill the bill"... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) TG In a message dated 2/2/2006 10:05:10 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I've seen numerous suttas in which the Buddha uses 'rupa' to refer to the body, particularly showing the inpermanence of "form" by pointing out how the body ages, decays, and dies. There are some really good examples that I've seen, but, unfortunately, I'll have to depend on others to come up with them, for all that I can come up with right now are the following so-so two: (From SN XXII.1, Nakulapita Sutta, To Nakulapita) There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration. [Please note the last sentence!! It the body that definitely is referred to.] _____________________ (From SN XXII.79, Khajjaniya Sutta, Chewed Up) "And why do you call it 'form'?1 Because it is afflicted,2 thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form. [What is it if not the body that is afflicted by these things?] ===================== With metta, Howard 55413 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 9:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts lbidd2 Charles: "We cannot mix samutti and paramattha sacca. If we can then the different of samutti and paramattha would only be to the level of the words used." Hi Charles, I agree. Mixing true and false is false, a mistake. "Larry's hardness" is self view and self view is wrong view. Right view is, "rupa is not self, self does not possess rupa, self is not in rupa, rupa is not in self." And the same for the other khandhas. Larry 55414 From: "Charles" Date: Thu Feb 2, 2006 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > self is wrongly thought to be permanent, or at least lasting. All > conditioned (sankhara) dhammas are impermanent, not lasting for even a > second. Hi Larry, It is not wrong to think that self is permanent or lasting, but the wrong thing is to think that such self exist :P (in the sense of self that you mean) 55415 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 0:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 370- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (i) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Htoo: "Dear Larry, > You said 'Hindrance can *only arise* without meditation.' > Did you mean 'Hindrance cannot arise with meditation'?" > > Hi Htoo, > > Yes, that's my understanding. How do you see it? > > Larry ----------------- Dear Larry, I agree. But this will depend on definition of meditation. With respect, Htoo Naing 55416 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 0:33am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Vi~n~naana paccayaa naama-ruupam'. Any thought on the previous post? No? OK. 'Naama-ruupa paccayaa salaayatanaa'. Mentality-materiality as a supporting condition 6-sense-bases have to arise. 6-sense-bases are conditioned by mentality-materiality. Mentality and materiality give conditions for 6-sense-bases. What are 6-sense-bases? They are cakkaayatana or eye-sense-base, sotaayatana or ear-sense- base, ghaanayatana or nose-sense-base, jivhaayatana or tongue-sense- base, kaayaayatana or body-sense-base, and manaayatana or mind-sense- base. Here these 6 sense-bases need to be understood. 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. 55417 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 1:16am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jwromeijn To all, interested in the two levels of truth The last part of Karunadasa: "The Dhamma Theory; Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma" (see below) I someone is interested, I can send the 'Notes' too. (Earlier primary messages: #55304, #55311, #55350 and #55384) My (less important than Karunadasa) conclusions and personal opinions 1 An eye-opener to me is the remark "one misconception about the Theravada version of double truth is that paramattha-sacca is superior to sammuti-sacca and that what is true in the one sense is false in the other. This observation that the distinction in question is not based on a theory of degrees of truth …" This makes Abhidhamma less mystical! 2 "THE TRUTH" (that is: all the realities together) as such is unknowable, all we can do is make a theory of it, a model, a language". It depends on the purpose with theory is the best; for awakening accordings the Teachings of the Buddha the model of "the ultimate truth" is the best - but not the only - one. 3 "Concepts" are illusions; and an illusion can be dangerous if one thinks it is part of THE TRUTH; especially the concept "atta" can be dangerous. 4 A ultimate reality, a dhamma, only exists at the moment it is experienced (a few miliseonds); outside that miliseconds it is not a reality. 5 Difficult for me is the last remark of Karunadasa: "Although they [sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca] are formally introduced as two kinds of truth, they are explained as two modes of expressing what is true. They do not represent two degrees of truth of which one is superior or inferior to the other. … The great advantage in presenting sammuti and paramattha in this way is that it does not raise the problem of reconciling the concept of a plurality of truths with the well-known statement of the Suttanipata: 'Truth is indeed one, there is no second' " This conclusion needs more reflection of me. Perhaps of others too?? 6 Partly again, from my first message: There are two (levels of) realities; we need both: NO AWAKENING WITHOUT CONCEPTS Metta Joop "The Dhamma Theory; Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma" by Y. Karunadasa (Wheel Publication No. 412/413) www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm " III. PANNATTI AND THE TWO TRUTHS (last part) " … The validity of the two kinds of statement corresponding to sammuti and paramattha is set out as follows: Statements referring to convention-based things (sanketa) are valid because they are based on common agreement; statements referring to ultimate categories (paramattha) are valid because they are based on the true nature of the real existents.142 As shown here, the distinction between the two truths depends on the distinction between sanketa and paramattha. Now, sanketa includes things which depend for their being on mental interpretations superimposed on the category of the real.143 For instance, the validity of the term "table" is based, not on an objective existent corresponding to the term, but on mental interpretation superimposed on a congeries of material dhammas organized in a particular manner. Although a table is not a separate reality distinct from the material dhammas that enter into its composition, nevertheless the table is said to exist because in common parlance it is accepted as a separate reality. On the other hand, the term paramattha denotes the category of real existents (dhammas) which have their own objective nature (sabhava). Their difference may be set out as follows: When a particular situation is explained on the basis of terms indicative of the real elements of existence (the dhammas), that explanation is paramattha-sacca. When the self-same situation is explained on the basis of terms indicative of things which have their being dependent on the mind's synthetic function (i.e. pannatti), that explanation is sammuti-sacca. The validity of the former is based on its correspondence to the ultimate data of empirical reality. The validity of the latter is based on its correspondence to things established by conventions. As pointed out by K.N. Jayatilleke in his Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, one misconception about the Theravada version of double truth is that paramattha-sacca is superior to sammuti-sacca and that "what is true in the one sense is false in the other." 144 This observation that the distinction in question is not based on a theory of degrees of truth will become clear from the following free translation of the relevant passages contained in three commentaries: Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti- katha, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-katha. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-katha. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-katha. To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-katha, the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-katha, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha- katha, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-katha. There is this simile on this matter. Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-katha. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths that the Buddha presents his teaching either by way of sammuti or by way of paramattha or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.145 As shown from the above quotation, the penetration of the truth is possible by either teaching, the conventional or the ultimate, or by the combination of both. One method is not singled out as superior or inferior to the other. It is like using the dialect that a person readily understands, and there is no implication that one dialect is either superior or inferior to another. What is more, as the commentary to the Anguttara Nikaya states specifically, whether the Buddhas preach the doctrine according to sammuti or paramattha, they teach only what is true, only what accords with actuality, without involving themselves in what is not true (amusa'va).146 The statement: "The person exists" (= sammuti-sacca) is not erroneous, provided one does not imagine by the person a substance enduring in time. Convention requires the use of such terms, but as long as one does not imagine substantial entities corresponding to them, such statements are valid.147 On the other hand, as the commentators observe, if for the sake of conforming to the ultimate truth one would say, "The five aggregates eat" (khandha bhunjanti), "The five aggregates walk" (khandha gacchanti), instead of saying: "A person eats," "A person walks," such a situation would result in what is called voharabheda, i.e. a breach of convention resulting in a breakdown in meaningful communication.148 Hence in presenting the teaching the Buddha does not exceed linguistic conventions (na hi Bhagava samannat atidhavati),149 but uses such terms as "person" without being led astray by their superficial implications (aparamasat voharati).150 Because the Buddha is able to employ such linguistic designations as "person" and "individual" without assuming corresponding substantial entities, he is called "skilled in expression" (vohara-kusala).151 The use of such terms does not in any way involve falsehood.152 Skilfulness in the use of words is the ability to conform to conventions (sammuti), usages (vohara), designations (pannatti), and turns of speech (nirutti) in common use in the world without being led astray by them.153 Hence in understanding the teaching of the Buddha one is advised not to adhere dogmatically to the mere superficial meanings of words.154 The foregoing observations should show that according to the Theravada version of double truth, one kind of truth is not held to be superior to the other. Another interesting conclusion to which the foregoing observations lead is that as far as the Theravada is concerned, the distinction between sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca does not refer to two kinds of truth as such but to two ways of presenting the truth. Although they are formally introduced as two kinds of truth, they are explained as two modes of expressing what is true. They do not represent two degrees of truth of which one is superior or inferior to the other. This explains why the two terms, katha (speech) and desana (discourse), are often used with reference to the two kinds of truth.155 In this respect the distinction between sammuti and paramattha corresponds to the distinction made in the earlier scriptures between nitattha and neyyattha. For, as we saw earlier, no preferential value-judgement is made between nitattha and neyyattha. All that is emphasized is that the two kinds of statement should not be confused. The great advantage in presenting sammuti and paramattha in this way is that it does not raise the problem of reconciling the concept of a plurality of truths with the well-known statement of the Suttanipata: "Truth is indeed one, there is no second" (ekat hi saccat na dutiyam atthi).156 55418 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts and other irrealities (3) jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > Why don't you focus on one or two points and then offer your own view. > That would be easier to respond to. > > Larry > Hallo Larry I thought this is Dhamma STUDY Group and not Dhamma View Group? But I made some conclusions in nr. 5 of my little series. Please only respond when you have read Karunadasa (I really didn't like your 'joke') Joop 55419 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 4:05am Subject: Good Friendship Shines ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Good Friend can show one the Right Way even to Eternal Bliss!!! At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, as dawn is the initiator and messenger of the rising sun, exactly & even so too, Bhikkhus, is Good Friendship the forerunner and originator for the arising of the Noble Eightfold Way, since when a Bhikkhu has a good friend, it is to be expected that he will develop, cultivate & complete this Noble Eightfold Way... And how does a Bhikkhu develop, cultivate & perfect this Noble Eightfold Way... A Bhikkhu first develops Right View, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release....Then he develops Right Motivation, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release.... Then he develops Right Speech, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release.... Then he develops Right Action, which also is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release.... Then he also develops Right Livelihood, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, & culminating in release. Then he develops Right Effort, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release. Then he develops Right Awareness, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in release.... Finally he develops Right Concentration, which is based upon seclusion, disillusion, ceasing, and culminating in mental release.... It is in this way, Bhikkhus, that a Bhikkhu, who has a good & mentally beautiful friend develops, cultivates & consummates this supreme Noble Eightfold Way! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book V [30] 45: The Way. Magga. Good & Beautiful Friendship. Kalyanamittata 244. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a boundless & infinite mind, Above, below, across & all around, unobstructed, freed of irritation & hate. Sutta Nipata I, 8 The friend who is a helpmate, the friend in happiness and woe, the friend who gives good counsel, the friend who sympathizes too -- these four as friends the wise behold and cherish them devotedly as does a mother her own child. Digha Nikaya 31 Who is hospitable, and friendly, Tolerant, generous and unselfish, A guide, an instructor, a leader, Such a one to honour may attain. Digha Nikaya 31 One is not wise just because one speaks much. He who is peaceable, friendly & fearless is called wise. Dhammapada 258 If you find a wise and clever friend who leads a good and pure life, you should, overcoming all obstacles, keep his company joyously and aware. Dhammapada 328 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <....> 55420 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 4:28am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 374- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (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;-) ========================================== [Ch22 -Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 contd] In order to eradicate defilements we should have patience to develop understanding gradually. It is essential to know the difference between the moments we are absorbed in thinking of concepts, such as people and possessions, situations or events of life, and the moments of mindfulness which is aware of only one reality at a time as it presents itself through one of the six doors. We should not try to suppress thinking, it is real; it arises because it is conditioned. Thinking can be object of mindfulness, it can be known as a type of nåma, arising because of its own conditions, not self. There is not only thinking, there are also seeing, visible object, hearing or sound, but we are mostly forgetful of these realities. We are used to paying attention only to concepts, but gradually we can learn to be mindful of realities. We cannot expect to have full understanding of realities at once. If we are intent only on what appears at the present moment we do not worry about the fact that understanding will have to be developed for a long time, even for many lives. There is no self who has understanding, it is understanding, paññå cetasika, which can develop and see things as they really are. We tend to forget that paññå is a conditioned nåma. ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 55421 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts and other irrealities (3) sarahprocter... Hi Joop (& Larry), --- Joop wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > > Hi Joop, > > > > Why don't you focus on one or two points and then offer your own > view. > > That would be easier to respond to. > > > > Larry > > > Hallo Larry > > I thought this is Dhamma STUDY Group and not Dhamma View Group? > But I made some conclusions in nr. 5 of my little series. Please only > respond when you have read Karunadasa (I really didn't like > your 'joke') ..... S: I've glanced at but not yet read your reflections in nr 5, but will look f/w to doing so. I'm glad to see you raising and discussing this topic and also look f/w to yr further discussions with Ken H, Larry and others. (sorry, no chance to join in properly). Just a quick point to say that I read Larry as just trying to encourage discussion with you. I think most people find it easier to discuss reflections, conclusions or points with a poster rather than a long, very detailed text, however worthy it may be. This time, it didn't sound like a joke to me, just a show of interest and a kind suggestion. There's so much material, maybe you can discuss just a para at a time w/him:-). On yr other comment about it being time DSG took a look at sth new like this article, I have a little news for you: many of us have quoted from and discussed it before, (which doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed again - i hope it will be!). I personally think it contains a lot of excellent material. If you go through U.P. on 'concepts and realities' and 'concepts', you'll find shorter extracts if I recall. Also, if you were to put 'Karunadasa' into google on www.dhammastudygroup.org and scroll down the entries that show up, you might have a pleasant surprise!! Metta, Sarah ======= 55422 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta sarahprocter... Hi Charles Cherry & Steve, Just in brief, I can u'stand why you were disappointed w/my quick post - I was just trying to help as Nina was leaving, but hadn't read any of the posts after the early one I responded to. They made it quite redundant. Steve,I was v.interested in your post (as usual, right on the mark)and the comy and mahasi remarks. Excellent! Cherry, yes, anattalakkhana sutta about the anattaness of the khandhas...by understanding these as beyond control, beyond self, one becomes detached, dispassioned towards them and the mind turns to the unconditioned dhamma or element, nibbana. Still an element, still anatta, still w/ sabhava. Nth relating to self concerning it, otherwise, like w/the examples of the khandhas, it could be made to be this way or that. I don't quite understand yr point that we're all missing (I know it's deep) and will have to just read yr discussions for now. Steve, can you assist and help get to the bottom of C.C's concerns together? sorry, I just can't do them justice now, but will follow w/interest. metta, Sarah (from Bangkok) p.s tomorrow will be seeing KS, Nina and friends in bkk PLUS my mother will be arriving. I haven't seen her for 18mths so both she and I are v.excited. ================= 55423 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:02am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > ... Hallo Ken KenH: "I didn't notice anything new or controversial." Joop: A little bit new is that is spoken of two (levels of) reality. Many times in DSG when the term "realities" is used, for example by Nina, only ultimate ones were thought was. "Concepts" are most times seen in DSG as something inferior. KenH: "Which parts [of Karanudasa] did you find of particular interest?" Joop: see my "conclusions and opinions" in #55417 KenH: " I have heard it said that we uninstructed worldlings are mentally ill" Joop: I have worked with people who really are mentally (psychiatric) ill, so I will not say so. KenH: "There is no denying we believe in some illogical concepts." Joop: I will not deny that but I state that life is not understandable in the logic way 'If A=B AND A=C then A=C 'Anicca' can not be logically deduced from some other principles or axiomata KenH: " We live our lives as if the past and the future were all- important and the present moment was inconsequential. On the other hand, the teaching of paramattha dhammas is logical. It maintains that the past no longer exists, the future has never existed and there is only the present moment. Concepts (of things persisting from the past to future future) are mere illusions. I think most of DSG's disagreements occur when one party confuses paramattha reality with conceptual reality. Joop: I agree with this, all I can add to "concepts are mere illusions" is that in explaining the Dhamma conceptual language was and is inevitable. Metta Joop 55424 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote: > Just in brief, I can u'stand why you were disappointed w/my quick post - I Hi Sarah, Dukkha ariya sacca, not getting what someone want is misery. Please ignore about my statement on being disappointed, it is everyday thing :D. I thank you for your response. Not that I do not appreciate it, only it was not as what I expected (I did not expect you will agree with me, I was only expecting reasons) These are my points I am investigating on these thing/views 1. sabbe dhamma anatta 2. nibbana is asankhata dhamma, therefore it is included in the word dhamma 3. from (1) and (2) then nibbana is anatta 4. paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are void of essence Then I got these quotes 1. sabbe dhamma anatta, is mentioned in the Dhammapada. The Dhammapada commentary on this phrase explains -------------------------------------------------- Tattha sabbe dhammaati pa~ncakkhandhaa eva adhippetaa. There (in that place) 'sabbe dhammaa' means the five aggregates. ================================================== From Steve #55348 2. also from Steve #55348 on Ven Mahasi Sayadaw's text -------------------------------------------------- Sabbe dhamma anatta tiyada paññaya passatiatha nibbindati dukkheesa maggo visuddhiya. Dhamma in this verse has the same purpose as samkhara of the previous two verses, meaning mundane mentality and corporeality as perceived by insight knowledge. .... But there are other views which hold that the word dhamma is purposely used here to include the supramundane Path, Fruition and the unconditioned Nibbana as well. We believe this interpretation is not quite tenable. ================================================== http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mahasi-anat/anat08.htm I do not want to say that other people's view are wrong, so maybe I am not being on the point. In this case, stated explicitly I think that nibbana is not anatta (and that does not mean that it is atta either). If people are just saying, nibbana is anatta or nibbana is not anatta without putting the reasons why they think so, then it is like two children saying, this is mine, no this is mine :D. Now on the statement that hardness is empty of its own essence. Hardness is a concept given to the ultimate reality of the element of hardness. Now because the ultimate reality of hardness exist, then the ultimate reality of the element of hardness is the essence of the hardness concept. Compare it with the atta-ditthi Being is a concept given to the pancakkhandha. Not because there is no pancakkhandha other than the formation of the ultimate reality of forms, cittas, and cetasikas, then beings is really without essence (atta) -> in other words, a concept without reality, fake, like the concept of a mosquito wearing hat, OK, how many of you would think that a mosquito without hat is :D?. Therefore the pancakkhandha are not the atta (anatta) of beings. Therefore the view that "Sarah is" for example :D is eliminated. But it is perfectly right to think that "hardness is", because hardness is a concept for the ultimate reality of hardness and it does exist. 55425 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 6:32am Subject: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi, I am not clear on the meaning of atta. Please correct the examples below about what is the atta of what (in conventional truth) if the example is wrong. - the atta of a being is the 5 khandhas - the atta of a tree is wood and leaves - the atta of a house is the woods, bricks, etc - the atta of a computer is the monitor, CPU, keyboard, mouse - the atta of a hardness is the ultimate reality of the element of hardness Thank you. 55426 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Larry) - In a message dated 2/3/06 12:40:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard and Larry > > I think this sutta will "fill the bill"... > > > “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great > elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and > porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to > dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported > by it > and bound up with it.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, > Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) > TG > ========================= Thanks. :-) Yes, this does help, with its mentioning of the impermanence of the body. The one respect with which this sutta falls short as an example, though, is that it doesn't explicitly use 'form' or 'rupa'. I believe there are similar suttas where form as body is talked about. 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) 55427 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi again, TG (and Larry) - Even paying no attention to the translator's parenthetical use of 'form', here is a pretty good example of the suttic use of 'from' to indicate the body. With metta, Howard * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "And what is gratification in the case of form (body)? "Suppose there were a girl of warrior-noble cast or brahmin caste or householder stock, in her fifteenth or sixteenth year, neither too tall nor too short, neither too thin nor too fat, neither too dark nor too fair: is her beauty and loveliness then at its height?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Now the pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on that beauty and loveliness are the gratification in the case of form. "And what is danger in the case of form? "Later on one might see that same woman here at eighty, ninety or a hundred years, aged, as crooked as a roof, doubled up, tottering with the aid of sticks, frail, her youth gone, her teeth broken, grey haired, scanty-haired, bald, wrinkled, with limbs all blotchy: how do you conceive this, bhikkhus, has her former beauty and loveliness vanished and the danger become evident?" "Yes, venerable sir. "Bhikkhus, this is the danger in the case of form."— M. 13, "The Mass of Suffering," trans. Ven. ÑanamoliN.B. Women reading this should change the sex of the person in the above. /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) 55428 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG, Larry, and all - In a message dated 2/3/06 11:25:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Hi again, TG (and Larry) - > > Even paying no attention to the translator's parenthetical use of > 'form', here is a pretty good example of the suttic use of 'from' to > indicate the > body. > > With metta, > Howard > ====================== Let me correct that content, please! ;-) It should have been as follows: ____________________ Even paying no attention to the translator's parenthetical use of 'body', here is a pretty good example of the suttic use of 'form' to indicate the body. ----------------------------------- Sorry. :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55429 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 5th anniversary of DSG - Audio discussion between Erik & A.Suji... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Matheesha) - Below I include a few responses to parts of this long and detailed post of yours: In a message dated 2/1/06 3:19:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard (Matheesha &all), > > Firstly, welcome back Matheesha*. I’m just getting round to responding to > a post of Howard’s addressed to us both before you went away! > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >>S: More on nibbana to come in the next audio sections. > >> > >>I think the point is that all that can ever be known (yes, by > >panna:-)) > >>are the namas and rupas appearing now. Nibbana is not apparent and so > >all > >>we can do is to speculate about it now. It won’t help us realize it > >at > >>all. Such realization will only come about by highly developed > >>understanding and detachment from the presently conditioned dhammas > >>appearing. > > > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > The foregoing troubles me a bit, Sarah, on several accounts. For > >one > >thing, it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are known by many, if not > >all, of > >our mental operations, including, among others, vi~n~nana (most > >especially), > >sa~n~na (possibly taking second place), and vedana. > .... > S: Yes, of course there has to be citta (vi~n~naana) experiencing the > object and sa~n~naa and other mental factors performing their functions > too. But as in the passage Larry recently posted made clear, pa~n~naa is > what illuminates the object, like when the money-changer assesses the > value of the coins. > > Here’s another translation of a similar passage in the commentary to the > Abhidhamattha Sangaha (PTS), Ch2, Mentalities: > > “Wisdom (pa~n~naa) is what knows the way (pakaarena) [of things]; it > understands them as impermanent, etc. As it is suited to predominance in > understanding the true nature [of things] it is a controlling faculty, the > faculty of wisdom (pa~n~nindriya). > > “Now what is the difference between the recognition, consciousness and > wisdom? Recognition (S: sa~n~naa) only does the job of recognizing > (something) as blue, etc; it is not able to penetrate its characteristics. > Consciousness (S: vi~n~naana or citta) is capable of penetrating the > characteristics, but having performed this task, it is not able to bring > about attainment of the path. Wisdom, however, can do all three. The > relevant illustration is the way a child, villager, and a goldsmith > [respectively] understand a coin. And here, when recognition is > dissociated from knowledge at the time it arises byway of apprehending the > appearance [of the object], consciousness is nominal; and at other times > it is strong. Associated with knowledge, both [recognition and > consciousness] are assimilated to it.â€? > ..... > > H:>Also, what exactly > >*is* > >pa~n~na? It is made to sound like a "God dhamma" that can be all, see > >all, and > >be everywhere. But to me, when our mental faculties function properly, > >unobscured by defilement, with ignorance out of the way if not uprooted, > >we *say* that > >they operate with wisdom. > .... > S: When we are in deep sleep, there are no defilements arising and no > wisdom either. Wisdom or pa~n~naa is not merely what occurs when there is > no ignorance. At moments of seeing or hearing or other vipaka cittas > arising, there is no ignorance, for example too. ------------------------------------- Howard: I said that "when our mental faculties function properly, unobscured by defilement, with ignorance out of the way if not uprooted, we *say* that they operate with wisdom. " Now, when we are in deep sleep, our mental functions aren't functioning, so that is a moot point. My point is that I consider cognitive operations that function undefiled by defilements as "functioning with wisdom". Wise attention, insightful perception, and so on, are the proper, undefiled performance of cognitive operations. That is my take on it. ------------------------------------------------ > > Pa~n~naa is a specific mental factor which arises when there are the right > conditions and ‘illuminates’ the object being experienced. Even when there > are wholesome states arising, such as when we show generosity or kindness, > there usually isn’t any pa~n~naa arising which knows or determines > anything. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That is the Abhidhamma perspective on wisdom. That is so. I understand it differently, however. (My reading of the suttas persuades me of that. See AN I.49-52, Pabhassara Sutta, for example.) ----------------------------------------- > .... > > H:>What is right understanding, for example, if > >not an > >unobscured, rightly operating recognition (sa~n~na)? > .... > S: We can say there is ‘rightly operating recognition’ or sa~n~naa > whenever the experiencing of an object is pure or wholesome (as opposed to > when there is perversion of sa~n~naa arising). However, this doesn’t mean > there is necessarily any right understanding at such moments as I > indicated in the example of showing generosity or kindness. ----------------------------------- Howard: I don't outright say that is untrue, but I also don't readily agree with it. ------------------------------------ > .... > H:> Also, the terminology, so common in the writings of Khun Sujin > >and her > >students, long the lines of "It is panna which knows, fully understands > >and > >eventually abandons such dhammas and realizes the 4 Noble Truths" is > >very > >troublesome to me. Even if wisdom is not just the absence of > >obscuration, even if > >it is a distinct mental operation, it is not an agent that does things - > >it is > >the doing! To say that pa~n~na knows and understands is to reify an > >operation! > .... > S: It is to point out that there is an element, a dhatu, which is pa~n~naa > which performs the particular function of illuminating. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I see it at best as a misleading and confusing usage. -------------------------------------- Again “Wisdom> > (pa~n~naa) is what knows the way (pakaarena) [of things]; it understands > them as impermanent, etc.â€? -------------------------------------- Howard: And, again, I don't agree with that or its agent-oriented formulation. -------------------------------------- By stressing that it’s an element, a cetasika> > which performs this function, it becomes apparent that there is no self or > person of any kind involved. -------------------------------------- Howard: Not so. When something is spoken of as an agent, that is atta-terminology. ------------------------------------- However, different elements do arise, do> > exist momentarily, do perform their functions momentarily and do fall > away. > > In AN, Bk of 3s, 35 ‘Three Sectarian Tenets’(Bodhi transl), there is an > account of the elements. In the commentary note which Bodhi gives, it > says: > > “The four mental aggregates are ‘name’ (or ‘mentality’, naama)and the > aggregate of form is ‘form’(or matter, ruupa). Thus there are only these > two things: name and form (naamaruupa). Beyond that, there is neither a > substantial being (satta) nor a soul (jiiva). In this way one should > understand in brief the meditation subject of the six elements that leads > up to arahantship.â€? -------------------------------------- Howard: So? -------------------------------------- > > S: With respect, when we appreciate more and more that everything we find > so important are merely elements, merely naamaruupa, there is no question > of there being any substantial being involved. We may have to agree to > disagree here for now. This doesn’t mean that these elements do not exist > right now and do not perform their functions or are not experienced by > naama elements. ------------------------------------ Howard: With respect ;-), when we appreciate that everything we find are just conditioned, and fleeting experiential events and operations, there is no question of there being any substantial being involved. -------------------------------- > > I think you may have mentioned before that even ‘element’ sounds > substantialist to you. But elements are not only found throughout the > Abhidhamma, but also throughout the Sutta Pitaka. There is a whole section > on elements in the Dhatu Samyutta. ------------------------------------- Howard: It's always a matter of context and the exact formulation. Unfortunately, language, being the vehicle for communication, is conceptualist and is beset by substantialist, separationist, personalist, and agent-oriented usage. But in using it, we can attrempt to minimize this. ------------------------------------- > > In his preface to his translation of the Dhaatu-Kathaa (Discourse on > Elements, PTS), U Narada states that this text “was expounded by the > Buddha in order to dispel wrong views of attaa, i.e of substantiality, > ego-entity, self, soul, I, being, person, man, woman, and life. It deals > with the states (dhammas) which are the only things to be found, under the > categories of aggregates, bases and elements which are all anattaa, ie not > attaa. Therefore there is no attaa but only the arising and ceasing of > states that are either aggregates, bases or elements. Being, person, self, > I, etc are mere concepts expressed in conventional terms which the vast > majority believe correspond with reality.â€? > > S: Anyway, I know you agree with all this. He also indicates that “The 5 > sense-consciousness elements and the mind element are conscious of sense > objects which are material elements. Mind-consciousness element, however, > is conscious of objects of thought which are either of the past, present, > or future, material or mental, real or imaginary. All these consciousness > elements occur in mental processes.â€? > > S: There is lots more here and under ‘Elements’ in U.P. The point is that > rather than ‘reifying’ or ‘making such dhammas substantialist’, such > appreciation of elements as namas (which may experience objects) or as > rupas (which can never experience objects) leads to an appreciation of > dhammas as anatta. On the contrary, as I see it, by looking for an > understanding of ‘an event’, there will not be the growth of right > understanding which clearly sees the distinction between these various > elements. > > So finally, to really set the cat among the pigeons here, U Narada writes: > > “An element is defined as that which bears its own intrinsic nature. It > cannot be split up or transformed into another.â€? ------------------------------------ Howard: There is some truth here, but the formulation is terrible. If that were exactly how elements should be defined, then, as I understand the Dhamma, there are no elements! ------------------------------------ > > S: You wrote a good post on sabhava, so I know you appreciate there is no > sense of ‘atta’ here. > ------------------------------------ Howard: I believe there was none intended, but the use of that term is a major mistake. ----------------------------------- Whether we refer to sound or hearing as having its> > ‘own intrinsic nature’ or ‘particular characteristics or qualities’, the > point is merely that the qualities of sound or hearing can never be > merged, can never be understood as ‘an event’, but are distinct and can be > known one at a time. ------------------------------------ Howard: No, it matters very much how we speak. ------------------------------------- > ..... > H:> The terminology is harmful and misleading, I believe. Pa~n~na, in that > > >sentence, sounds like "the Lord, God," an omniscient being who knows, > >understands, > >and not only that, also *abandons*(!), a non-cognitive acting. Pa~n~na > >is > >presented as a little divine being. Where is anatta here? > .... > S: :-) Without pa~n~naa there is no way out of samsara, there is no path, > there is no Dhamma. > > Yes, it is pa~n~naa which realizes the 4 Noble Truths and which abandons > what should be abandoned. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Here you put pa~n~na forward as an agent, and not just an agent that knows, but an agent that acts!! I think that is a seriously poor usage. Wisdom does not abandon anything. Due to wise knowing, what should be abandoned is abandoned. The abandoning is a particular releasing of grasping, but not the activity of a doer called "wisdom". There are no doers in actuality, just doing. --------------------------------------- > > Pahaana pari~n~naa (full understanding as abandoning) is the pa~n~naa > which realizes the 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, > overcoming or abandoning the ideas of permanence, satisfactoriness and > self for good. This is the particular quality or nature of pa~n~naa. > > You might like to look at the suttas on Abandonment in > Sa.laayatansa.myutta, SN, 24 and 25. The second one starts with the Buddha > saying: > > “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the Dhamma for abandoning all through direct > knowledge and full understanding(sabba.m abhi~n~naa pari~n~naa > pahaanaaya)â€?. It goes on to indicate how all dhammas are abandoned through > the highly developed pa~n~naa only. > > Howard, I’ve probably said too much, but will look forward to any further > discussion with you on return from our trip. > -------------------------------------- Howard: As I mentioned offlist, I held off on replying to your lengthy post due to your travels, but since I see you still posting actively, I decided to reply now. I look forward to your follow up, either now or upon your return. ------------------------------------- I’ve been enjoying all your> > recent threads and if that’s the result of your mediation, keep it up:-)). ------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! :-) After this current post of mine, though, I think you just might be a wee bit less enthusiastic! ;-)) -------------------------------------- > (I also shared your samvegga post with our N.Y. friend I mentioned, Neil, > who recently lost his wife. I’m trying to encourage him to join us here). -------------------------------------- Howard: I do hope he joins the list. I will be very happy if he can gain from the samvega post in some way, though I fear it will be little consolation. My heart goes out to him. His loss is one that is very hard to bear! I wish him all the calm and peace that is possible, and I would like to point out that when the extremity of grief eases, which it eventually will, he will have the support and joy of loving memories. --------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sarah > > * Btw, Matheesha, I recently replied to Tep on some of your discussions > together you may wish to look for them, see subject ‘Tep(3)’ and > ‘Tep(4)’, a few days before you returned I think.)Perhaps you can > encourage Tep to continue your good discussions while I'm away:). > ===================== 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) 55430 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 11:05am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 648 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Naama-ruupa paccayaa salaayatanaa'. Here sa.laayatana or 6-sense-bases are clear that they are 1. eye-sense-base 2. ear-sense-base 3. nose-sense-base 4. tongue-sense-base 5. body-sense-base 6. mind-sense-base The first five aayatanas are ruupa dhamma. They are material phenomena and they do not know anything. But they are conditions for arising of respective panca-vinnaanas or 5-sense-consciousness. All first 5 are ruupa. The last aayatana is obviously naama dhamma. It has the quality of knowing, the quality of awareness. So all these 6-sense-bases are naama-ruupa or ruupa-naama. So naama- ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatana is here naama-ruupa paccayaa naama-ruupa. But there is difference in conditionality when the dhamma is said to be naama-ruupam and said to be sa.laayatanaa. Naama-ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatanaa. Mentality-materiality as a supporting condition 6-sense-bases have to arise. Mentality-materiality conditions 6-sense-bases. 6-sense- bases are conditioned by mentality-materiality. Here 6 sense bases have to be indirect results or direct results of avijjaa. Even though D.O seems saying linearly actual dhammas that arise happen within a short moment depending on what condition and what are conditioned. Avijjaa --> sankhaara --> vinnaana --> naama-ruupam --> sa.laayatanaa Here it is true for beings with all 6 senses while beings with defects in some senses will be true for certain sense or certain senses. Hell beings with all 6 senses this is true. Likewise all other 3 lower destination beings with all 6 senses will have the same D.O links. Human beings and deva beings also do the same. Any beings who have defect in particular senses will not have that sense or senses. In that case sa.laayatana has to be taken just as aayatana. Brahmaa beings do not have kaayaayatana, ghaanaayatana, jivhaayatana. They just have cakkaayatana (eye), sotaayatana (ear) and manaayatana (mind). In this matter naama-ruupa paccayaa ayatanaa will be more appropriate. Aruupa brahmaa beings or beings without any ruupa will not have any of the first 5 senses. They will just have manaayatana or mind only. In their case_ avijjaa -->sankhaara-->vinnaanaa-->naama-->manaayatana will be more appropriate. 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. 55431 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 11:20am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 649 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Naama-ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatanaa'. Sa.laayatanaa is obviously 6-sense-bases. Example is cakkhaayatana. Cakkhaayatana is eye-sense-base. avijjaa -->sankhaara -->vinnaanaa -->naama-ruupam -->cakkhaayatana In case of human beings there is cakkhaayatana at pa.tisandhi or at the time when linking consciousness arises. B.B.B.P.V.S.T.M.J.J.J.J.J.C|Pa.ti B = bhavanga citta (life-continuum) P = panca-dvaara-avajjana citta(5-sense-door-adverting consciousness) V = panca-vinnaana citta (5-sense-consciousness) S = sampa.ticchana citta (receiving consciousness) T = santiira.na citta (investigating consciousness) M = mano-dvara-avajjana as votthapana citta (determining conscious) J = javana cittas (kamma-forming mental impulsive consciousness) C = cuti citta (dying consciousness) | = death Pa.ti = next life very 1st consciousness called linking consciousness These 5 J are sankhaara. They were done because of avijjaa. Because of J, Pa.ti (patisandhi vinnaana) has to arise. Because of that pa.ti sandhi there have to arise naama-ruupa. But these naama-ruupa are not mature enough for human being to have eye-sense-base. So moment to moment D.O here is totally impossible. But there may be other circumstances that may be possible. 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. 55432 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 1:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts and other irrealities (3) jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop (& Larry), > > > --- Joop wrote: > >I have a little news for you: many of us have quoted from > and discussed it before, (which doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed > again - i hope it will be!). I personally think it contains a lot of > excellent material. If you go through U.P. on 'concepts and realities' and > 'concepts', you'll find shorter extracts if I recall. Also, if you were to > put 'Karunadasa' into google on www.dhammastudygroup.org and scroll down > the entries that show up, you might have a pleasant surprise!! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > Hallo Sarah Thanks for your optimistic message. I already had - of course - in UP but not found a discussion on this essay of Karunadasa. There was a discussion about another: Time and space. So what was the pleasant surprise? I had not the intention to be original but have not seen this kind of discussions I started know, but please show me. I have read in Sujin's "Survey" the chapters on "Concepts", a question about a quote in it. On page 250 Sujin says: "We should know precisely what is absolute truth and what os conventional truth"; I agree totally with that; but the next one: "Conventional truth is not real in the absolute sense" is difficult. It seems easy to agree but then one should also agree with the mirror of it: "Absolute truth is not real in the conventional sense" Is this latter one a correct statement? Metta (and a good time in Bangkok) Joop 55433 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 3:14pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 650 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Naama-ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatanaa'. Sa.laayatanaa is obviously 6-sense-bases. Example is cakkhaayatana. Cakkhaayatana is eye-sense-base. avijjaa -->sankhaara -->vinnaanaa -->naama-ruupam -->cakkhaayatana Here we can see at a point in the course of life rather than at pa.tisandhi time. When we exactly see something there are seeing- consciousness or eye-consciousness or cakkhu-vinnaana citta and also cakkhu pasaada ruupa or cakkhaayatana. In the above diagram if we write in backward order it will look like this: cakkhaayatana <-- naama-ruupam <-- vinnaana <-- sankhaara <-- avijjaa We see something because we have eye. Eye has cakkhaayatana. Cakkhaayatana arises because there are naama-ruupam. Here naama- ruupam are cakkhu-vinnaana citta or eye-consciousness and its associated cetasikas or mental factors and ruupa are cakkhu-vatthu or cakkhu pasaada ruupa. Naama-ruupa have to arise because of vinnaana. Here if the vinnaana is cakkhuvinnaana then it is a bit awkward to consider in this way. Because if continue there is sankhaara and vinnaana or seeing- consciousness would be the result of sankhaara which again is the result of avijjaa. But in this single moment all these 5 do not arise together. Because cakkhuvinnaana citta just have 7 cetasikas among which there is no avijjaa at all. I do not believe here moment-to-moment D.O exist in this example. What do you think? [ :-)) may not be thinking anything because of ..] 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. 55434 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 10:52am Subject: Further Troubles upasaka_howard Hi, all - About a week ago our granddaughter Sophie came home from the hospital after surgery for placement of a feeding tube. She's been doing better with her weight this past week as a result. Unfortunately, she went back to the hospital today. She has some sort of infection - they don't know what yet, and she's running a high fever. This is particularly worrisome because of her heart problem. I'm not at all looking for words of support or other communication, on list or off, about this, but I do hope that, privately, in your own mind, you will think of Sophie on occasion and of her welfare. I will very much appreciate this. The sweet thing is having such a hard time. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55435 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Further Troubles sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Rita & family), --- upasaka@... wrote: > The sweet thing is having such a hard time. ... S: We'll be thinking of you all and especially of little Sophie. I really hope she manages to get over this 'hurdle'. Wishing you all well and I'll be passing on your comments to Nina too. metta, Sarah p.s I've seen but not yet read your reply to me and other messages. I'll look forward to this later in the day. It's kind of you to go to the trouble when you have funerals to attend, relatives to console/support and now the new concerns about Sophie. The Dhamma is such a support at these times. If you have a chance, pls share more about the funerals and how you've been able to help and support your friends, presumably with little or no interest in the Dhamma. I'm sure we can all learn from your example. ============== 55436 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Hi Howard and TG, Okay, I'll agree. The Buddha did talk about the 5 khandhas conventionally. But I don't think his intention was to imply that these 5 khandhas are mere thoughts (pa~n~natti), or somehow not real. I stand by my contention that self view is a misperception of the 5 khandhas of paramattha dhammas. Larry 55437 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:38pm Subject: Re: Further Troubles gazita2002 Hello Howard, My thoughts go out to you and your family and especially little Sophie. As a pediatric nurse, I can imagine the traumas her mum and dad, not to mention grandparents, must be experiencing. May you all fare well. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > About a week ago our granddaughter Sophie came home from the hospital > after surgery for placement of a feeding tube. She's been doing better with > her weight this past week as a result. > Unfortunately, she went back to the hospital today. She has some sort > of infection - they don't know what yet, and she's running a high fever. This > is particularly worrisome because of her heart problem. > I'm not at all looking for words of support or other communication, on > list or off, about this, but I do hope that, privately, in your own mind, you > will think of Sophie on occasion and of her welfare. I will very much > appreciate this. The sweet thing is having such a hard time. > > With metta, > Howard > 55438 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Further Troubles upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/3/06 8:14:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard (Rita &family), > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > >The sweet thing is having such a hard time. > ... > S: We'll be thinking of you all and especially of little Sophie. I really > hope she manages to get over this 'hurdle'. Wishing you all well and I'll > be passing on your comments to Nina too. ---------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) ------------------------------- > > metta, > > Sarah > p.s I've seen but not yet read your reply to me and other messages. I'll > look forward to this later in the day. It's kind of you to go to the > trouble when you have funerals to attend, relatives to console/support and > now the new concerns about Sophie. The Dhamma is such a support at these > times. > > If you have a chance, pls share more about the funerals and how you've > been able to help and support your friends, presumably with little or no > interest in the Dhamma. I'm sure we can all learn from your example. ------------------------------------ Howard: Maybe yes, maybe no. ;-) I've found that the best that one can do for those who are grieving is just to be there for them, with love, and to make it clear through your actions and demeaner that you do genuinely care. In two of the three recent funerals, we were very close to the deceased and their relatives, and it was very personal for us. ("Personal" isn't always bad. ;-) Sometimes I say something that I think will be a help and be skillful, but that just has to arise without planning or pontification. For the most part, I find that it is good to leave all theories and dogma at the doorstep! When you are really motivated by love and compassion for the bereaved and the deceased, saying and doing the right thing becomes easy, I find. 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) 55439 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 0:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and TG) - In a message dated 2/3/06 8:31:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard and TG, > > Okay, I'll agree. The Buddha did talk about the 5 khandhas > conventionally. But I don't think his intention was to imply that these > 5 khandhas are mere thoughts (pa~n~natti), or somehow not real. I stand > by my contention that self view is a misperception of the 5 khandhas of > paramattha dhammas. > > Larry > ======================== Well, I'll go as far as saying that "the self" in the sense of soul or personal core, is certainly an alleged something associated in some fashion with khandhic elements or conventional objects superimposed on them. 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) 55440 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 0:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Further Troubles upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 2/3/06 8:39:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@... writes: > Hello Howard, > > My thoughts go out to you and your family and especially little > Sophie. ---------------------------------- Howard: Thank you. :-) --------------------------------- As a pediatric nurse, I can imagine the traumas her mum and > > dad, not to mention grandparents, must be experiencing. ------------------------------- Howard: What a wonderful occupation you have! Of course it has its joys and its sorrows, but you do such lovely work in the world, and that must make it all a joy. BTW, the pediatric nurses we've met at the hospital where our granddaughter is are just the sweetest people! That must surely be the rule, not the exception! ------------------------------- > > May you all fare well. > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. =================== 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) 55441 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 1:01pm Subject: A Clarification Re: [dsg] Further Troubles upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah: In a message dated 2/3/06 8:38:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > >If you have a chance, pls share more about the funerals and how you've > >been able to help and support your friends, presumably with little or no > >interest in the Dhamma. I'm sure we can all learn from your example. > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Maybe yes, maybe no. ;-) > ======================== By that I meant that perhaps what I do isn't so very exemplary. (It just ocurred to me that someone might misinterpret what I wrote to mean that not everyone is able to learn from a (supposedly) good example, which is not at all what I meant! LOL!) 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) 55442 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 5:03pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 375- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (n) 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] We read in the Kindred Sayings (II, Niddåna-vagga, Chapter XXI, Kindred Sayings about Brethren, §6, 11, 12) about different monks who attained arahatship. They had to develop right understanding life after life. The Buddha repeatedly said that it was “no easy matter” to attain the goal. We read for example about Kappina (§11) that the Buddha said: * "... That monk is highly gifted, of wondrous power. No easy matter is it to win that which he formerly had not won, even that for the sake of which clansmen rightly leave the home for the homeless, even that uttermost goal of the divine living which he has attained, wherein he abides, having come just here and now to know it thoroughly for himself and to realize it." ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 55443 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 7:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Nina and Larry jonoabb Larry and Nina Many thanks to you both for this series. I have found it immensely valuable, as I'm sure others have too. Anumodana. Jon PS I'm really looking forward to seeing the same treatment given to DO ;-)) LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi all, > >On July 23, 2003 we began a comprehensive discussion of chapter XIV in >"The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga). And today we have finished >the chapter. Throughout this whole process Nina has summarized and >sometimes translated for us the Aacariya Dhammapaala's Commentary to >all 230 paragraphs (with the exception of only 3 or 4 which didn't have >a commentary). In order to do this she had to translate the whole >Commentary just so she could summarize it. This was really a very big >project and we and all future dhamma students owe her a great debt of >gratitude. Thank you very much, Nina. Anumodana! > >Larry > >ps: Nina will begin the 'Detailed Exposition' of Dependent Origination >(Vism.XVII,58) when she returns from Thailand. > > 55444 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 7:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Larry, I think your line of reasoning in this thread is (or should that be 'was'): every concept can be 'related back' to dhammas of one kind or another, therefore any clinging is to dhammas. However, the question is, what is the present object of the clinging consciousness? The dhammas to which the concept can be related back are not necessarily the present object, and nor is the pleasant feeling associated with those dhammas. So when there is clinging to, say, the idea of being wealthy or successful or popular or right about something or being praised or a pleasant rebirth or just continuing to exist, there need not be any of the desired dhammas associated with these things as present object. Of course, there will be pleasant feeling associated with the clinging, but that pleasant feeling is not itself the object of the clinging. Jon LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi Nina and all, > >Here's one way to look at it. A concept always refers to something else, >so when there is clinging to a concept there is clinging to that >something else, or clinging to the intimation rupa that intimates the >concept. For example, when there is clinging to a name there may be >clinging to conceit or clinging to the intimation rupa that is the name >(the sound of the name). If there is the liking of a tree, that liking >is not a liking of the concept of the tree but rather the liking of >particular visible data. Clinging to an idea is clinging to view >(ditthi). Clinging to money could be clinging to several different >realities. In this approach the idea is to look for the reality behind >the concept. That is what we are actually clinging to. Otherwise, there >has to be a fifth foundation of mindfulness: mindfulness of concept. > >Perhaps we don't have to change abhidhamma. Concept could be an object >of consciousness but its "nature" is not what is clung to. It is merely >a tool, a pointer. And instead of dismissing concept as non-existent >maybe we should look for the reality behind it. Reality is the object of >insight, not concept, so it makes sense that only reality is clung to. > >Larry > > 55445 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Principle difference between Individual and Universal Vehicles jonoabb Hi Charles I've been following your posts with interest. The one I am replying to was written a week or so ago, but I have not had time to respond until now. Charles wrote: >--- 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. > > To my understanding, sabhava has to do with having a distinguishing characteristic, rather than an 'own being'. According to the texts, all dhammas have a unique distinguishing characteristic (except some of the rupas which denote characteristic of other rupas). It is difficult if not impossible for us to verify this for ourselves given our present inadequate level of panna, but I think it is possible to get an idea of what this means as regards certain dhammas. The first step is said to be understanding the essential difference between namas in general and rupas in general. Jon 55446 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 2:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Larry) - In a message dated 2/3/06 10:40:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Larry, > > I think your line of reasoning in this thread is (or should that be > 'was'): every concept can be 'related back' to dhammas of one kind or > another, therefore any clinging is to dhammas. > > However, the question is, what is the present object of the clinging > consciousness? The dhammas to which the concept can be related back are > not necessarily the present object, and nor is the pleasant feeling > associated with those dhammas. > > So when there is clinging to, say, the idea of being wealthy or > successful or popular or right about something or being praised or a > pleasant rebirth or just continuing to exist, there need not be any of > the desired dhammas associated with these things as present object. > > Of course, there will be pleasant feeling associated with the clinging, > but that pleasant feeling is not itself the object of the clinging. > > Jon > ========================= You explained that well, Jon. Also, it is how I view the matter as well. 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) 55447 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 7:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... jonoabb Hi TG Sorry for the delay in responding. The last few days have been rather hectic. Sarah and I are now in Bangkok, and I hope to find a little more time for posting. I notice you have raised here the question of the existence of rupas other than at the time of their being the object of experience (the so-called 'external reality' issue). Interesting though that whole area may be, I'm not sure how it relates to the issue we've been discussing, and I'm reluctant to be side-tracked into something else ;-)). Could you explain the connection as you see it? Thanks. In the meantime, on with our discussion on the nature of audible object ... TGrand458@... wrote: >Or other example questions... Lets say a deaf person and a hearing able >person are in the same room. Music is loudly playing in the room. The deaf >person cannot hear it but he can feel the vibrations. The other person can hear >it and is unaware of the vibrations. > >Questions: 1) Is the audible-object simultaneously a tactile-object? >2) Although the two peoples experience is different, Is the sensory-object >the same? >3) Is vibrating air both a tactile-object and audible-object in a separate >way ... even if the source is identical? >4) If the audible-object is simultaneously a tactile-object, what unique >quality does the sense-object in question have? > > I'm wondering if perhaps you think of the 'loud music' as being the audible object. That is more like the conventional idea of a sound. Audible object is simply that which is experienced by hearing consciousness. At the moment of just experiencing that object, it is not known as any particular kind of sound. As what is being more or less simultaneously experienced through the body-door (as 'felt vibrations'), this is a form of tactile object, that is another object, another dhamma, altogether. The two have different characteristics (or nature, aspects, qualities, whatever term you prefer to use), quite independent of the perception of the experiencer, according to the texts. >"2) If a living thing could see audible-objects, would it still be the >same characteristic? Sounds to me like you're saying yes." > >As you will appreciate from the comments above, the situation of audible >object being the object of seeing consciousness could not arise, any >more than could the situation of visible object being the object of >hearing consciousness. > >TG: I'm still not sure how you would answer my above questions. So if you >wouldn't mind indulging me I'd appreciate it. :-) > > If it can be seen it must be visible object, and it cannot be audible object because the seen cannot be experienced by hearing consciousness. > BTW, Think I saw something about Bats are very possibly able to see sound. > Conventionally speaking, bats use sound to 'see'. But if they have no eye sense, and no eye-consciousness, there could not be the experiencing of visible object. >"3) Did you know that sounds waves cause temperature changes? These >temperature changes are integral aspects of audible-objects. Interesting >eh? This being the case, would it make sense to say that audible-objects >are devoid of a "temperature quality"?" > >Although it may be said that (conventional) sound is not devoid of >(conventional) temperature quality, the same cannot be said regarding >the dhammas of audible object and temperature. > >TG: Can't understand you here? > Sorry about that. What I meant was that since 'temperature quality' is not something that can be experienced by seeing consciousness, it cannot form any part of visible object. Hope this is clearer. Jon PS On the 'external realities' issue: 1. I think the question you are asking is, Can rupas arise (vs. Do rupas exist, or Are rupas real) other than when they are the object of consciousness? 2. You give the example of a tree in the forest. Would not the same question arise as regards, for example, the building you are now in, the computer you are now using, or your own body? 3. Since all dhammas are conditioned, I suppose the answer to the question will depend on what the conditions are for the arising of the rupa in question and, in particular, whether those conditions include the fact of the rupa being the object of consciousness. Do you have any thoughts on this? 55448 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 7:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thank you Nina and Larry gazita2002 Dear Nina and Larry, I will second the thank you's here, I didn't realize how much work was involved. May this good work be for the benefit of both of u for many lifetimes to come. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Larry and Nina > > Many thanks to you both for this series. I have found it immensely valuable, as I'm sure others have too. Anumodana. > > Jon > > PS I'm really looking forward to seeing the same treatment given to DO ;-)) > > > LBIDD@... wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > >On July 23, 2003 we began a comprehensive discussion of chapter XIV in > >"The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga). And today we have finished > >the chapter. Throughout this whole process Nina has summarized and > >sometimes translated for us the Aacariya Dhammapaala's Commentary to > >all 230 paragraphs (with the exception of only 3 or 4 which didn't have > >a commentary). In order to do this she had to translate the whole > >Commentary just so she could summarize it. This was really a very big > >project and we and all future dhamma students owe her a great debt of > >gratitude. Thank you very much, Nina. Anumodana! > > > >Larry > > > >ps: Nina will begin the 'Detailed Exposition' of Dependent Origination > >(Vism.XVII,58) when she returns from Thailand. > > > > > 55449 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Larry) - > >In a message dated 2/3/06 10:40:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > > > >>Hi Larry, >> >>I think your line of reasoning in this thread is (or should that be >>'was'): every concept can be 'related back' to dhammas of one kind or >>another, therefore any clinging is to dhammas. >> >>... >> >> >========================= > You explained that well, Jon. Also, it is how I view the matter as >well. > > Thanks fo this, Howard. And I've been noticing how well you've been explaining some things lately (that is, that I view those matters the same as you ;-)). Keep up the good work! Jon PS Sorry to hear about little Sophie. Wishing her a speedy recovery. 55450 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > >In a message dated 1/31/2006 4:58:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, >LBIDD@... writes: > >Hi TG, > >Me and the Buddha :-) don't think there is any clinging to concepts but >there could well be clinging to memories and mental formations >(volitions). > >Larry > > > >Hi Larry > >Any references where the Buddha says concepts cannot be clung to? > >TG > Good question to Larry. BTW, any references where the Buddha says (or infers) that the object of consciousness must be a reality? ;-)) Jon 55451 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/3/2006 10:20:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Good question to Larry. BTW, any references where the Buddha says (or infers) that the object of consciousness must be a reality? ;-)) Jon Hi Jon Objects of consciousness arise and cease due to conditions. If that's what you mean by "reality" then the answer is yes. Perhaps my previous post to you about MN #140 and external rupas is in regards to this issue? TG 55452 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 6:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 2/3/2006 9:46:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG Sorry for the delay in responding. The last few days have been rather hectic. Sarah and I are now in Bangkok, and I hope to find a little more time for posting. TG: Hope all is well for you and Sarah! I notice you have raised here the question of the existence of rupas other than at the time of their being the object of experience (the so-called 'external reality' issue). Interesting though that whole area may be, I'm not sure how it relates to the issue we've been discussing, and I'm reluctant to be side-tracked into something else ;-)). Could you explain the connection as you see it? Thanks. TG: Since I have the reference handy, I'll refer you to Majjhima Nikaya sutta # 140 -- The Exposition of the Elements. One thing that occurs in this Sutta is an analysis of the Four Great Elements. In this analysis the Buddha says that each of these elements is "internal or external." It is clear from his description of the internal that he means -- everything that constitutes the individual. Exterior elements is therefore "all that is outside of that." I'm sure there are many other examples, just happen to have this one handy. Do you feel this is not a positing of external rupa? In the meantime, on with our discussion on the nature of audible object ... TGrand458@... wrote: >Or other example questions... Lets say a deaf person and a hearing able >person are in the same room. Music is loudly playing in the room. The deaf >person cannot hear it but he can feel the vibrations. The other person can hear >it and is unaware of the vibrations. > >Questions: 1) Is the audible-object simultaneously a tactile-object? >2) Although the two peoples experience is different, Is the sensory-object >the same? >3) Is vibrating air both a tactile-object and audible-object in a separate >way ... even if the source is identical? >4) If the audible-object is simultaneously a tactile-object, what unique >quality does the sense-object in question have? > > I'm wondering if perhaps you think of the 'loud music' as being the audible object. That is more like the conventional idea of a sound. Audible object is simply that which is experienced by hearing consciousness. At the moment of just experiencing that object, it is not known as any particular kind of sound. TG: I believe an audible-object in a physical form that would be heard if an operating ear and ear consciousness were to contact it. A "sound" is the act of hearing. The Buddha says that contact is the "coming together, the meeting," etc. of sense-object, sense-base, and corresponding consciousness. If an audible-object was only that which was already in contact with sense-base and consciousness, what would be the point of describing them as "coming together" or "meeting"? What would they be coming together with? They would already be together if that were the case. As what is being more or less simultaneously experienced through the body-door (as 'felt vibrations'), this is a form of tactile object, that is another object, another dhamma, altogether. The two have different characteristics (or nature, aspects, qualities, whatever term you prefer to use), quite independent of the perception of the experiencer, according to the texts. TG: This is what I don't get. If I understand your line of reasoning here. Forgive me if I'm wrong but are you saying -- You believe that "external rupas" don't exist. Rupa only exists when being experienced. But they have qualities that are "independent of the experience"? Well, I'll probably never get it. ;-) >"2) If a living thing could see audible-objects, would it still be the >same characteristic? Sounds to me like you're saying yes." > >As you will appreciate from the comments above, the situation of audible >object being the object of seeing consciousness could not arise, any >more than could the situation of visible object being the object of >hearing consciousness. > >TG: I'm still not sure how you would answer my above questions. So if you >wouldn't mind indulging me I'd appreciate it. :-) > > If it can be seen it must be visible object, and it cannot be audible object because the seen cannot be experienced by hearing consciousness. > BTW, Think I saw something about Bats are very possibly able to see sound. > Conventionally speaking, bats use sound to 'see'. But if they have no eye sense, and no eye-consciousness, there could not be the experiencing of visible object. >"3) Did you know that sounds waves cause temperature changes? These >temperature changes are integral aspects of audible-objects. Interesting >eh? This being the case, would it make sense to say that audible-objects >are devoid of a "temperature quality"?" > >Although it may be said that (conventional) sound is not devoid of >(conventional) temperature quality, the same cannot be said regarding >the dhammas of audible object and temperature. > >TG: Can't understand you here? > Sorry about that. What I meant was that since 'temperature quality' is not something that can be experienced by seeing consciousness, it cannot form any part of visible object. Hope this is clearer. Jon PS On the 'external realities' issue: 1. I think the question you are asking is, Can rupas arise (vs. Do rupas exist, or Are rupas real) other than when they are the object of consciousness? 2. You give the example of a tree in the forest. Would not the same question arise as regards, for example, the building you are now in, the computer you are now using, or your own body? 3. Since all dhammas are conditioned, I suppose the answer to the question will depend on what the conditions are for the arising of the rupa in question and, in particular, whether those conditions include the fact of the rupa being the object of consciousness. Do you have any thoughts on this? TG: #1 Yes, that's the question. #2 Yes, in all cases. #3 Rupa certainly is an object of consciousness. But I believe it can also not be an object of consciousness. Nice talking to you Jon. I'm especially interested in how you'd answer the sutta passages in question. MN #140. But all would be great. BTW, I must say that I do take a much more science friendly attitude than many in this group. I believe the Buddha was a great scientist among everything else. :-) TG 55453 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 3, 2006 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Jon: "Hi Larry, I think your line of reasoning in this thread is (or should that be 'was'): every concept can be 'related back' to dhammas of one kind or another, therefore any clinging is to dhammas. However, the question is, what is the present object of the clinging consciousness? The dhammas to which the concept can be related back are not necessarily the present object, and nor is the pleasant feeling associated with those dhammas. So when there is clinging to, say, the idea of being wealthy or successful or popular or right about something or being praised or a pleasant rebirth or just continuing to exist, there need not be any of the desired dhammas associated with these things as present object. Of course, there will be pleasant feeling associated with the clinging, but that pleasant feeling is not itself the object of the clinging." Hi Jon, Let's take the case of wealth: "I feel so wealthy. I have $100 in the bank." This $100 that is mine doesn't amount to anything more than a piece of paper with certain very specific markings on it. Paper and markings are rupas and those very specific rupas are what I am attached to. I call it "my one hundred dollars" but what it is to me is something very real and solid. Not a mere idea of money, but real money, i.e., certain very specific rupas. [I'm not sure if these are intimation rupas or not, but that's another issue.] What I'm trying to say is, even though I am sitting here thinking about my $100 that is way over on the other side of town, what I am attached to is something I can touch and see. I may also be attached to the thought of my $100, but first and foremost I am attached to some very specific rupas. Furthermore, I would say my thoughts about my $100 refer to specific realities. Thoughts are mental words or mental images and words and images refer to something else. If I am attached to a word (a thought) then surely we have to say I am attached to the referent of the word. However, clinging is based on misperception, and misperception comes about because of ignoring. What I am misperceiving and ignoring is realities. Our mistake is in seeing lastingness, wholeness, solidity, and agency where there is impermanence, diffuseness, elusiveness, and conditional arising. These are perceptions, not thoughts. We are attached to these perceptions. I think this is key point. Perhaps we could say "my $100" are _words_ that refer to or condition the arising of various perceptions that I am attached to and, on occasion, I am also attached to the mere words as a kind of short-hand. I don't know if this totally adds up, but it helped me sort out a few things. Any response? Larry 55454 From: "seisen_au" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 1:49am Subject: Re: Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta seisen_au Hi Charles and ALL, Some comments below. "Charles" wrote: > These are my points > > I am investigating on these thing/views > 1. sabbe dhamma anatta > 2. nibbana is asankhata dhamma, > therefore it is included in the word dhamma > 3. from (1) and (2) then nibbana is anatta As mentioned in a previous post, within the context of the Dhammapada verse #279, the commentators state sabbe dhammaa is limited to the 5 aggregates, but in other parts of the canon the commentators include Nibbana, the asankata datu within `Sabbe Dhamma Anattaa". The Channa Sutta of the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya has All formations are impermanent, all phenomena are anatta. Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anattaa'ti. The commentaries state in reference to this passage: Sabbe sankhara anicca'ti sabbe tebhumakasankhara aniccaa. Sabbe dhammaa anattaati sabbe catubhumakadhammaa anattaa. All formations of the three planes are impermanent; all phenomena of the four planes are nonself. -- Chapter XVIII – Planes, of the Patisambhidamagga explains the 4 Planes: There are these fours planes: the sensual-desire sphere, the material sphere, the immaterial sphere and the unincluded sphere. What is the unincluded plane? The unincluded paths and fruitions of the paths and the unformed principle (asankata datu): these are the unincluded plane. -- Steve 55455 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 4:50am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Joop, ------------- Joop: > A little bit new is that is spoken of two (levels of) reality. Many times in DSG when the term "realities" is used, for example by Nina, only ultimate ones were thought was. "Concepts" are most times seen in DSG as something inferior. -------------- Some of us might be a bit dismissive of them, but I have never seen concepts referred to as inferior. I agree the idea of inferior/superior would not helpful. However, the fact remains; concepts do not have inherent characteristics, and therefore, no examination of them will ever reveal anicca, dukkha or anatta. ------------------------ KenH: > > "Which parts [of Karanudasa] did you find of particular interest? > > Joop: > see my "conclusions and opinions" in #55417 ------------------------- I have seen them, thanks Joop. I appreciate your ability to decipher Karunadasa's rather heavy, academic essays. They are too much like hard work for me. I need to know the significance and the repercussions first, so I can decide if it's going to be worth the effort. So your conclusions did help. Even so, I don't feel able to make any useful comments at this stage. ------------- <. . .> J: > all I can add to "concepts are mere illusions" is that in explaining the Dhamma conceptual language was and is inevitable. ------------- Language that refers to conventional realities makes the Dhamma almost impossible to understand. It is fine if you already know about paramattha dhammas, but otherwise, disastrous. Starting with conventional-sounding suttas and conventional, modern-day commentaries was certainly disastrous in my case. It meant years of following wrong paths. Ken H 55456 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Thanks. :-) With metta, Howard _________________ In a message dated 2/4/06 12:09:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Sorry to hear about little Sophie. Wishing her a speedy recovery. ----------------------------- P.S. With regard to our recent agreement on issues, probably that is partly due to the particular subject matter of the discussions. In any case, it's enjoyable while it lasts! ;-) /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) 55457 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/4/06 2:07:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Jon > > Objects of consciousness arise and cease due to conditions. If that's what > > you mean by "reality" then the answer is yes. Perhaps my previous post to > you about MN #140 and external rupas is in regards to this issue? > > TG > =========================== I think that a problem with this discussion itself is that it involves an unnoticed or ignored mixing of literal speech and figurative speech (paramattha and sammati sacca) as regards "objects". When 'object' is used as in 'object of thought', that is (actually always) figurative speech, though I'm not sure that Jon would accept that statement. So, when I say that I'm thinking of the film I saw last week, what this means is that I'm engaged in a complex process of thinking, of remembering, of feeling, and of experiencing emotions. But not only is there no film present at the time that I'm "thinking about it," and, of course, the film itself is concept-only(!), but also there is no *single* mental phenomenon, no single citta or cetasika, that is "the" object of the thinking. There is no object in the same literal sense that there is when we see or hear or touch. Nowhere to be found is the film I saw last week, nor is there a single citta or cetasika that is surrogate for it. And yet it is perfectly correct to say that I'm thinking of the film I saw last week. It is meaningful and even true but merely figurative speech. Even when I'm thinking of an ache, for example, or heat, or an itch, there is no actual ache, heat, or itch that is there, and thus it is not a literal object. In this case, it *may* be so that there is a single cetasika present as literal object that one can call "the thought of" the pain, heat, or itch, but I honestly doubt even that. I suspect that even in this case there is, as before, a complex process of thought taking place, and there is no single phenomenon to be found to properly be called "the thought" of an ache, heat, or itch. 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) 55458 From: "Charles" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 7:45am Subject: Re: Meaning of dhamma in sabbe dhamma anatta cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "seisen_au" wrote: > The Channa > Sutta of the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya has > > All formations are impermanent, all phenomena are anatta. > Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anattaa'ti. > > The commentaries state in reference to this passage: > > Sabbe sankhara anicca'ti sabbe tebhumakasankhara aniccaa. > Sabbe dhammaa anattaati sabbe catubhumakadhammaa anattaa. Hi Steve, Thanks for the quote. I can argue with this: 1. The full context: ------------------------------------ When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Channa, "Form, friend Channa, is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self." ==================================== The last two sentence is the conclusion of the first five sentences. 2. If there are 3 green boxes and 1 white box, and I said all the color in the four boxes (but here I define color as any color that same degree of darkness) then the white color is not uncluded in the statement. Sabbe dhamma anatta and any dhamma in the catu bhumi is really the same statement. The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana. 3. Why do the Buddha use sankhara in anicca and dukkha but use the term dhamma in anatta? because beings have the view : sabbe sankhara atta (sankhara = atta). If the Buddha said sabbe sankhara anatta, it is like saying (to beings with atta-ditthi) atta = anatta. Therefore to emphasis that there is no being connected with sankhara, the Buddha use the term atta. Now if someone has the view "all penguins are cute" which statement would be more acceptable to show the person that it isn't true: 1. all penguins are not cute 2. creatures with sharp teeth eating fish and boring colors living in ice are not cute 55459 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 8:02am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) scottduncan2 "'Naama-ruupa paccayaa salaayatanaa'. Mentality-materiality as a supporting condition 6-sense-bases have to arise. 6-sense-bases are conditioned by mentality-materiality. Mentality and materiality give conditions for 6-sense-bases. What are 6-sense-bases? They are cakkaayatana or eye-sense-base, sotaayatana or ear-sense- base, ghaanayatana or nose-sense-base, jivhaayatana or tongue-sense- base, kaayaayatana or body-sense-base, and manaayatana or mind-sense- base. Here these 6 sense-bases need to be understood." Dear Htoo Naing, Some blindingly basic questions: When it is said "supporting condition" is this "nissaya-paccaya?" By support I understand that naama-ruupa serves as a substrate for the six sense bases. Are these bases ruupa? How are they naama? Are they differentiations of naama-ruupa? How might I understand the statement "eye-base is produced by kamma" in this light? Thanks for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Scott. 55460 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/4/2006 8:21:28 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Even when I'm thinking of an ache, for example, or heat, or an itch, there is no actual ache, heat, or itch that is there, and thus it is not a literal object. In this case, it *may* be so that there is a single cetasika present as literal object that one can call "the thought of" the pain, heat, or itch, but I honestly doubt even that. I suspect that even in this case there is, as before, a complex process of thought taking place, and there is no single phenomenon to be found to properly be called "the thought" of an ache, heat, or itch. With metta, Howard Hi Howard Good post in preciseness of explanation. Of course I have a different view regarding this last paragraph. I believe that "the thought of" is the object. Whether or not it is a "single cetasika" is a non-issue for me because I don't fully subscribe to Abhidhamma theory. (My subscription is running low.) ;-) Thoughts such as these are "results of impressions/conditions" that are lingering as memories in the mind. And in fact, all conditioned phenomena fall into that category, i.e...."results of impressions/conditions." So I see them as just as actual as any conditioned thing can be. TG 55461 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 10:41am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Htoo's post of Dhamma Thread (647) [some parts] "'Naama-ruupa paccayaa salaayatanaa'. Mentality-materiality as a supporting condition 6-sense-bases have to arise. 6-sense-bases are conditioned by mentality-materiality. Mentality and materiality give conditions for 6-sense-bases. What are 6-sense-bases? They are cakkaayatana or eye-sense-base, sotaayatana or ear-sense- base, ghaanayatana or nose-sense-base, jivhaayatana or tongue-sense- base, kaayaayatana or body-sense-base, and manaayatana or mind-sense- base. Here these 6 sense-bases need to be understood." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott wrote: Dear Htoo Naing, Some blindingly basic questions: When it is said "supporting condition" is this "nissaya-paccaya?" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nissaya paccaya is translated as 'dependent condition'. So it may or may not be dependent. This is D.O and not in the form of patthaana dhamma or conditions. I interchangably use 'support, condition'. ------------------------------------------------------------------- To be continue: By support I understand that naama-ruupa serves as a substrate for the six sense bases. Are these bases ruupa? How are they naama? Are they differentiations of naama-ruupa? How might I understand the statement "eye-base is produced by kamma" in this light? Thanks for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Scott. 55462 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/4/06 1:18:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Good post in preciseness of explanation. ---------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) ---------------------------------- Of course I have a different view > > regarding this last paragraph. I believe that "the thought of" is the > object. Whether or not it is a "single cetasika" is a non-issue for me > because I > don't fully subscribe to Abhidhamma theory. (My subscription is running > low.) > ;-) -------------------------------- Howard: Well, I agree that the mental processing involved with thinking of an ache or heat or an itch, at least a part of it - a surface level of it, is what there is actual awareness of. However, it is not what one is "thinking of"! One is thinking of an ache, heat, or itch, ev though none of these exists at the moment! ;-) If you want to technically call the entire mental process of thinking of an ache, heat, or itch "a thought" and consider that as "the object," well, that's an okay technical usage. I, however, don't think that is what people standardly mean when they speak of the object of their thinking. The object of their thinking is the alleged something-or-other, the mere mental projection, that they are "thinking about." ---------------------------------------------- > > Thoughts such as these are "results of impressions/conditions" that are > lingering as memories in the mind. And in fact, all conditioned phenomena > fall > into that category, i.e...."results of impressions/conditions." So I see > them > as just as actual as any conditioned thing can be. > > 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) 55463 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:17am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Htoo's post of Dhamma Thread (647) [some parts] I interchangably use 'support, condition'. ------------------------------------------------------------------- To be continue: By support I understand that naama-ruupa serves as a substrate for the six sense bases. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Substate is different. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott: Are these bases ruupa? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I already told that 1st to 5th aayatanas are all ruupa while the 6th aayatana is naama. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott: How are they naama? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Manaayatana is naama. They are 89 cittas. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott: Are they differentiations of naama-ruupa? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Avijjaa --> sankhaara --> vinnaanaa --> naama/-ruupam --> manayatana Let us say it is 'miccha-pa.tipatti avijjaa' that initiates the cyle. Because of micchaa-pa.tipatti 'anenjhaabhi-sankhaara' are done. Because of anenjhaabhi-sankhaara (aruupa-jhaana) vinnaana (aruupa- vipaaka of aruupa-pa.tisandhi vinnaana) arises. Because of that vinnaana 'naama' have to arise. Because of that naama 'manaayatana in aruupa-brahmaa' has to arise. It is different implications and not like differentiation.(answer) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott: How might I understand the statement "eye-base is produced by kamma" in this light? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Eye-base is a ruupa that arises 'only in kaama or sensuous planes'. avijja --> sankhara --> vinnana --> naama-ruupam --> salaayatana(eye) Naama-ruupa at pa.tisandhi continue to proliferate and cakkhaayatana (one of sa.laayatana) has to arise in due course. Again these are because of the cycle of D.O [a-s-v-n/m-sl-ph-vd-tn-up-bh-jt-j/m]. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Scott. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your interesting questions. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55464 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 0:09pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) scottduncan2 Dear Htoo, Thank you for your response. It gives me a chance (among other things) to learn Pali in action, as it were. I am trying to be a serious student of Pali and so appreciate this. "I interchangably use 'support, condition'." Scott: Thanks. "Substrate is different." Scott: Okay. Scott: Are they differentiations of naama-ruupa? "Avijjaa --> sankhaara --> vinnaanaa --> naama/-ruupam --> manayatana" "Let us say it is 'miccha-pa.tipatti avijjaa' that initiates the cycle. Because of micchaa-pa.tipatti 'anenjhaabhi-sankhaara' are done." Scott: "Let us say it is ignorance based on wrong-practise that initiates the cycle. Because of wrong-practise imperturbable kamma-formations are done." "Because of anenjhaabhi-sankhaara (aruupa-jhaana) vinnaana (aruupa- vipaaka of aruupa-pa.tisandhi vinnaana) arises." Scott: "Because of imperturbable kamma-formations (immaterial jhaana) consciousness (immaterial result of immaterial relinking consciousness) arises." "Because of that vinnaana 'naama' have to arise. Because of that naama 'manaayatana in aruupa-brahmaa' has to arise." Scott: "Because of that consciousness mind has to arise. Because of mind, the sense bases in the highest immaterial sense have to arise." "It is different implications and not like differentiation.(answer)" Scott: Thanks I see that differentiation is the wrong term. Would you please kindly critique my attempts at translation as well as my understanding as expressed? Thanks Htoo. Sincerely, Scott. 55465 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard This is very subtle stuff. I'm not sure what I wrote below is clear enough but its my best shot for now. In a message dated 2/4/2006 11:54:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, I agree that the mental processing involved with thinking of an ache or heat or an itch, at least a part of it - a surface level of it, is what there is actual awareness of. However, it is not what one is "thinking of"! One is thinking of an ache, heat, or itch, ev though none of these exists at the moment! ;-) TG: The thoughts/memories exist -- at that moment. This is more than mere attention. It is awareness of "the lingering impressions" the those "original" experiences made. The new experience is "just as actual." The "lingering impressions" are just as real an object as the "original" experience. It is just another causal sequence in progress. If you want to technically call the entire mental process of thinking of an ache, heat, or itch "a thought" and consider that as "the object," well, that's an okay technical usage. TG: Yes and no. During "a thought" the entire mental process does function in conjunction with the object of thought...the impressions/memories. In that sense, the whole activity can be qualified as "thought or thinking." But I am not saying that a impression/memory is the sole factor in thought. I, however, don't think that is what people standardly mean when they speak of the object of their thinking. TG: I'm not trying to speak to what folks (the "common Joe") might think is their object of thinking. I'm trying to speak to what thinking actually is. The object of their thinking is the alleged something-or-other, the mere mental projection, that they are "thinking about." ---------------------------------------------- TG: This, in fact, is not their object of thought because it doesn't arise. This might be what they "think" they are thinking about. But it is actually the impressions/memories that are the mental objects. What they "think" they are thinking about is just delusion. The delusion arises, but not the "projected objects." Conditionality cannot actually "project" something that is not there. And there is no "sub-status or non-status" of arising. This is the way I see it. It is also impossible to think a new thought "out of the blue." So called "creativity" is just combining previous ideas and or experiences. A creative person or genius is able to "see" connections or combinations more adeptly than the average intellect. This is also evidence that thoughts are founded on actual experience. Actual experience has left "actual impressions" that are use to "reflect off of" during thought processes. > > Thoughts such as these are "results of impressions/conditions" that are > lingering as memories in the mind. And in fact, all conditioned phenomena > fall > into that category, i.e...."results of impressions/conditions." So I see > them > as just as actual as any conditioned thing can be. > > TG > > ===================== With metta, Howard TG 55466 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 3:37pm Subject: Re: clinging to concepts gazita2002 Hello Howard, and Larry Just want to pick up on one or two points here: > I've seen numerous suttas in which the Buddha uses 'rupa' to refer to > the body, particularly showing the inpermanence of "form" by pointing out how > the body ages, decays, and dies. There are some really good examples that I've > seen, but, unfortunately, I'll have to depend on others to come up with them, > for all that I can come up with right now are the following so-so two: > > (From SN XXII.1, Nakulapita Sutta, To Nakulapita) > > There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person â€" who has no > regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who > has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their > Dhamma â€" assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing > form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea > that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his > form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & > despair over its change & alteration. > [Please note the last sentence!! It the body that definitely is referred to.] > _____________________ > (From SN XXII.79, Khajjaniya Sutta, Chewed Up) > > "And why do you call it 'form'?1 Because it is afflicted,2 thus it is called > 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the > touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is > called form. > [What is it if not the body that is afflicted by these things?] > ===================== > With metta, > Howard azita: the word 'afflicted' referring to rupa - this was something I was asking Nina about as I thought it an odd way to describe rupa. However, I see that it does refer to the rupas that we take for 'this body'. Insect bites, sun, heat, hunger - they are all afflictions, but what about the rupas which arent body e.g. the hardness that I take for 'my car'. It can't be afflicted by these things, altho my car is subject to decay just like this body. I think somehow, the meaning of 'afflicted' rupa must invlove citta and kamma, as in the above sutta [Khajjaniya]. Is that your question, Howard, in brackets at the end or does that belong to the sutta? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 55467 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 2/4/06 6:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, gazita2002@... writes: > I think somehow, the meaning of 'afflicted' rupa must invlove > citta and kamma, as in the above sutta [Khajjaniya]. Is that your > question, Howard, in brackets at the end or does that belong to the > sutta? > ====================== It is my question. And, yes, the afflicted "rupa" does involve citta and kamma, because it is the body that's being talked about! ;-) 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) 55468 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 0:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Azita Brief comment below... In a message dated 2/4/2006 4:42:00 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, gazita2002@... writes: azita: the word 'afflicted' referring to rupa - this was something I was asking Nina about as I thought it an odd way to describe rupa. However, I see that it does refer to the rupas that we take for 'this body'. Insect bites, sun, heat, hunger - they are all afflictions, but what about the rupas which arent body e.g. the hardness that I take for 'my car'. It can't be afflicted by these things, altho my car is subject to decay just like this body. I think somehow, the meaning of 'afflicted' rupa must invlove citta and kamma, as in the above sutta [Khajjaniya]. Is that your question, Howard, in brackets at the end or does that belong to the sutta? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita TG: Affliction always does directly involve citta but indirectly it is applicable all rupa due to impermanence...as you suggested about the car.. I believe the Buddha also wanted us to see external things as unsatisfactory or afflicted as well. Do to their impermanence, they aren't worth grasping...whether animate or inanimate, whether internal or external. “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].â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 540, The Great Discourse to Malunkyaputta, Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) TG 55469 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 6:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts gazita2002 hello TG and Howard, thanx to both of u for your replies: > > > azita: the word 'afflicted' referring to rupa - this was something > I was asking Nina about as I thought it an odd way to describe rupa. > However, I see that it does refer to the rupas that we take > for 'this body'. Insect bites, sun, heat, hunger - they are all > afflictions, but what about the rupas which arent body e.g. the > hardness that I take for 'my car'. It can't be afflicted by these > things, altho my car is subject to decay just like this body. > > I think somehow, the meaning of 'afflicted' rupa must invlove > citta and kamma, as in the above sutta [Khajjaniya]. Is that your > question, Howard, in brackets at the end or does that belong to the > sutta? > > TG: Affliction always does directly involve citta but indirectly it is > applicable all rupa due to impermanence...as you suggested about the car.. I > believe the Buddha also wanted us to see external things as unsatisfactory or > afflicted as well. Do to their impermanence, they aren't worth > grasping...whether animate or inanimate, whether internal or external. azita: yes, I can see that now. > > > “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].â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 540, The Great Discourse to Malunkyaputta, > Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) > TG > azita; well said! and already I feel clinging to those sublime states :-( Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 55470 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 7:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 648 ) lbidd2 Hi Htoo, I'm confused about the six sense bases. Can we say the six sense bases are the 5 sense doors plus the mind door which is bhavanga citta plus the other resultant consciousnesses, for example the 5-door consciousnesses, but not kusala, akusala, or kiriya which would be included in the mind base as a general category, but not here? When does the heart base, the physical base of the mind, arise? Larry 55471 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 8:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jonoabb Hi Joop Thanks for giving your conclusions and comments on the Karunadasa passage as a basis for discussion. Joop wrote: >To all, >interested in the two levels of truth > > >The last part of Karunadasa: "The Dhamma Theory; Philosophical >Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma" (see below) >I someone is interested, I can send the 'Notes' too. >(Earlier primary messages: #55304, #55311, #55350 and #55384) > > > >My (less important than Karunadasa) conclusions and personal opinions >1 An eye-opener to me is the remark "one misconception about the >Theravada version of double truth is that paramattha-sacca is >superior to sammuti-sacca and that what is true in the one sense is >false in the other. This observation that the distinction in question >is not based on a theory of degrees of truth …" This makes Abhidhamma >less mystical! > > This misconception is a commonly held one. The purpose of making the distinction, as I understand it, is simply to clarify that what the Buddha was talking about in his discourses on the development of the path was dhammas and not concepts. For example, when the suttas refer to 'body' or to form in the context of the body, it is often to body as representative of rupas generally. >2 "THE TRUTH" (that is: all the realities together) as such is >unknowable, all we can do is make a theory of it, a model, a >language". It depends on the purpose with theory is the best; for >awakening accordings the Teachings of the Buddha the model of "the >ultimate truth" is the best - but not the only - one. > > Are you saying that dhammas are unknowable? If so, I would disagree. I understand the teachings to say that dhammas are directly knowable (this being the function of panna). >3 "Concepts" are illusions; and an illusion can be dangerous if one >thinks it is part of THE TRUTH; especially the concept "atta" can be >dangerous. > > I would be careful about any statement to the effect that concepts are dangerous, as that tends to miss the point. The 'problem' is taking concepts for realities, or as being real. >4 A ultimate reality, a dhamma, only exists at the moment it is >experienced (a few miliseonds); outside that miliseconds it is not a >reality. > > I understand the texts to say that dhammas are momentary, that is, that they arise and fall away. I am not aware of any text to the effect that dhammas exist only at the moment of being experienced, and I'd be interested to know what source is quoted for this proposition. >5 Difficult for me is the last remark of Karunadasa: "Although they >[sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca] are formally introduced as two >kinds of truth, they are explained as two modes of expressing what is >true. They do not represent two degrees of truth of which one is >superior or inferior to the other. … The great advantage in >presenting sammuti and paramattha in this way is that it does not >raise the problem of reconciling the concept of a plurality of truths >with the well-known statement of the Suttanipata: 'Truth is indeed >one, there is no second' " > >This conclusion needs more reflection of me. Perhaps of others too?? > > I do not have any particular difficulty with this remark. "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west" is an example of a conventional truth. Conventional truths are useful for living our life, in fact they are indispensable, but they play no particular part in the development of the path. Absolute truths are relevant to the development of the path and escape from samsara. >6 Partly again, from my first message: >There are two (levels of) realities; we need both: >NO AWAKENING WITHOUT CONCEPTS > > Any idea that we need to get away from concepts would of course be wrong view, but it is how some people misinterpret the texts on the significance of the distinction between concepts and dhammas. Hoping these comments are of interest to you. Jon 55472 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >Hi, > >I am not clear on the meaning of atta. Please correct the examples >below about what is the atta of what (in conventional truth) if the >example is wrong. > >- the atta of a being is the 5 khandhas > > I don't think the texts talk about 'the atta of a being' (or of a house, etc). What they say is that the 5 khandhas are not-self. This is explained in th suttas by saying that is is not correct to say of any of the khandhas that "This is mine, this I am, this is myself". Thus, any rupa, regardless of whether it is a rupa that is 'part of our body' or a rupa that is 'part of a computer' is equally not-self in the sense that, if seen with panna, is understood as "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself". >- the atta of a tree is wood and leaves >- the atta of a house is the woods, bricks, etc >- the atta of a computer is the monitor, CPU, keyboard, mouse >- the atta of a hardness is the ultimate reality of the element of > hardness > >Thank you. > > Hoping this makes some sense (this is a very difficult area to come to grips with, I think ;-)). Jon 55473 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, TG (and Larry) - > >In a message dated 2/3/06 12:40:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, >TGrand458@... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard and Larry >> >>I think this sutta will "fill the bill"... >> >> >>“This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great >>elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled >>rice and >>porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to >>dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported >>by it >>and bound up with it.â€? >>(The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, >>Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) >>TG >> >> >> >========================= > Thanks. :-) Yes, this does help, with its mentioning of the >impermanence of the body. The one respect with which this sutta falls short as an >example, though, is that it doesn't explicitly use 'form' or 'rupa'. I believe there >are similar suttas where form as body is talked about. > > Yes, there are suttas where form as body is talked about, and I am reminded of the Satipatthana Sutta, where the first anupassana is that of the body. But the commentary makes clear that the reference is to rupas and not to the concept of a body, and I believe the same holds true for the other suttas you have in mind. The rupas that we take for our body are the ones that are most strongly clung to and the most difficult to perceive as mere impersonal elements. Jon 55474 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts and other irrealities (3) jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: > ... > >I have read in Sujin's "Survey" the chapters on "Concepts", a >question about a quote in it. >On page 250 Sujin says: "We should know precisely what is absolute >truth and what os conventional truth"; I agree totally with that; but >the next one: "Conventional truth is not real in the absolute sense" >is difficult. It seems easy to agree but then one should also agree >with the mirror of it: "Absolute truth is not real in the >conventional sense" >Is this latter one a correct statement? > > I think there is a good basis for a statement along the lines that 'Absolute truth is not generally accepted as being true in the conventional sense'. For example, to say that 'everything is suffering' would not generally be regarded as correct. So to this extent, I think the answer to your question is 'Yes' ;-)) Jon 55475 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > > >P.S. With regard to our recent agreement on issues, probably that is partly >due to the particular subject matter of the discussions. In any case, it's >enjoyable while it lasts! ;-) > > Yes, I do realise that our areas of (apparent??) agreement are of fairly limited scope, but that's an already an improvement on the previous situation! ;-)) Jon 55476 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) lbidd2 Hi Joop and Jon, Here's something relevant from the "Buddhist Dictionary": paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth' (sammuti-sacca; in Skr: samvrti-satya). The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohára-vacana). It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohára-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes. The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (s. Guide, p. 62). (App: vohára). The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths. L: It seems to me we have to be careful about conventional truth. On the one hand it is conventional to say the body is impermanent and changes everyday, but on the other hand there is the sense that I exist and I am always the same. I think that not everthing that is commonly believed is true in any sense. Also, if you look under "vipallasa" notice that permanence and self view are not only a matter of view (conception?) but also a matter of mistaken perception and consciousness. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/dictionary/bdindex.html I think the perception of permanence, wholeness, solidity, and agency arises from the mind's tendency to combine what is similar and proximate, and ignore what is different and distant. But there are many other kinds of misperception, such as a mirage, that I think are just a matter of mistaking one dhamma for another. Larry 55477 From: "Charles" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't think the texts talk about 'the atta of a being' (or of a > house, > etc). What they say is that the 5 khandhas are not-self. This is > explained in th suttas by saying that is is not correct to say of > any of the khandhas that "This is mine, this I am, this is myself". Hi Jonothan, Thanks. If we want to differentiate real money from the fake one, we need sufficient understanding about the real money. Without that understanding, real money can be said fake or vice versa. If we are color blind on green, and someone tells us, that's no green. We would not have any other choice other than to believe ignorantly or to reject doubtfully. If I were asked to tell whether a matrix is positive definite, it would need me to learn about positive definite matrix before I can tell whether it is or not (Sorry, I assume most people won't know or remember about positive definite matrix, so you'll get the feeling). Atta is to be understood, anatta is to be realized after examination. My understanding of atta, in short is that atta is the reality (or thought as reality) a concept refers to. For example, a being is a name (concept) for the 5 khandhas. A tree is a name (concept) given to the woods and leaves. But because the 5 khandhas are not realities (ie composed things), then the being concept refers to something unexistent. Another example: Rational people would not create tanha or upadana on (for example) a tree that grow in the clouds. But ignorant rational people believing that the cloud tree concept refers to a real thing, will create tanha for it. Attachment is the thing that tie us in this world. But attachment to Nibbana does not tie us to this world. Only four kinds of upadana are to be eliminated, ie to kama, ditthi, upacara, and atta. I also think that people saying nibbana is anatta are just trying to hard. You may argue 1. nibbana is without essence, but what essence is different from the thing itself. this is annihilism view. 2. nibbana exist, but without the person enters it. OK, what is called 'the person' is not the atta of the concept 'the person', not the nibbana for sure. 3. nibbana is not to be viewed as the atta of being, but who would after attaining nibbana, starts to think that "I am nibbana", "nibbana is mine". 55478 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > The rupas that we take for > our body are the ones that are most strongly clung to and the most > difficult to perceive as mere impersonal elements. Hi Jonothan, When we perceive them as elements, they are impersonal. When we perceive them as body, they become personal Elements do not need further explanation as being impersonal. It is the body that need further explanation as of being composed by elements to show they are impersonal. Same thing, when we are refering to a wooden bown, we think about the wood being the bowl. We do not think about the cellulose molecules that form the wood as the bowl. Any different opinions? 55479 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 0:28am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > L: It seems to me we have to be careful about conventional truth. On the > one hand it is conventional to say the body is impermanent and changes > everyday Hi Larry, What is conventional about impermanence? The convention today is that the body is permanent, at least for 60-70 years :D 55480 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 8:14pm Subject: A Happy Improvement upasaka_howard Hi, all - I'm happy to report that our granddaughter, Sophie, was able to come home from the hospital last evening. Her temperature is now normal, and blood tests seem to show that she did not have a blood infection or other life-threatening infection such as RSV. Sophie gets wonderful medical care, and between her wonderful parents, her grandparents and other relatives, and various friends, including you all, she is the recipient of much, much love. In many ways she is a very fortunate girl. I haven't yet mentioned on the lists what Sophie's main problem is, but I will mention it now so that you will realize that, if we are fortunate enough to have her with us for a good number of years, there will be continuing health problems along the way. Sophie's congenital heart problem, a significant one for which she will need open-heart surgery in a couple months, her digestive problems and her difficulty with eating that have required a feeding tube and other measures, her small and fragile blood vessels and her narrow nasal passages, and other physical problems along with a likely slower cognitive development are all due to Sophie having been born with Down Syndrome. There are good physical and behavioral indications that possibly Sophie may be one of the more fortunate of the children born with this genetic error (three of the 21st chromosome in the cells instead of the usual pair), but only time will tell. The biggest hurldle will be the heart surgery, a couple months from now. In any case, we are in this for the long haul, with the expectation of many trips in and out of the hospital and much other special attention, therapy, and training ahead. I thank you all for your caring, and I apologize for taking your time with this personal matter, but I consider you all to be good friends, so I allow myself to impose a bit. 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) 55481 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:30am Subject: Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna by Brahmâli Bhikkhu christine_fo... Hello all, An interesting article: "Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna" by Brahmâli Bhikkhu "When reading the Suttas of the Pali Canon it is difficult not to be struck by the central importance of samâdhi and jhâna on the Buddhist path, Samâdhi and jhâna appear in Sutta after Sutta, often as the pivotal condition that allows deep insight into the nature of existence. In spite of this, there appears to have been an historical tendency to underestimate the importance of these states. Perhaps the most potent of the many factors that have lead to such underestimation was the early post-Nikâya rise of the Abhidhamma concept of 'lokuttarajjhâna'. In this paper I wish to examine this concept, to investigate whether it has any counterpart in the Suttas, to discuss the implications of using it to interpret the Suttas, and finally to look more closely at the Abhidhamma's treatment of lokuttarajjhâna. I will argue that the common Commentarial practice of using lokuttarajjhâna to define jhâna is misleading." metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 55482 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:28am Subject: Re: A Happy Improvement christine_fo... Hello Howard, You are our good friend and have been for years. I'm sure I speak for others when I say we would be indignant if you didn't share your joys with us and, also, if you didn't lean a little here when you are worried. There is no-one reading your posts who doesn't feel for you and isn't well-wishing Sopie and her loving family. Thank you for including us. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 55483 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:20am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > Hallo Ken, Thanks for your responds First I had to say: because I'm leaving tomorrow-night my home and computer for two weeks, I can these weeks not respond. Ken: "I agree the idea of inferior/superior would not helpful. However, the fact remains; concepts do not have inherent characteristics, and therefore, no examination of them will ever reveal anicca, dukkha or anatta." Joop: I doubt; this is about sabhava and I don't think that's a good idea; but the discussion about sabhava already has been done some weeks ago (with Nina, Howard, TG and others) Ken: "I appreciate your ability to decipher Karunadasa's rather heavy, academic essays. They are too much like hard work for me. I need to know the significance and the repercussions first, so I can decide if it's going to be worth the effort." Joop: I'm sure I only understand apart of him. But I understand more than I did when a year ago I read it for the first time; so; for everything there is a right moment. Ken: "Starting with conventional-sounding suttas and conventional, modern-day commentaries was certainly disastrous in my case. It meant years of following wrong paths. Joop: I did not know that; perhaps you can tell some day (wthout being to personal) how that happened, and how other people can learn from that experience? Metta Joop 55484 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jwromeijn Hallo Larry and Jon First I repeat my remark to KenH: because I'm leaving tomorrow-night my home and computer for two weeks, I can these weeks not respond. Larry: " Here's something relevant from the "Buddhist Dictionary": "paramattha (-sacca, -vacana, -desaná): 'truth (or term, exposition) that is true in the highest (or ultimate) sense', as contrasted with the 'conventional truth' (vohára-sacca), which is also called 'commonly accepted truth'" Joop: Perhaps one point of misunderstand, I realize on this moment is that I interprete is distinguishment between the two truths as 'two languages to describe'. So paramattha is to me a ultimate language. But maybe I made a mistake (according the Abhidhamma) in this way? Larry: "It seems to me we have to be careful about conventional truth. On the one hand it is conventional to say the body is impermanent and changes everyday, but on the other hand there is the sense that I exist and I am always the same. I think that not everthing that is commonly believed is true in any sense. I think the perception of permanence, wholeness, solidity, and agency arises from the mind's tendency to combine what is similar and proximate, and ignore what is different and distant. But there are many other kinds of misperception, such as a mirage, that I think are just a matter of mistaking one dhamma for another." Joop: I agree with you Larry. We also had to be careful about (the use of) ultimate truth. This as a personal remark, not criticizing other people: To think one already had made much progress when one understand much of the Abhidhamma- system. ================================================================= Joop (two days ago): "Absolute truth is not real in the conventional sense" Is this latter one a correct statement? Jon: "I think there is a good basis for a statement along the lines that 'Absolute truth is not generally accepted as being true in the conventional sense'. For example, to say that 'everything is suffering' would not generally be regarded as correct. So to this extent, I think the answer to your question is 'Yes' ;-))" Joop: This question of me was not rhetoric, but real a open one. So thanks for your answer; I think I can agree Metta Joop 55485 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jwromeijn Hallo Jon (KenH, Larry) (Ad 1) Jon: "This misconception is a commonly held one. The purpose of making the distinction, as I understand it, is simply to clarify that what the Buddha was talking about in his discourses on the development of the path was dhammas and not concepts. For example, when the suttas refer to 'body' or to form in the context of the body, it is often to body as representative of rupas generally." Joop: Some weeks ago we had a discussion of "right livelihood" in the Noble Eightfold Path; this was an example to me that the Budha want us te behave in a ethical way: sila as condition for samada and panna. And "behavior" can only be described in conventional language ("don't kill a living being" for example) (Ad 2) Jon: "Are you saying that dhammas are unknowable? If so, I would disagree. I understand the teachings to say that dhammas are directly knowable (this being the function of panna)." Joop: I was talking about "TRUTH" in a metaphysical way that is unknowable; the "TRUTH" of Plato is an illusion. I agree with you that a dhamma can be understood at the moment it arises. (Ad 3) Jon: "I would be careful about any statement to the effect that concepts are dangerous, as that tends to miss the point. The 'problem' is taking concepts for realities, or as being real." Joop: Oh, no, now you are doing it! The are two kind of realities. One should say: The 'problem' is taking conceptual/conventional realities for ultimate realities. And another 'problem' is taking ultimate realities for conventional realities. (Ad 4) Jon: "I understand the texts to say that dhammas are momentary, that is, that they arise and fall away. I am not aware of any text to the effect that dhammas exist only at the moment of being experienced, and I'd be interested to know what source is quoted for this proposition." Joop: It's not a proposition but a conclusion. WHERE should that dhamma be after is had fallen away? There is no place: not in rupa and not in nama. We should not forget that "time" is a concept, so that something exists AFTER (that is: in the time- dimention) is an illusion. (Ad 5 and 6): No remarks of me on your message about this points Metta Joop 55486 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 3:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Joop: Perhaps one point of misunderstand, I realize on this moment is > that I interprete is distinguishment between the two truths as 'two > languages to describe'. So paramattha is to me a ultimate language. > But maybe I made a mistake (according the Abhidhamma) in this way? Sorry, can't help myself :D Both are truths in the sense of not-(intending to)-lie. People say samutthi sacca because they think it is true People say paramattha sacca because they know it is true How about ordinary people speaking abhidhamma? It is conventional isn't it (at least in the eye of other ordinary people)? Convention between people who learn abhidhamma. We cannot say aliens are (truly really 100%) green unless we have seen them by ourselves, can we :P. Unshakeable faith only exist on ariyapuggalas. 55487 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:16am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 376- Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 (o) 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] Questions i When does the “bodily tie of dogmatism” arise? ii Is it a discrepancy that the hindrances are sometimes classified as fivefold, ignorance being excluded, and sometimes as sixfold? iii Why is even a slight annoyance a hindrance to kusala? iv Why can wrong view about seeing, hearing or thinking only be eliminated by paññå as they appear in daily life? ***** (Different Groups of Defilements Part 2 finished!) Metta, Sarah ====== 55488 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... jonoabb Hi Howard You said to Larry: Here's my phenomenalist take on this. I'll be interested to see how it compares with the Abhidhammic understanding: ... It seems to me there's an increasing degree of convergence between the two, in this particular area at least! Jon upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, TG (and Jon) - > >In a message dated 1/30/06 7:16:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, >TGrand458@... writes: > > > >>Or other example questions... Lets say a deaf person and a hearing able >>person are in the same room. Music is loudly playing in the room. The >>deaf >>person cannot hear it but he can feel the vibrations. The other person can >>hear >>it and is unaware of the vibrations. >> >>Questions: 1) Is the audible-object simultaneously a tactile-object? >>2) Although the two peoples experience is different, Is the sensory-object >> >>the same? >>3) Is vibrating air both a tactile-object and audible-object in a separate >> >>way ... even if the source is identical? >>4) If the audible-object is simultaneously a tactile-object, what unique >>quality does the sense-object in question have? >> >> >> >===================== > Here's my phenomenalist take on this. I'll be interested to see how it >compares with the Abhidhammic understanding: > > 1) No. They are two different rupas of two different sorts. > > 2) No. There are two different sensory objects, within two different >expariential streams. > > 3) Vibrating air is neither. It is a story, a concept. > > 4) Previous answers render this unanswerable. > >With metta, >Howard > > 55489 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Larry LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Let's take the case of wealth: "I feel so wealthy. I have $100 in the >bank." This $100 that is mine doesn't amount to anything more than a >piece of paper with certain very specific markings on it. Paper and >markings are rupas and those very specific rupas are what I am attached >to. I call it "my one hundred dollars" but what it is to me is something >very real and solid. Not a mere idea of money, but real money, i.e., >certain very specific rupas. [I'm not sure if these are intimation rupas >or not, but that's another issue.] > >What I'm trying to say is, even though I am sitting here thinking about >my $100 that is way over on the other side of town, what I am attached >to is something I can touch and see. I may also be attached to the >thought of my $100, but first and foremost I am attached to some very >specific rupas. > >Furthermore, I would say my thoughts about my $100 refer to specific >realities. Thoughts are mental words or mental images and words and >images refer to something else. If I am attached to a word (a thought) >then surely we have to say I am attached to the referent of the word. >However, clinging is based on misperception, and misperception comes >about because of ignoring. What I am misperceiving and ignoring is >realities. Our mistake is in seeing lastingness, wholeness, solidity, >and agency where there is impermanence, diffuseness, elusiveness, and >conditional arising. > >These are perceptions, not thoughts. We are attached to these >perceptions. I think this is key point. > >Perhaps we could say "my $100" are _words_ that refer to or condition >the arising of various perceptions that I am attached to and, on >occasion, I am also attached to the mere words as a kind of short-hand. > >I don't know if this totally adds up, but it helped me sort out a few >things. Any response? > >Larry > > Thanks, Larry. There is substance in much of what you say. But at the moment of thinking with attachment about my bank balance I may not necessarily be thinking of the banknotes into which that balance could be converted. As I say, every thought can somehow be related back to dhammas, if we are prepared to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make that connection, but the reality is there is no such relating back at the moment of the thought occurring. Or so it seems to me. Jon 55490 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > >In a message dated 2/3/2006 10:20:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > >Good question to Larry. > >BTW, any references where the Buddha says (or infers) that the object of >consciousness must be a reality? ;-)) > >Jon > > > >Hi Jon > >Objects of consciousness arise and cease due to conditions. If that's what >you mean by "reality" then the answer is yes. Perhaps my previous post to >you about MN #140 and external rupas is in regards to this issue? > >TG > > I see this as a separate issue to the earlier one. Your view that concepts are dhammas seems to be based on an assumption that only dhammas can be object of consciousness. I was wondering where that assumption comes from. Jon 55491 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. jonoabb Hi Charles Charles DaCosta wrote: >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). > Thanks for this comment. I read you as saying that the fact that we don't notice every individual moment of consciousness, and the continuous switching between objects of consciousness, indicates that there is a level of consciousness of which we are not aware. Yes, I suppose that must be so. Just to comment on a related point here (not arising from your post), when we talk about awareness being of a single dhamma only, that does not mean awareness of just a single moment of a single dhamma. I mention this because people sometimes question the 'single dhamma as object' idea on the basis that it is not possible to experience single moments of consciousness given the rapidity with which they arise and fall away. Jon 55492 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >[Jon] Sorry for the delay in responding. The last few days have been rather >hectic. Sarah and I are now in Bangkok, and I hope to find a little >more time for posting. > >TG: Hope all is well for you and Sarah! > > Thanks, TG. It's great to be here and to see old friends again. We attended the regular Saturday afternoon discussion at the Foundation yesterday, and met up with Nina (and Lodewijk), Sukin and Ivan (aka Matt). Tomorrow morning there will be another session, and we are expecting RobK to be there too. >TG: Since I have the reference handy, I'll refer you to Majjhima Nikaya >sutta # 140 -- The Exposition of the Elements. One thing that occurs in this >Sutta is an analysis of the Four Great Elements. In this analysis the Buddha >says that each of these elements is "internal or external." It is clear from >his description of the internal that he means -- everything that constitutes >the individual. Exterior elements is therefore "all that is outside of >that." I'm sure there are many other examples, just happen to have this one >handy. > >Do you feel this is not a positing of external rupa? > > I don't have the sutta text handy, but I suspect the reference to external elements is to elements currently being experienced. However, to my understanding of the texts, rupas (both internal and external) may arise other than when they are object of consciousness. Now I'm wary about saying that such rupas 'exist', or about describing this as an 'external reality', but I certainly do not subscribe to the idea that rupas only arise when they are object of consciousness. So we are on the same side here ;-)) >[Jon] I'm wondering if perhaps you think of the 'loud music' as being the >audible object. That is more like the conventional idea of a sound. >Audible object is simply that which is experienced by hearing >consciousness. At the moment of just experiencing that object, it is >not known as any particular kind of sound. > >TG: I believe an audible-object in a physical form that would be heard if >an operating ear and ear consciousness were to contact it. A "sound" is the >act of hearing. > >The Buddha says that contact is the "coming together, the meeting," etc. of >sense-object, sense-base, and corresponding consciousness. If an >audible-object was only that which was already in contact with sense-base and >consciousness, what would be the point of describing them as "coming together" or >"meeting"? What would they be coming together with? They would already be >together if that were the case. > > Generally, no disagreement with your conclusion here. >[Jon] As what is being more or less simultaneously experienced through the >body-door (as 'felt vibrations'), this is a form of tactile object, that >is another object, another dhamma, altogether. The two have different >characteristics (or nature, aspects, qualities, whatever term you prefer >to use), quite independent of the perception of the experiencer, >according to the texts. > >TG: This is what I don't get. If I understand your line of reasoning here. > Forgive me if I'm wrong but are you saying -- You believe that "external >rupas" don't exist. Rupa only exists when being experienced. But they have >qualities that are "independent of the experience"? > >Well, I'll probably never get it. ;-) > > Hope I've clarified how I see things ;-)) > [Jon] PS On the 'external realities' issue: > >1. I think the question you are asking is, Can rupas arise (vs. Do >rupas exist, or Are rupas real) other than when they are the object of >consciousness? >2. You give the example of a tree in the forest. Would not the same >question arise as regards, for example, the building you are now in, the >computer you are now using, or your own body? >3. Since all dhammas are conditioned, I suppose the answer to the >question will depend on what the conditions are for the arising of the >rupa in question and, in particular, whether those conditions include >the fact of the rupa being the object of consciousness. Do you have any >thoughts on this? > > >TG: #1 Yes, that's the question. >#2 Yes, in all cases. >#3 Rupa certainly is an object of consciousness. But I believe it can also >not be an object of consciousness. > > Agreed!! >Nice talking to you Jon. I'm especially interested in how you'd answer the >sutta passages in question. MN #140. But all would be great. > >BTW, I must say that I do take a much more science friendly attitude than >many in this group. I believe the Buddha was a great scientist among >everything else. :-) > > Nice talking to you, too, TG. Jon 55493 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 5:14am Subject: Bhuumi Are Names of Sets Of Dhammas (Was -- Re: Meaning of dhamma in sabbe abhidhammika Dear Steve, Mike N, Robert K, Larry, and all How are you? Steve wrote: "The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana." I am afraid that Steve misunderstood the connection between bhuumis and dhammas. Bhummis are merely names of sets of dhammas and do not exist themselves while dhammas in their sets can happen (or exist in the case of nibbaana). I will give you a scenario in which all bhuumis co-appear. Suppose there were a Theravada Buddhist monastery where puthujana monks, Ruupa Jhaana monks, Aruupa Jhaana monks and Ariyaa monks reside while some cats and dogs also live under the same roof. In the above scenario, the same monastery can be said to represent all the four bhuumis because it accomodates all four dhammas in the sets of kaama bhuumi, Ruupa bhuumi, Aruupa bhuumi and Lokuttara bhuumi. Please keep in mind that persons are merely names that refer to dhammas and do not exist as realities. Think about it. By the way, what exactly is self in your understanding? If you believed in self and can define it, please try your best to define it. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "seisen_au" wrote: > The Channa > Sutta of the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta Nikaya has > > All formations are impermanent, all phenomena are anatta. > Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anattaa'ti. > > The commentaries state in reference to this passage: > > Sabbe sankhara anicca'ti sabbe tebhumakasankhara aniccaa. > Sabbe dhammaa anattaati sabbe catubhumakadhammaa anattaa. Hi Steve, Thanks for the quote. I can argue with this: 1. The full context: ------------------------------------ When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Channa, "Form, friend Channa, is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self." ==================================== The last two sentence is the conclusion of the first five sentences. 2. If there are 3 green boxes and 1 white box, and I said all the color in the four boxes (but here I define color as any color that same degree of darkness) then the white color is not uncluded in the statement. Sabbe dhamma anatta and any dhamma in the catu bhumi is really the same statement. The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana. 3. Why do the Buddha use sankhara in anicca and dukkha but use the term dhamma in anatta? because beings have the view : sabbe sankhara atta (sankhara = atta). If the Buddha said sabbe sankhara anatta, it is like saying (to beings with atta-ditthi) atta = anatta. Therefore to emphasis that there is no being connected with sankhara, the Buddha use the term atta. Now if someone has the view "all penguins are cute" which statement would be more acceptable to show the person that it isn't true: 1. all penguins are not cute 2. creatures with sharp teeth eating fish and boring colors living in ice are not cute 55494 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 5:51am Subject: Bhuumi Are Names of Sets Of Dhammas (Was -- Re: Meaning of dhamma in sabbe cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > "The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the > planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So > dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana. Hi Suan Lu Zaw, This, I believe is my statement :P as reply to Steve's > I am afraid that Steve misunderstood the connection between bhuumis > and dhammas. Bhummis are merely names of sets of dhammas and do not > exist themselves while dhammas in their sets can happen (or exist in > the case of nibbaana). The longer I read this group, the more I like people telling me that I have wrong understanding (and I really mean that positively :D). This is great so that we do not get trapped in our own world of views. Anyway, as you have said, bhumi is a duality, a name and a reference to dhamma. When it is said, bhumi exist, what is really meant is that the dhammas refered by the name bhumi exist. This is clearly illustrated by the question: What is the color of the house? If color is a property of the house (as a name), then people will be able to answer the question. But as color is the property of the dhammas the 'name' house is refering to, then people will ask first "Which house?" The same with "bhumi exist", 'exist' here is a property of the reality the name bhumi is refering to. > I will give you a scenario in which all bhuumis co-appear. > > Suppose there were a Theravada Buddhist monastery where puthujana > monks, Ruupa Jhaana monks, Aruupa Jhaana monks and Ariyaa monks > reside while some cats and dogs also live under the same roof. I think this is a good example. > By the way, what exactly is self in your understanding? If you > believed in self and can define it, please try your best to define > it. All unenlightened beings believe in self :D self = pancakkhanda (at least that's what we all believe) Or if we need a little experiment, take a mirror, put it in front our our face, and tell me, what is reflected in the mirror? :D Whose face, whose skin, whose hair, whose nose, whose teeth? I, isn't? 55495 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Happy Improvement upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - Thank you! This is really touching, Chris. :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/5/06 4:40:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Hello Howard, > > You are our good friend and have been for years. I'm sure I speak for > others when I say we would be indignant if you didn't share your joys > with us and, also, if you didn't lean a little here when you are > worried. There is no-one reading your posts who doesn't feel for you > and isn't well-wishing Sopie and her loving family. Thank you for > including us. > > metta > Chris > /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) 55496 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna by Brahmâli Bhikkhu upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 2/5/06 4:48:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Hello all, > > An interesting article: "Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna" by Brahmâli > Bhikkhu > > ========================== Is this on the internet? If yes, could you please send the url? If not, is it short enough to scan and upload to the files section? (I'd love to read the article.) 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) 55497 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Larry) - In a message dated 2/5/06 7:46:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Thanks, Larry. There is substance in much of what you say. But at the > moment of thinking with attachment about my bank balance I may not > necessarily be thinking of the banknotes into which that balance could > be converted. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think that unless one has a primitive or children's level mentality [Note: Larry I *don't* mean you, because I don't believe you actually think this way!!], one is not primarily thinking about banknotes or physical currency when one thinks about his/her money in the bank - one thinks about the power to purchase, an abstraction. ---------------------------------------- > > As I say, every thought can somehow be related back to dhammas, if we > are prepared to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make that > connection, but the reality is there is no such relating back at the > moment of the thought occurring. Or so it seems to me. ------------------------------------------ Howard: And to me. ------------------------------------------ > > 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) 55498 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and TG) - In a message dated 2/5/06 7:56:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes, in speaking to TG: > Your view that concepts are dhammas seems to be based on an assumption > that only dhammas can be object of consciousness. I was wondering where > that assumption comes from. -------------------------------------- Howard: If I can hazard a guess, it comes from the impression, obtained, I think, on DSG and in some Abhidhammic writings, that an object of consciousness is supposed to be a phenomenon that is literally and actually present as a truly observed phenomenon, and thus there is the search by TG for something "real" and present that is the "actual object." There is the impression that the term 'arammana' always signifies a paramattha dhamma. However, in Nyanatiloka's dictionary, in the definition of 'arammana', there is written, the following: > The mind-object (dhammarammaa) may be physical or mental, past, present or > future, real or imaginary. > Thus, 'arammana' is sometimes used figuratively, in a loose way, to signify what a process of thinking "is about" or "what it pertains to." One gets so used to paramattha dhammas being the only "items of interest" to Abhidhamma aficionados that it is expected that a Pali word couldn't possibly have the nerve to mean something else! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 55499 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna by Brahmâli Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Howard, It is on the BuddhaSasana web-site: http://www. budsas.org Sincerely Scott. 55500 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 7:36am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@ wrote: > > L: It seems to me we have to be careful about conventional truth. On > the > > one hand it is conventional to say the body is impermanent and > changes > > everyday > > Hi Larry, > > What is conventional about impermanence? The convention today is that > the body is permanent, at least for 60-70 years :D > Hi Charles, It is the body that is conventional. Larry 55501 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 7:57am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Charles, > > It is the body that is conventional. Hi Larry, 100% agree. 55502 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 8:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) lbidd2 Joop: "Perhaps one point of misunderstand, I realize on/[in] this moment is that I interpret is distinguishment/[distinction] between the two truths as 'two languages to describe'. So paramattha is to me a ultimate language. But maybe I made a mistake (according the Abhidhamma) in this way? Hi Joop, I came to the same conclusion only this morning. I think there is a misconception in the bias of "concept vs. reality" that can be seen from the position of the two truths. Ultimate truth is the language of ultimate reality, while conventional truth is the language of misperception. An important point is that ultimate language refers to ultimate reality, but conventional language refers to misperceptions. Conventional language does NOT refer to language (concepts). The word "tree" refers to the perception of a formation of rupas as lasting, whole, and solid. "Lasting, whole, and solid" is an error and does not exist. Similarly, the word "I" refers to a formation of the 5 khandhas as lasting, whole, solid, and an agent (a doer). "I" does not refer to words. I can sit here and experience this misconception without any internal monologue. It seems to me that speech is an ultimate reality. External speech is vocal intimation rupa; internal speech is vitakka and vicaara (applied thought and sustained thought). The nature of misperception is the nature of error. By definition, in an error there is the mistaken perception of something that is not there. This something not there has no distinguishing characteristic (sabhava), but we can still differentiate between lastingness, wholeness, solidity, and agency. No sabhava means cannot be _truly_ experienced, but it _is_ seemingly experienced. I think we have to say that conventional truth is the Buddha's speech using conventional language. Ultimate truths can be inferred from this speech. In ordinary conventional speech, if ultimate truth cannot be reasonably inferred, then it isn't truth, even on a conventional level, even if everyone agrees with it. Maybe when you get back we can discuss this further. Larry 55503 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 8:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Thanks, Larry. There is substance in much of what you say. But at the > moment of thinking with attachment about my bank balance I may not > necessarily be thinking of the banknotes into which that balance could > be converted. > > As I say, every thought can somehow be related back to dhammas, if we > are prepared to go through the mental gymnastics necessary to make that > connection, but the reality is there is no such relating back at the > moment of the thought occurring. Or so it seems to me. > > Jon > Hi Jon, I agree. In a previous message to Joop I proposed that concepts are forms of speech and speech is a reality, either vocal intimation rupa or vitakka and vicaara. I realize this is contra what is taken to be established abhidhamma commentary (a closer look at the Pali might be worthwhile). If my contention is correct, then we could still say only upadanakhandhas are the objects of clinging. This would be in conformity with a literal interpretation of Vism.XIV,218: "And this is the extreme limit as the basis for the assumption of self and what pertains to self, that is to say, the five beginning with materiality". L: Even if we don't take such a literal interpretation, the "basis for the assumption of self" could mean, as you say, that deep analysis would show that ultimately what we cling to are the upadanakhandhas. Larry 55504 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > speech is a reality, either vocal intimation rupa or vitakka and vicaara. Hi Larry, I have other opinion. When you write speech, it's a concept. The speech thing itself is a fake reality. When analyzed, speech are seen by wisdom as the object on the ear or vittaka and vicara. When thinking about object of the ear, or vittaka and vicara, the concept or speech has been replaced by other concept, but this time, it is associated with paramattha sacca. When by wisdom, knowing here and now the true reality of speech, at that time, by the power of panna, there is no thinking about this is my speech, etc. This is the elimination of atta-ditthi. The 4th jhanas of pathavi kasina is based on concepts, isn't, even when at that time there is no more vittaka and vicara? 55505 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/5/2006 5:56:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Thanks, TG. It's great to be here and to see old friends again. We attended the regular Saturday afternoon discussion at the Foundation yesterday, and met up with Nina (and Lodewijk), Sukin and Ivan (aka Matt). Tomorrow morning there will be another session, and we are expecting RobK to be there too. Hi Jon Sounds like a great event. Well, since we agreed within reason on every issue, I guess nothing left to say about the topic. Time to be mindful. :-) TG 55506 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:29am Subject: concept and sabhava lbidd2 Hi Jon, Joop, and all, I wonder if we could say that concepts are words and words are referential realities, but the referents of these realities are non-existent _in_ those words (except for spoken words whose referent is the sound of the word, e.g, tick-tock, buzz, etc.). Concepts are also mental images, but perhaps we could say a mental image is a referential reality in the same way; the image is empty of the visible data that is its referent. This mere absence of a referent is what is meant by asabhava (no distinguishing characteristic). There is also the case of an absolute non-existent: "wholeness" is a word whose referent is not only absent, but also non-existent. There is also the perception of wholeness and this may appear as a mental image. The word "tree" refers to absent but existent realities and also to an unreal wholeness. We can directly perceive the realities and seemingly but erroneously perceive the unrealities of the referent of the word "tree" when it/they are/is present. Larry 55507 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 4, 2006 3:47pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) htootintnaing Dear Scott, Whatever I am wrong or not; your interpretation of my understanding is exactly what I understand. I do not push anyone to study Paa.li. But I do suggest to learn some important Paa.li words. avijja --> sankhaara --> vinnaana --> naama --> manaayatana avijjaa (ignorance of 4 Noble Truth) leads to sankhaara (kamma- formations). That is unperturbable jhaanas are practised because 4 Noble Truths are not seen. Non-material absorptive actions creates non-material kamma. This kamma gives rise to non-material rebirth. Non-material rebirth cause non-material naama. Non-material naama cause non-material manaayatana or mind-sense-base. Here avijjaa is said to be micchaa-pa.tipatti because it is not vijjaa who will do right pa.tipatti. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Htoo, > > Thank you for your response. It gives me a chance (among other > things) to learn Pali in action, as it were. I am trying to be a > serious student of Pali and so appreciate this. > > "I interchangably use 'support, condition'." > > Scott: Thanks. > > "Substrate is different." > > Scott: Okay. > > Scott: Are they differentiations of naama-ruupa? > > "Avijjaa --> sankhaara --> vinnaanaa --> naama/-ruupam --> manayatana" > > "Let us say it is 'miccha-pa.tipatti avijjaa' that initiates the > cycle. Because of micchaa-pa.tipatti 'anenjhaabhi-sankhaara' are done." > > Scott: "Let us say it is ignorance based on wrong-practise that > initiates the cycle. Because of wrong-practise imperturbable > kamma-formations are done." > > "Because of anenjhaabhi-sankhaara (aruupa-jhaana) vinnaana (aruupa- > vipaaka of aruupa-pa.tisandhi vinnaana) arises." > > Scott: "Because of imperturbable kamma-formations (immaterial jhaana) > consciousness (immaterial result of immaterial relinking > consciousness) arises." > > "Because of that vinnaana 'naama' have to arise. Because of that > naama 'manaayatana in aruupa-brahmaa' has to arise." > > Scott: "Because of that consciousness mind has to arise. Because of > mind, the sense bases in the highest immaterial sense have to arise." > > "It is different implications and not like differentiation. (answer)" > > Scott: Thanks I see that differentiation is the wrong term. > > Would you please kindly critique my attempts at translation as well as > my understanding as expressed? > > Thanks Htoo. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 55508 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/5/2006 5:56:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: I see this as a separate issue to the earlier one. Your view that concepts are dhammas seems to be based on an assumption that only dhammas can be object of consciousness. I was wondering where that assumption comes from. Jon Hi Jon The answer is direct experience. I do not admit any assumption at all in this matter, although I could be wrong. (Remember, concepts to me are mental formations.) Here's the process... I watch the mind and observe the causes of its changing states. When thoughts are there, I look into "what caused those thoughts"? I find two primary causes...one is that those thoughts are based on recollections/learnings from past experience. The second primary cause is a current condition that is acting in an associated manner to "trigger those 'past' thoughts." The thoughts technically are not past, they are "currently existing impressions" that can be accessed by attention...given the necessary associations that lead to their recall. (Things experienced in the past that cannot be recalled do not have powerful enough "impressions" to recall them...or the "current associations" are not powerful enough to "draw them out." Also, I have actually tried to generate thoughts of something that I have no previous experience with. I find it to be impossible. The best that can be done is merging two or more thoughts that have been previously learned/experienced...such as "flying" "pink" "elephant." Now I'll be interested in what you think about this. (And remember, your answer and thoughts about it are being triggered by associations with the "current ideas" that are being proffered in this post. Your mind will need to search through 'past experiences' --> 'current impressions' to find reasons to agree or disagree. All of those things are not only based on actual experience, but are actual experience as they "formulate" an answer.) ;-) TG 55509 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:41am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 647 ) scottduncan2 "Whatever I am wrong or not; your interpretation of my understanding is exactly what I understand.I do not push anyone to study Paa.li. But I do suggest to learn some important Paa.li words. avijja --> sankhaara --> vinnaana --> naama --> manaayatanaavijjaa (ignorance of 4 Noble Truth) leads to sankhaara (kamma-formations). That is unperturbable jhaanas are practised because 4 Noble Truths are not seen. Non-material absorptive actions creates non-material kamma. This kamma gives rise to non-material rebirth. Non-material rebirth cause non-material naama. Non-material naama cause non-material manaayatana or mind-sense-base. Here avijjaa is said to be micchaa-pa.tipatti because it is not vijjaa who will do right pa.tipatti." Dear Htoo, Thank you very much. I don't feel pushed by you to learn Pali - I want to learn Pali. If only I had more time. Perhaps if I keep working on your posts and learning with you I'll gain in proficiency. Thanks for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Scott. 55510 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > > speech is a reality, either vocal intimation rupa or vitakka and > vicaara. > > Hi Larry, > > I have other opinion. When you write speech, it's a concept. The > speech thing itself is a fake reality. When analyzed, speech are seen > by wisdom as the object on the ear or vittaka and vicara. When > thinking about object of the ear, or vittaka and vicara, the concept > or speech has been replaced by other concept, but this time, it is > associated with paramattha sacca. When by wisdom, knowing here and now > the true reality of speech, at that time, by the power of panna, there > is no thinking about this is my speech, etc. This is the elimination > of atta-ditthi. > > The 4th jhanas of pathavi kasina is based on concepts, isn't, even > when at that time there is no more vittaka and vicara? > Hi Charles, I've always wondered what happens to the nimitta when vitakka and vicara cease. Internal speech is often accompanied by mental images. The mental image of a jhana nimitta is classified as a concept. I think this mental image is a reality, that is to say, an experience. What is not experienced is the visible data that this image refers to, or imitates. The mental image is a "shadow" of visible data. When vitakka and vicara cease the mental image, as object of jhana citta, continues, although there is rise and fall in all of this because all these factors are realities. I think any mental image, even dreams, could be regarded in the same way, as referential reality. One thing about realities: we shouldn't look too close. Realities are inherently elusive, ungraspable. Words are elusive but not non-existent. Larry 55511 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Jon Actually Howard, I believed this way long before I studied Abhidhamma or was a member of this group. I came to this outlook "independently" without a "need" to try to come to this outlook. See my previous post to Jon that might help clear it up. Regarding the below quote I would say... "The mind-object" may be of a past experience...but the "impressions" of that experience are "present"! The "present impression" is the mind-object. Otherwise it would simply not be remembered. Also, obviously a "past" state cannot be in the present. One more comment below... In a message dated 2/5/2006 8:30:26 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: If I can hazard a guess, it comes from the impression, obtained, I think, on DSG and in some Abhidhammic writings, that an object of consciousness is supposed to be a phenomenon that is literally and actually present as a truly observed phenomenon, and thus there is the search by TG for something "real" and present that is the "actual object." There is the impression that the term 'arammana' always signifies a paramattha dhamma. However, in Nyanatiloka's dictionary, in the definition of 'arammana', there is written, the following: > The mind-object (dhammarammaa) may be physical or mental, past, present or > future, real or imaginary. > Thus, 'arammana' is sometimes used figuratively, in a loose way, to signify what a process of thinking "is about" or "what it pertains to." One gets so used to paramattha dhammas being the only "items of interest" to Abhidhamma aficionados that it is expected that a Pali word couldn't possibly have the nerve to mean something else! LOLOL! TG: I believe arammana is being used very tightly. ;-) It is the interpretation of it that is a little loose. ;-)) Its not a matter of trying to "find realities" in an abhidhamma framework. I could give a "flying .... well, you know. Rather, its a matter of seeing the "mechanics of cause and effect" in actual experience. -- Hey, Abhidhamma can't always be wrong. ;-) TG ------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ========================= With metta, Howard 55512 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samvega/Urgency upasaka_howard Hi, all - Yet more! I apologize for continuing in this vein, but I find it so unbelievable that I feel I just must mention this. A friend of ours, quite a bit younger than I, and one of the very sweetest guys I know, who has been fighting several forms of cancer with a good degree of success for a few years, is now, I have just learned, losing his fight. Little to no hope is being held out. This is a tough one to "get my head around". For the young people on the list: It seems, I'll bet, that there is all the time in the world. But let me assure you, in just a moment, it will seem, you'll look around with astonishment, wondering "Where did it all go? And when?" The time is now, my friends! The time is now for Dhamma practice in its fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita, and it is especially time now for letting those you specially care about know through word and deed, in no uncertain terms, that you do love them. 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) 55513 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 0:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samvega/Urgency scottduncan2 "The time is now, my friends! The time is now for Dhamma practice in its fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita, and it is especially time now for letting those you specially care about know through word and deed, in no uncertain terms, that you do love them." Dear Howard, Correct, Howard! Thank you. Sincerely, Scott. 55514 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 1:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jh⮡ and Lokuttarajjh⮡ by Brahm⬩ Bhikkhu christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > > Dear Howard, > > It is on the BuddhaSasana web-site: http://www. budsas.org > > Sincerely > > Scott. > Hello Howard and Scott, Thanks Scott for putting up the website. Here is the article link: JhÄ?na and LokuttarajjhÄ?na by BrahmÄ?li Bhikkhu http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebmed092.htm metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 55515 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jh⮡ and Lokuttaraj jh⮡ by Brahm⬩ Bhikkhu upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 2/5/06 4:21:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Hello Howard and Scott, > > Thanks Scott for putting up the website. Here is the article link: > JhÄ?na and LokuttarajjhÄ?na by BrahmÄ?li Bhikkhu > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebmed092.htm > > metta > Chris > ===================== Thanks, Chris. I found it after a search of the site, but this will make it easier for others who want to read it. 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) 55516 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:56pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 Hi Joop and KenH Just a very quick comment. I haven't read all the posts so apologise if I've missed the point or repeated something. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > ------------- > Joop: > A little bit new is that is spoken of two (levels of) > reality. Many times in DSG when the term "realities" is used, for > example by Nina, only ultimate ones were thought was. "Concepts" are > most times seen in DSG as something inferior. > -------------- > > Some of us might be a bit dismissive of them, but I have never seen > concepts referred to as inferior. I agree the idea of > inferior/superior would not helpful. However, the fact remains; > concepts do not have inherent characteristics, and therefore, no > examination of them will ever reveal anicca, dukkha or anatta. > > J: > all I can add to "concepts are mere illusions" is that in > explaining the Dhamma conceptual language was and is inevitable. > ------------- > > Language that refers to conventional realities makes the Dhamma > almost impossible to understand. It is fine if you already know about > paramattha dhammas, but otherwise, disastrous. Starting with > conventional-sounding suttas and conventional, modern-day > commentaries was certainly disastrous in my case. It meant years of > following wrong paths. I, too, have been reading Survey by Khun Sujin. It seems to me that she does not communicate in KenH's style, and deliberately so: KenH: Concepts are not realities but are illusions. KS: "Concepts are not realities but they are the means to make things known." (p.280). When KenH talks about "reality", he is talking about the paramattha/pannatti divide. In another sense, however, it makes sense to say that "in reality, mind-base takes concept as object alot of the time" i.e. concept is a huge part of our "reality". KenH accepts that his words often seem dismissive of concepts and that's no problem, so long as there is understanding. But, it seems to me, KS sees a danger is such dismissive language conditioning dosa and a desire to have citta without pannatti - and it is not possible for us to control citta in such a manner. The task is to understand, not to control by banishing concept from our "reality". Best wishes AndrewT 55517 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 3:22pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 651 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Naama-ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatanaa'. Sa.laayatana are six in number. The first five are ruupa while the last is naama. These 6 ayatana are internal sense-base. Because they exist at so called beings and not at outside. There are also 6 outside sense-bases. They are also senses for base or basing consciousness. They are 1. colour (vanno) or ruupa (form/shape/light) or visual object 2. sound or sadda 3. smell or gandha 4. taste or rasa 5. touch or photthabbaa (pathavi, tejo, vayo) These 5 sense-bases are outside of so called beings. The 6th sense-base that is dhammayatana is also external and outside of so called being (manaayatana). Example beings are aruupa brahma beings. 6. dhamma or dhammayatana or thought-object Dhammayatana are a) 16 sukhuma ruupa or 16 subtle materials b) 52 cetasikas c) 1 nibbana Cetasikas cannot be seen. Cannot be heard, smelt, tasted, touched. But cetasikas are known through manayatana that is consciousness or mind or cittas. While cittas are called manayatana cetasikas are called dhammaayatana. Nibbana is also dhammayatana because it can be known through cittas or manayatana. 16 ruupas are also dhammayatana because they can never be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched but can be known through cittas or manaayatana. Apo is one of 16 sukhuma ruupa. Because the element water or apo-dhaatu cannot be touched, seen, heard, smelt, and tasted. But can be known through cittas or manaayatana. Example the most abundant element is seen in what we call 'water'. The water we see is not apo-dhaatu. It is just 'sight'. We can hear the splash etc but they are not apo-dhaatu but sound. We may taste the tasteless water but it is not apo-dhaatu but taste. We may also smell water. But we cannot smell apo-dhaatu. We can touch water but we cannot touch apo-dhaatu. Try to touch water. There may present coldness or warmness or hotness. Or if we strike the water we may touch pathavii or earth-element but not apo. Or we may touch the resistence of water which is vayo but not apo. But the characteristic of apo is to stick together, to flow, to spread, to cohere. This is known through mind or manayatana. So do other sukhuma ruupas. That is they all are dhammaayatana. Sa.laayatana in D.O is referred to internal 6 aayatana. Because external 6 aayatanas are not connected with avijjaa, sankhaara, vinnaanaa, naama-ruupam. Beings gain naama-ruupa because of their kamma (sankhaara) [giving rise to consciousness or vinnaana], 9kamma)which again is because of ignorance (avijjaa). 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. 55518 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 3:36pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 652 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa.laayatana paccayaa phasso.' 6 sense-bases conditions 6 contacts or 6 samphassa. Phassa means 'contact'. Sam means 'well'. Here contact does not mean physical touching but meeting of dhamma together. Example; when a colour is seen through eyes there arise eye-consciousness. There are three phenomena. 1. colour 2. eye 3. eye-consciousness Colour is a ruupa which just last 17 moments. Eye (here eye- sensitivity) or cakkhu-pasaada just only last 17 moments. The third phenomenon is eye-consciousness and it just last 1 moment. When eye-consciousness arises this arising is because of the help of contact or phassa which is meeting of these three phenomena and not physical contact. Example; physical eyes can contact with light, colour, form, shape. But eye-consciousness may or may not arise. When arise it is because of contact or phassa. When not arise it is because there is no phassa or no contact. Here phassa can never arise without sa.laayatana or internal sense- bases. There are unseen sights, unheard sounds, unsmelt smell, untasted taste, and untouched touches. But they are not aayatana yet because they do not cause arising of consciosuenss. 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. 55519 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:02pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 653 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa.laayatana paccayaa phasso.' Sa.laayatana or 6 sense-bases are 1. cakkhaayatana or eye-sense-base 2. sotaayatana or ear-sense-base 3. ghaanayatana or nose-sense-base 4. jivhaayatana or tongue-sense-base 5. kaayaayatana or body-sense-base 6. manaayatana or mind-sense-base The first 5 sense-bases are ruupa. But they cannot be sensed by any of 5-sense-doors. This is remarkable. One may say eye-sensitivity is in the eye ball, cornea, retina, nerves etc. But it is not. Because it is kamma-born-ruupa and it has to arise because of kamma. So only when seeing arise there arise eye-sensitivity as eye-sense-base. Transplanted cornea does not have any sense-base or cakkhaayatana but after transplantation because of kamma of being in question seeing can arise. The same applies to other 4 sense-bases of ruupa dhamma. 6th sense-base is purely naama dhamma. It is manaayatana or mind- sense-base. They are cittas. These 6 sense-bases condition 6 contacts or 6 samphassa. These 6 samphassas are 1. cakkhu-sam-phassa or eye-contact 2. sota-sam-phassa or ear-contact 3. ghaana-samphassa or nose-contact 4. jivhaa-sam-phassa or tongue-contact 5. kaaya-sam-phassa or body-contact 6. mano-sam-phassa or mind-contact. 'Sa.laayatana paccayaa phasso'. Without 6 aayatana there is no way for 6 contacts to arise. Each is correspond to their specific contact as you can yourself match these 6 dhamma pairs. 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. 55520 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:22pm Subject: Re: Question for A. Sujin philofillet Hi again, Sarah and others in Bangkok... Re the question below, if it hasn't been asked yet. I also heard this : "How can there be more detachment without developing more good deeds?" (rhetorical question) If there is an opportunity this week or later this month, could you kindly ask A. Sujin to elaborate on this? I sense I am in need of some guidance in this area because currently there is a lot of arrogant dismissal of the idea of good deeds that are done without understanding, rooted in the desire to be a more wholesome person, out of clinging to our loved ones and loved notions etc... I will reread my summaries of A. Sujin's book on wholesome deeds when there is time... Thanks, if the opportunity comes up.... Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah > > Sneaking on to a computer at work to ask a question for Acharn > Sujin. I have read this, "we can't understand panna until we > understand sila and dana" or words to that effect. Could you ask her > to talk about that a bit? I tend to think, prematurely, that panna > takes care of everything. > > (No need to ask the other question I mentionned in a post to Nina, > about how understanding helps us to deal with dosa.) > > Thanks. > > Phil > 55521 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samvega/Urgency philofillet HI Howard I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and sorry for - again - jumping in a possibly inappropriate way at such a time, but I can't help it! > The time is now, my friends! The time is now for Dhamma practice in its > fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita, But isn't it the fear of mortality, the fear of losing loved ones, that motivates the followers of other religions to seek their God with urgency while there is time? I really feel that there is a tendency in our culture to place so much emphasis on what we accomplish in this one of so many lifetimes, and that because of this we fall into having a sense of urgency rooted in this one lifetime and what we want to accomplish, which is too much, too soon. Didn't the Buddha teach us that in our journey through samsara we have cried enough tears to fill an ocean? We have loved and lost so many many times. Didn't the Buddha want us to have a certain degree of detachment from desire from results in this lifetime when we reflect on that? Maybe not. There is the turban on fire simile, of course. We have the rare opportunity to be studying Dhamma, to be human. We have to grab that opportunity, Carpe Vitae, if you will. (Seize the lifetime rather than seize the day? :) ) So you may be right. But my first impression was to think that we should relax and have detachment from needing to fulfill ourselves as Buddhists this time around. Nina has also talked about her awareness as she grows older, in calendar terms, of the briefness of life. But she has also expressed her appreciation for the momentary aspect of life, of cittas rising and falling away as they always have and always will, something like that... BTW, I am, although a bit younger than you, always constantly thinking about how much I love Naomi, and am constantly thinking about losing her or her losing me. So I am not saying I am "above" that kind of thing. But I think the Buddha's teaching must surely condition a certain detachment, sooner or later. Is seeing Naomi? Is hearing Naomi? That kind of thing. It helps, I find.... Thanks for letting me pop in. Sorry again to hear about your friend. Phil p.s Just popping in, so will be away for awhile - won't be able to respond for awhile. 55522 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 5:31pm Subject: Re: Samvega/Urgency philofillet Hi again > Nina has also talked about her awareness as she grows older, in > calendar terms, of the briefness of life. But she has also expressed > her appreciation for the momentary aspect of life, of cittas rising > and falling away as they always have and always will, something like > that... Correction re "always will" - of course there *can* be an ending to this stream of cittas. There are arahats. There is nibbana. Phil 55523 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 6:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 653 ) lbidd2 Hi Htoo, Is there a difference between consciousness conditioned by sankhara and mind base conditioned by namarupa? Larry 55524 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 3:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Samvega/Urgency upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 2/5/06 7:52:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > HI Howard > > I'm sorry to hear about your friend, and sorry for - again - > jumping in a possibly inappropriate way at such a time, but I can't > help it! > > > >The time is now, my friends! The time is now for Dhamma practice > in its > >fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita, > > > But isn't it the fear of mortality, the fear of losing loved ones, > that motivates the followers of other religions to seek their God > with urgency while there is time? > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I'll let adherents to other religions speak for themselves. I'm Buddhist, and I'm Jewish, and this is not my motivation. ---------------------------------------- I really feel that there is a > > tendency in our culture to place so much emphasis on what we > accomplish in this one of so many lifetimes, and that because of > this we fall into having a sense of urgency rooted in this one > lifetime and what we want to accomplish, which is too much, too > soon. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: The only time there is is now. We don't know what even the next minute will bring let alone the next lifetime. ---------------------------------------- Didn't the Buddha teach us that in our journey through samsara > > we have cried enough tears to fill an ocean? We have loved and lost > so many many times. > ------------------------------------- Howard: All the more reason to act, and to act now. ------------------------------------- Didn't the Buddha want us to have a certain > > degree of detachment from desire from results in this lifetime when > we reflect on that? ------------------------------------- Howard: Reflection is good. It is part of our practice. But detachment isn't attained merely by realizing that it is useful. You know it, and I know it. Are we free? Hardly! ------------------------------------ > > Maybe not. There is the turban on fire simile, of course. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there are many such urgings. ---------------------------------- We have > > the rare opportunity to be studying Dhamma, to be human. We have to > grab that opportunity, Carpe Vitae, if you will. (Seize the lifetime > rather than seize the day? :) ) ---------------------------------- Howard: Yes. In fact, seize the *moment*! --------------------------------- So you may be right. But my first > > impression was to think that we should relax and have detachment > from needing to fulfill ourselves as Buddhists this time around. ---------------------------------- Howard: Relaxing is good. It doesn't come from the mere wanting of it, though. With all the recent trials of funerals and illnesses involving our friends and my family, I can't recall when I was more relaxed in my life. Why? My practice has been good, my meditation regular and deep, and my heart has opened even further in the face of sorrow. "Nothing comes from nothing - nothing ever will," goes the song lyric. ------------------------------------ > > Nina has also talked about her awareness as she grows older, in > calendar terms, of the briefness of life. But she has also expressed > her appreciation for the momentary aspect of life, of cittas rising > and falling away as they always have and always will, something like > that... ------------------------------------- Howard: Nina is wise in this. ------------------------------------ > > BTW, I am, although a bit younger than you, always constantly > thinking about how much I love Naomi, and am constantly thinking > about losing her or her losing me. So I am not saying I am "above" > that kind of thing. But I think the Buddha's teaching must surely > condition a certain detachment, sooner or later. Is seeing Naomi? Is > hearing Naomi? That kind of thing. It helps, I find.... --------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, aphorisms and affirmations help. But the Buddha taught us so much more. -------------------------------------- > > Thanks for letting me pop in. Sorry again to hear about your > friend. ------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Phil. ------------------------------------ > > Phil > > p.s Just popping in, so will be away for awhile - won't be able to > respond for awhile. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Be well, Phil. ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55525 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 653 ) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Is there a difference between consciousness conditioned by sankhara and > mind base conditioned by namarupa? > > Larry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Larry, 'Consciousness conditioned by sankhaara' is to reveal the relationship of actions or kamma and consciousness or vinnaana. 'Mind base conditioned by naama-ruupa' is to reveal the relationship of sense-base as to already existing naama-ruupa. Mind base is consciousness but this consciousness is not directly consciousness dictated by sankhaara. Sankhaara dictate vipaaka consciousness. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55526 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >Perhaps we could say "my $100" are _words_ that refer to or condition > >the arising of various perceptions that I am attached to and, on > >occasion, I am also attached to the mere words as a kind of short- hand. > > > >I don't know if this totally adds up, but it helped me sort out a few > >things. Any response? Hi, Don't you think the money (really) exist, that's why you're being attached to it? But on being analyzed as being composed of something else, we do not think of money anymore, so the attachment vanish. But why we haven't freed yet? Because many books have to be read to get a Ph.D, many many things have to be contemplated to gain freedom. 55527 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jwromeijn Hallo Larry Larry: I think we have to say that conventional truth is the Buddha's speech using conventional language. Ultimate truths can be inferred from this speech. In ordinary conventional speech, if ultimate truth cannot be reasonably inferred, then it isn't truth, even on a conventional level, even if everyone agrees with it." Joop: There is more conventional truth than the Buddha's speech? When I say: "it's raining" than that is conventional truth (today, not tomorrow, I hope) I agree with the rest of your statement. But there was another point I was thinking about: Is "ultimate truth" = …"using ultimate language"= …"describing ultimate reality" ? And another point is then: A conventional statement can be true (rain) or false (sun) But a ultimate statement can only be true (ultimate truth) Do you agree with that? Larry: "Maybe when you get back we can discuss this further." Joop: I hope so: with this point of this thread, or a evolved point or about another aspect Metta Joop 55528 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:38am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi Joop and KenH > > Just a very quick comment. I haven't read all the posts so apologise > if I've missed the point or repeated something. ... Hallo Andrew I think your point is not a repetition. Andrew: "… reading Survey by Khun Sujin. It seems to me that she does not communicate in KenH's style, and deliberately so: KenH: Concepts are not realities but are illusions. KS: "Concepts are not realities but they are the means to make things known." (p.280). Joop: It's to KenH to say if his words has another meaning than that of Sujin. I think Sujin is talking in this phrase about the use of concepts in daily (conventional) life. But I'm not a Sujin-expert. Andrew: But, it seems to me, KS sees a danger is such dismissive language conditioning dosa and a desire to have citta without pannatti - and it is not possible for us to control citta in such a manner. The task is to understand, not to control by banishing concept from our "reality". Joop: Again, I'm not a Sujin-expert or a Abhidhamma-expert. But as I said to Jon yesterday: "The 'problem' is taking conceptual/conventional realities for ultimate realities. And another 'problem' is taking ultimate realities for conventional realities." Metta Joop 55529 From: "emj8888" Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 10:45pm Subject: Some questions on meditation practice emj8888 Hi, I'm new to this group, and Buddhism in general. I've only been studying for two weeks or so... Thus far I've read a few books. The Wings To Awakening and The Road To Liberation seemed the most enlightening of what I've read thus far, but I still have some confusions about the meditative practice itself. I'd appreciate anyone's input on my current practice and how it correlates to official paths of meditation. Thanks in advance for anyone who can give me some advice from a position with a bit more experience :) I initially read several things, but they only discussed the basics of Buddhism and then told to just focus on the sensation of the breath at the tip of the nostrils, and it then didn't really detail any further practice at all. That seemed off, or at least inefficient to me... if you're just blanking your mind, then it doesn't seem like you'd really be cutting off defilements because you wouldn't be bringing them into your mind to study them. Then I read more advanced books like the Wings to Awakening and some things describing the Abhidhamma and whatnot, and I realized that the stage of just focusing on the sensation of the breath is just a center, and initially only done in order to build concentration. But I'm a bit confused because a lot of books don't even mentioned anything beyond that practice, and it seemed that doing that for a few minutes, then calling to mind defilements that you know exist in your life would be a better way to proceed. I've had a lot of desires lately fade as I do that during meditation. I just breath, get calm and mindful, then focus intensely on the feelings that emerge in me as I think of an experience that brought defilements about in me that day/week/etc. For instance, if I spent some time doing something unskillful that day (reading some unproductive fiction book), then I'd focus on the idea of going and doing that thing again, and then observe the feelings that arise when I bring that to mind (an urge inside myself to do that activity again - craving), and then I would think on how those are defilements (desires/craving) and think on whether the activity itself is skillful or not, and then the desire for that thing would abate and it'd be less after that, even outside meditation. Sorry for the long paragraph, but yeah...that's what I've been doing. I just wanted to know if there are problems with that approach, in the long run? Should I be spending time solely focusing on breath? If so, what does one gain from that practice verses using that as a center instead and focusing on mental elements? If both should be done, what should the balance between the two be? Thanks in advance! ~Evan 55530 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice mr39515 Dear Evan Hi there... in all achievement, there is always the path of theory, practice and reliazation. So is for Buddhism and meditation. I guess it is always good to ask what we have doubts so that we can get the right path. There is only one Truth in this world which is the 4 Noble Truth. And the 4th is the path leading to the ceasation of suffering: 1. Right View 2. Right Thoughts 3. Right Speech 4. Right Action 5. Right Livelihood 6. Right Effort 7. Right Mindfulness 8. Right Concentration. Your question is more to Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. I hope you already been thru the rest of the Rights and I can jump directly into meditation. There are 2 main type of meditation Buddhist practices but only one of them lead to insight thus we practice to walk the path of enlightenment. Previously it was called Satipatana or now refer as Vipassana Meditation. This is the path of insight or wisdom which all Buddhist should practice. Vipassana uses Momentary Concentration on the 4 Station of Mindfulness: 1. Kayanupassana (Awareness of Body) 2. Vedanupassana (Awareness of Feeling) 3. Cittanupassana (Awareness of Consciousness) 4. Dhammanupassana (Awareness of Mental Objects) Vipassana starts with breathing (arising and falling) as the object and the object changes to the 4 station of mindfulness as they arises thru the 6 sense doors. There are 3 fundamental activities of mindfulness: 1. To remind us of what we suppose to do 2. To see things as they really are 3. To see the deep nature of all phenomena as Anica, Dukha, Anatta (Im-permanance, Suffering, Non-self). Continous practices of mindfulness will lead to Right Concentration. So what happen to breath ? Breath is just the starting point and the rest will be anything that arises thru the 6 sense doors or the 4 station of mindfulness. Note: if one practices breathing alone (raising and falling) and the object do not change, then the practice is Samatha Meditation which uses Fix and Access Concentration and lead to Jhana. This is Good Practice but it is NOT Right Concentration. Metta mr39515 --- emj8888 wrote: > Hi, > > I'm new to this group, and Buddhism in general. I've > only been > studying for two weeks or so... Thus far I've read a > few books. The > Wings To Awakening and The Road To Liberation seemed > the most > enlightening of what I've read thus far, but I still > have some > confusions about the meditative practice itself. <....> 55531 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 3:51am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Andrew, Long time no see. ------------ <. . .> AT: > I, too, have been reading Survey by Khun Sujin. It seems to me that she does not communicate in KenH's style, and deliberately so: KenH: Concepts are not realities but are illusions. KS: "Concepts are not realities but they are the means to make things known." (p.280). ------------ There are only dhammas. When we have got that firmly into our heads we can safely talk about the concepts that make dhammas known. Those concepts are no less illusory than are the concepts that make flying purple elephants known. ------------------- AT: > When KenH talks about "reality", he is talking about the paramattha/pannatti divide. In another sense, however, it makes sense to say that "in reality, mind-base takes concept as object a lot of the time" i.e. concept is a huge part of our "reality". -------------------- Citta can experience an illusion. That doesn't change the fact that there are really only dhammas. ----------------------------- AT: > KenH accepts that his words often seem dismissive of concepts and that's no problem, so long as there is understanding. But, it seems to me, KS sees a danger is such dismissive language conditioning dosa and a desire to have citta without pannatti - and it is not possible for us to control citta in such a manner. ----------------------------- It is fair to say there is danger in my dismissive language. In my opinion, however, the danger is not as you have described it. It has nothing to do with wanting to control citta. The danger is in having dosa. If I react with dosa whenever I see religiosity being passed off as Dhamma then that is my fault and my mistake (however perfectly understandable). :-) -------------------------------------------- AT: > The task is to understand, not to control by banishing concept from our "reality". --------------------------------------------- I agree, of course. The task is to understand, and no one wants to cross a busy street oblivious of concepts like cars and buses. So can we leave out the motherhood statements? :-) I suspect (and I may be wrong) that you still have some lingering ideas of hanging on to (not dismissing) certain concepts for the purposes of satipatthana. (!!!) Are you thinking that when there is the concept of, for example, a pain in the knee, we should deliberately practise some "benign" kind of deliberate mindfulness? Such a practice might be nothing more than a formal admission to being aware only of the concept of pain, and an acknowledgement that only panna can directly know vedana. Even so, I would be highly dismissive of any such formal practice. "The Path is, but no traveller on it is seen." (Vis.) :-) Ken H 55532 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:52am Subject: Sleep Write --- Re: Bhuumi Are Names of Sets Of Dhammas abhidhammika Dear Charles, Steve, Mike N and all How are you? Charles wrote: "The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana. This, I believe is my statement :P as reply to Steve's" Exactly, Charles. I meant to address you. But, I must have fallen asleep while I wrote the post. My apology to Steve and you, Charles. What happened was that I should not have been up at the time of writing (midnight). I should have already asleep at around 10.30 pm or 11 pm. Due to "Leathal Weapon IV with Jet Li" on the TV, I happened to stay beyond my bedtime. And while watching the movie, I checked my e-mails and yahoo groups during Ads breaks. And that was how I happened to read your post and write a reply. But, it must have been a case of Sleep Write! Writing a reply post during the Sleep Walk, or rather, Sleep Sit! :-) Even now, I should not be writing this reply post as I am very sleepy. Only because I realized my mistake in the morning, I needed to apologise to both of you and wrote it. As soon as I finished it, I must go to bed and fall asleep. Apology to Steve and Charles! Suan Lu Zaw --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > "The commentary did not define what dhamma is, it defined the > planes. It did not said that the dhamma equal to the plane. So > dhamma in the lokuttara bhumi does not necessarily includes nibbana. Hi Suan Lu Zaw, This, I believe is my statement :P as reply to Steve's > I am afraid that Steve misunderstood the connection between bhuumis > and dhammas. Bhummis are merely names of sets of dhammas and do not > exist themselves while dhammas in their sets can happen (or exist in > the case of nibbaana). The longer I read this group, the more I like people telling me that I have wrong understanding (and I really mean that positively :D). This is great so that we do not get trapped in our own world of views. Anyway, as you have said, bhumi is a duality, a name and a reference to dhamma. When it is said, bhumi exist, what is really meant is that the dhammas refered by the name bhumi exist. This is clearly illustrated by the question: What is the color of the house? If color is a property of the house (as a name), then people will be able to answer the question. But as color is the property of the dhammas the 'name' house is refering to, then people will ask first "Which house?" The same with "bhumi exist", 'exist' here is a property of the reality the name bhumi is refering to. > I will give you a scenario in which all bhuumis co-appear. > > Suppose there were a Theravada Buddhist monastery where puthujana > monks, Ruupa Jhaana monks, Aruupa Jhaana monks and Ariyaa monks > reside while some cats and dogs also live under the same roof. I think this is a good example. > By the way, what exactly is self in your understanding? If you > believed in self and can define it, please try your best to define > it. All unenlightened beings believe in self :D self = pancakkhanda (at least that's what we all believe) Or if we need a little experiment, take a mirror, put it in front our our face, and tell me, what is reflected in the mirror? :D Whose face, whose skin, whose hair, whose nose, whose teeth? I, isn't? 55533 From: "Pablo" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice cerini_pablo >Vipassana starts with breathing (arising and falling) >as the object and the object changes to the 4 station >of mindfulness as they arises thru the 6 sense doors. Hi everyone, I'm no good in writing presentations, so I catch this occasion to introduce myself. I'm a newbie to Dhamma and to this mailing list, too. I' ve read really a lot of books, but I'm experiencing the same troubles Evan does. So, I'd like to thank Ng Boon Huat for his clear explanation. Can I ask a deeper explanation about the phrase I quoted ? If I am watching breath and another object appears, the right action to take is : 1) taking a brief note of the object appeared and then return to breath or 2) follow the object appeared and transfer the attention to the station of mindfulness or sense door through which the object appeared ? Hope I expressed myself clearly. Thanks and sorry in advance for my English, but I' m doing the best I can. 55534 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice sarahprocter... Hi Pablo & Evan, --- Pablo wrote: > >Vipassana starts with breathing (arising and falling) > >as the object and the object changes to the 4 station > >of mindfulness as they arises thru the 6 sense doors. > > Hi everyone, > I'm no good in writing presentations, so I catch this occasion to > introduce > myself. > I'm a newbie to Dhamma and to this mailing list, too. .... S: Just a quick welcome to DSG. i'm glad to see your messages, but as I'm travelling now, I'll leave it to others to answer your questions. You both write very well and clearly. Please tell us where you both live and anything else about how you came to be interested in the Buddha's teachings. if you go to the files section on the homepage, look for 'useful posts' and scroll down to 'New to the List and New to dhamma' you may find some helpful messages too. Keep asking questions and sharing your ideas with us. Metta, Sarah ========= 55535 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice upasaka_howard Hi, Evan - In a message dated 2/6/06 5:08:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, emj8888@... writes: > Hi, > > I'm new to this group, and Buddhism in general. I've only been > studying for two weeks or so... Thus far I've read a few books. The > Wings To Awakening and The Road To Liberation seemed the most > enlightening of what I've read thus far, but I still have some > confusions about the meditative practice itself. I'd appreciate > anyone's input on my current practice and how it correlates to > official paths of meditation. Thanks in advance for anyone who can > give me some advice from a position with a bit more experience :) > > I initially read several things, but they only discussed the basics of > Buddhism and then told to just focus on the sensation of the breath at > the tip of the nostrils, and it then didn't really detail any further > practice at all. That seemed off, or at least inefficient to me... if > you're just blanking your mind, then it doesn't seem like you'd really > be cutting off defilements because you wouldn't be bringing them into > your mind to study them. > > Then I read more advanced books like the Wings to Awakening and some > things describing the Abhidhamma and whatnot, and I realized that the > stage of just focusing on the sensation of the breath is just a > center, and initially only done in order to build concentration. > > But I'm a bit confused because a lot of books don't even mentioned > anything beyond that practice, and it seemed that doing that for a few > minutes, then calling to mind defilements that you know exist in your > life would be a better way to proceed. I've had a lot of desires > lately fade as I do that during meditation. I just breath, get calm > and mindful, then focus intensely on the feelings that emerge in me as > I think of an experience that brought defilements about in me that > day/week/etc. For instance, if I spent some time doing something > unskillful that day (reading some unproductive fiction book), then I'd > focus on the idea of going and doing that thing again, and then > observe the feelings that arise when I bring that to mind (an urge > inside myself to do that activity again - craving), and then I would > think on how those are defilements (desires/craving) and think on > whether the activity itself is skillful or not, and then the desire > for that thing would abate and it'd be less after that, even outside > meditation. > > Sorry for the long paragraph, but yeah...that's what I've been doing. > I just wanted to know if there are problems with that approach, in the > long run? Should I be spending time solely focusing on breath? If so, > what does one gain from that practice verses using that as a center > instead and focusing on mental elements? If both should be done, what > should the balance between the two be? > > Thanks in advance! > > ~Evan > > =========================== Mindfulness of breathing, anapanasati, is the most central and widely practiced type of Buddhist meditation, and when practiced as the Buddha laid it out in the sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-118-tb0.html, it is a combined approach to cultivating calm and insight, and a complete meditative practice. In my opinion, you are beginning well, but should be careful to not get lost in thinking. With the breath as anchor, be aware of all that arises as best you can, including thinking that occurs, but whenever your attention gets caught in thought, remembering, or imagining, gently return it to the breath. With the breath at the center, the key is to be aware of whatever is happening *now*, holding on to none of it, and following after nothing. I would strongly urge you to get some direct instruction, and not do this just "out of a book" or internet discussions. If you could attend a couple single-day or two-day training sessions (as a commuter) given by a good and reputable meditation teacher, that will be very helpful. 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) 55536 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhâna and Lokuttarajjhâna by Brahmâli Bhikkhu upasaka_howard Thanks, Scott! With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/5/06 10:20:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > It is on the BuddhaSasana web-site: http://www. budsas.org > > Sincerely > > Scott. > /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) 55537 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Larry Larry wrote: >Hi Jon, > >I agree. In a previous message to Joop I proposed that concepts are forms of speech and >speech is a reality, either vocal intimation rupa or vitakka and vicaara. I realize this is >contra what is taken to be established abhidhamma commentary (a closer look at the Pali >might be worthwhile). > Surely mental images are not forms of speech, yet they are most certainly concepts, I'd have thought. >If my contention is correct, then we could still say only >upadanakhandhas are the objects of clinging. This would be in conformity with a literal >interpretation of Vism.XIV,218: > >"And this is the extreme limit as the basis for the assumption of self and what pertains to >self, that is to say, the five beginning with materiality". > This Vism quote is about what is taken for self (not what can be the object of clinging). >L: Even if we don't take such a literal interpretation, the "basis for the assumption of self" >could mean, as you say, that deep analysis would show that ultimately what we cling to are >the upadanakhandhas. > Well, yes. Ultimately, everything comes down to the khandhas. But as I see it that doesn't mean there can't be clinging to concepts ;-)) Jon 55538 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >Sounds like a great event. > >Well, since we agreed within reason on every issue, I guess nothing left to >say about the topic. Time to be mindful. :-) > > Good suggestion/reminder. Talk to you later Jon 55539 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jonoabb Hi Larry Just a quick comment here... Larry wrote: >Joop: "Perhaps one point of misunderstand, I realize on/[in] this moment is >that I interpret is distinguishment/[distinction] between the two truths as 'two >languages to describe'. So paramattha is to me a ultimate language. >But maybe I made a mistake (according the Abhidhamma) in this way? > >Hi Joop, > >I came to the same conclusion only this morning. I think there is a misconception in the >bias of "concept vs. reality" that can be seen from the position of the two truths. Ultimate >truth is the language of ultimate reality, while conventional truth is the language of >misperception. > > I think you mean that ultimate *speech* [not ultimate truth] is the language of ultimate reality, while conventional *speech* is the language of misperception. If you mean that conventional speech cannot be the language of ultimate truths then I'm not sure I agree. As I see it, 'ultimate reality expressed in conventional language' would aptly describe the suttas. Jon >An important point is that ultimate language refers to ultimate reality, but conventional >language refers to misperceptions. Conventional language does NOT refer to language >(concepts). The word "tree" refers to the perception of a formation of rupas as lasting, >whole, and solid. "Lasting, whole, and solid" is an error and does not exist. Similarly, the >word "I" refers to a formation of the 5 khandhas as lasting, whole, solid, and an agent (a >doer). "I" does not refer to words. I can sit here and experience this misconception without >any internal monologue. > >It seems to me that speech is an ultimate reality. External speech is vocal intimation rupa; >internal speech is vitakka and vicaara (applied thought and sustained thought). > >The nature of misperception is the nature of error. By definition, in an error there is the >mistaken perception of something that is not there. This something not there has no >distinguishing characteristic (sabhava), but we can still differentiate between lastingness, >wholeness, solidity, and agency. No sabhava means cannot be _truly_ experienced, but it >_is_ seemingly experienced. > >I think we have to say that conventional truth is the Buddha's speech using conventional >language. Ultimate truths can be inferred from this speech. In ordinary conventional >speech, if ultimate truth cannot be reasonably inferred, then it isn't truth, even on a >conventional level, even if everyone agrees with it. > >Maybe when you get back we can discuss this further. > >Larry 55540 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >Hi Jonothan, > >Thanks. If we want to differentiate real money from the fake one, we >need sufficient understanding about the real money. Without that >understanding, real money can be said fake or vice versa. > >If we are color blind on green, and someone tells us, that's no green. >We would not have any other choice other than to believe ignorantly or >to reject doubtfully. > >If I were asked to tell whether a matrix is positive definite, it >would need me to learn about positive definite matrix before I can >tell whether it is or not (Sorry, I assume most people won't know or >remember about positive definite matrix, so you'll get the feeling). > >Atta is to be understood, anatta is to be realized after examination. > I don't think the Buddha ever said that atta is to be understood. He did say that 'the All' is to be understood, but he did not include atta in has definition of the All. To my understanding, the relevance of 'self ' lies in the *taking of dhammas to be self*, and the Buddha explained what this means. But there is no discussion in the texts on the meaning of *self* per se. >My understanding of atta, in short is that atta is the reality (or >thought as reality) a concept refers to. For example, a being is a >name (concept) for the 5 khandhas. A tree is a name (concept) given to >the woods and leaves. But because the 5 khandhas are not realities (ie >composed things), then the being concept refers to something >unexistent. > > You seem to be saying that atta is a reality. Perhaps I have not understood your point. True, the dhammas that we take for self are nothing more than the 5 khandhas, but we take them for self. However, I don't see how this means that self is the 5 khandhas. Please explain your line of thinking here ;-)) >Attachment is the thing that tie us in this world. But attachment to >Nibbana does not tie us to this world. Only four kinds of upadana are >to be eliminated, ie to kama, ditthi, upacara, and atta. > > Can there be attachment to Nibbana, or would any attachment be merely to the person's (imperfect) concept of Nibbana? >I also think that people saying nibbana is anatta are just trying to >hard. You may argue >1. nibbana is without essence, but what essence is different from the >thing itself. this is annihilism view. > >2. nibbana exist, but without the person enters it. OK, what is called >'the person' is not the atta of the concept 'the person', not the >nibbana for sure. > >3. nibbana is not to be viewed as the atta of being, but who would >after attaining nibbana, starts to think that "I am nibbana", "nibbana >is mine". > > I am a bit lost on your 'Nibbana' point. What is your own contention here? Jon 55541 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Thanks, TG. It's great to be here and to see old friends again. We > attended the regular Saturday afternoon discussion at the Foundation > yesterday, and met up with Nina (and Lodewijk), Sukin and Ivan (aka > Matt). Tomorrow morning there will be another session, and we are > expecting RobK to be there too. > > >TG: ++++++++ Dear Jon and all, Sorry to miss the session today. I got in a bit late on a flight Sunday via Taiwan and slept in. Will be there tommorow! see you soon Robert 55542 From: "emj8888" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 7:40am Subject: Re: Some questions on meditation practice emj8888 Thanks Howard, Sarah, and Huat for your responses. I'm Evan... I'm 25 and from NC, but I just moved up to Virginia quite recently. I've attended a local Sangha since I moved up, but I don't really feel like there's anyone there that I can talk to regarding things "off the beaten path," doctrinally speaking. I suspect that there's a good reason not to do things the way I've tried them thus far, but I never just do something I read/etc without understanding why I should or shouldn't choose it over alternate paths. And, since I imagine there's a reason to not do what I'm doing, I'm just hoping someone can help to make it more clear to me :) My question is basically just: Why should I only idly *wait* for things to occur at the sense-doors, instead of intentionally awakening defilements in order to have the most important ones occur? Sometimes I find that many things don't pop up in my mind when I'm sitting idly, focused on breathing, but crop up in my daily life with much, much more regularity. I mean, presuming that I know a particular attachment/defilement is strong in my life, would it not make sense to, during meditation, intentionally draw that desire up inside yourself regularly and then mindfully be aware of it to weaken it? (not getting lost in it or attaching though ... just treating it the same way one does in normal meditation, but taking one extra step of "pulling" things into focus) What I've tried doing goes something like this: I know I read too much fiction. So, during meditation, after centering myself, I mindfully push my attention to the mental object that represents whatever book I'm currently reading. Memories of the story, the last time I read, etc. I just let that remembrance/etc linger, while being aware of it and the feelings that arise, attached to it and my ego. It's definitely had a powerful affect on my habits lately, but I want to be practicing meditation the best way possible, so I'd like to know why this is good or bad, as compared to just waiting and not intentionally "pulling things up". I can see the merit in not getting -lost- in future speculation and memories and whatnot, and I realize that memories and mental objects don't represent reality, but calling them up in my mind intentionally does allow me to weaken them, it seems. Mental objects are one of the sense-doors, right? And Buddha said that, though we abandon even skillful processes before full enlightenment, we have to develop skillful intention, desire, etc. Wouldn't the intention to overtly pull mental things up be skillful, and beneficial to unbinding? Much thanks for any help on this! :) ~Evan 55543 From: "Pablo" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice cerini_pablo >Please tell us where you both live I'm from Varese,Italy. >and anything else about how you came to >be interested in the Buddha's teachings. That's embarassing, but I'll anyway tell you bacause I know that in a buddhist audience I can find open view people. In my teenhood I was interested in Crowley . I don't was a wiccan nor a troubled person (or at least not more troubled than the average), actually I was just charmed by the aestethic milieu. Reading a book about Golden Dawn, I stumbled onto the character of Allan Bennet, who , after having been Crowley's teacher,one day left all the esoteric stuff behind his back and converted to Dhamma. Reflecting about Bennet's choice I started reading every book I found about Dhamma. Two years ago I came to attend a retire at an italian Theravada monastery near Rome (called Santacittarama) . During the retire, a part from feeling very better than usual, nothing happened in particular. Instead, I was so still rooted in my usual way of thinking ,that inside myself I was considering with arrogance those monks troubled with strange exercises and superstitious theories about life. Back home, maybe because I was still filled with that sense of peace never felt before, after some time I started to study seriously the Pali Canon. Slowly points of view began to change, as if shells were detaching from the mind, showing the meanings of many dhamma concepts and practices met during the retire . Now I'm planning another retire with that sangha in April, to catch the occasion to ask every question that in my previous visit, because of my immaturity, I didn't ask. Maybe I wrote too much. Sorry If I made someone fall asleep. 55544 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't think the Buddha ever said that atta is to be understood. He > did say that 'the All' is to be understood, but he did not include atta > in has definition of the All. Hi Jon, Do you think atta, pancakkhandha, the All refer to different thing? > You seem to be saying that atta is a reality. Perhaps I have not > understood your point. The Sammaditthi dipani of Ven Ledi Sayadaw give the analogy that bowl is a concept. Wooden bowl is an instance of a bowl. Wood is (considered to be) the essence (atta) of a wooden bowl. Here bowl refers to being, wood refers to the pancakkhandha. My definition is that a concept is a name "referring" to something. It must and have to refer to something else, something which can be experienced, but do not have to be exist. When this something is thought to be existing, it is considered a reality. Atta is something thought to be existing that is refered by a concept. A being is a concept. What it refers to is the pancakkhandha. Pancakkhandha is thought to be existing, so it is viewed as the atta of a being. Therefore one can say, "This is me". If the pancakkhandha are known to be unreal by means of wisdom, then it cannot be viewed as the atta of a being anymore. > Can there be attachment to Nibbana, or would any attachment be merely to > the person's (imperfect) concept of Nibbana? Before the person attain Nibbana, he/she can be attached to the concept of Nibbana, I think. Attachment exist when there is a concept of an owner which is thought to be real and existing. > I am a bit lost on your 'Nibbana' point. What is your own contention here? That the Buddha did not teach Nibbana as anatta. More generally, I think the Buddha did not teach what really existing (paramattha dhamma) as anatta. The Buddha taught that what is not existing but viewed to be existing, what is not real but viewed as real as anatta = without atta = without any reality = like a bubble = empty = cannot be experienced. When people practice satipatthana, they see that they can only experience the hardness element, the movement element, consciousness, etc, but not the pancakkhanda theirselves. If they do not practice satipatthana, they are deluded by avijja that the pancakkhandha really exist and can be experienced, thus it is real and exist, therefore I am. In other words, that saying paramattha dhamma as anatta is annihilation view, because what is anatta cannot be real or existing. Real thing should be viewed as real, unreal thing should be viewed as unreal. 55545 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Well, yes. Ultimately, everything comes down to the khandhas. But as I > see it that doesn't mean there can't be clinging to concepts ;-)) Hi Jon and Larry, Regardless of the things being clinged, I think clinging can only be happen when there is the thought of 'I', I want this or that, I want to be born here or there, I want it. Mere concept cannot be experienced. For example, house has a color, but what color is a house? 55546 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 3:00pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 Hi KenH Another quick comment ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > There are only dhammas. AT: That's right when we are talking about absolute reality. When we have got that firmly into our heads AT: When is that? Stream entry? Enlightenment? What do we do in the meantime? > we can safely talk about the concepts that make dhammas known. AT: So it's not "safe" to discuss Dhamma now because we haven't got it firmly into our heads that there are only dhammas at the level of absolute reality? Please elaborate. Those > concepts are no less illusory than are the concepts that make flying > purple elephants known. AT: The concepts are not "illusory" according to many meanings of that English word. They are illusory in having no sabhava, and no characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. That is how I read Khun Sujin. Have I stumbled? > Citta can experience an illusion. That doesn't change the fact that > there are really only dhammas. AT: You mean, mind-base can have pannatti as object and, in absolute reality, there are only dhammas. Right? Why not be precise and don't muddle the picture by using general English words like "reality" and "real" that have a wide spectrum of meaning. Why not stick to the Pali? > It is fair to say there is danger in my dismissive language. In my > opinion, however, the danger is not as you have described it. It has > nothing to do with wanting to control citta. The danger is in having > dosa. If I react with dosa whenever I see religiosity being passed > off as Dhamma then that is my fault and my mistake (however perfectly > understandable). :-) AT: I got the danger idea from Khun Sujin's Survey book. I didn't say you react with dosa because I am in no position to know such a thing. Why don't you explain what you mean by "religiosity being passed off as Dhamma"? Did I write something fitting of that description? > -------------------------------------------- > AT: > The task is to understand, not to control by banishing concept > from our "reality". > --------------------------------------------- > > I agree, of course. The task is to understand, and no one wants to > cross a busy street oblivious of concepts like cars and buses. So > can we leave out the motherhood statements? :-) AT: Do you not see any profundity in the Buddha's teachings that deal with concepts? Or Khun Sujin's talking about concepts being means of knowing? Motherhood statements? Where have you been surfing lately? > I suspect (and I may be wrong) that you still have some lingering > ideas of hanging on to (not dismissing) certain concepts for the > purposes of satipatthana. (!!!) AT: I can't control what I hang onto or dismiss, KenH. Can you? As for understanding satipatthana, give me a little while to work on it. Rome wasn't built in a day! > Are you thinking that when there is the concept of, for example, a > pain in the knee, we should deliberately practise some "benign" kind > of deliberate mindfulness? AT: Where did that come from? > Such a practice might be nothing more than a formal admission to > being aware only of the concept of pain, and an acknowledgement that > only panna can directly know vedana. Even so, I would be highly > dismissive of any such formal practice. > > "The Path is, but no traveller on it is seen." (Vis.) AT: ... in absolute reality. You keep forgetting to add that bit. Why? Are you so disappointed in your past Dhamma mentors that you cannot even brook to dabble in the "hows" and "whys" of conventional reality? Doesn't understanding "reality now" require understanding of what is absolute AND what is conventional, what is parramattha AND what is pannatti? What's the problem here? Really? Best wishes Andrew T 55547 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some questions on meditation practice upasaka_howard Hi, Evan - In a message dated 2/6/06 3:55:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, emj8888@... writes: > Thanks Howard, Sarah, and Huat for your responses. > > I'm Evan... I'm 25 and from NC, but I just moved up to Virginia quite > recently. I've attended a local Sangha since I moved up, but I don't > really feel like there's anyone there that I can talk to regarding > things "off the beaten path," doctrinally speaking. > > I suspect that there's a good reason not to do things the way I've > tried them thus far, but I never just do something I read/etc without > understanding why I should or shouldn't choose it over alternate > paths. And, since I imagine there's a reason to not do what I'm doing, > I'm just hoping someone can help to make it more clear to me :) > > My question is basically just: Why should I only idly *wait* for > things to occur at the sense-doors, instead of intentionally > awakening defilements in order to have the most important ones > occur? Sometimes I find that many things don't pop up in my mind when > I'm sitting idly, focused on breathing, but crop up in my daily life > with much, much more regularity. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Evan, there is a practice of "guarding the senses" that consists of maintaining a vigilance, at all regular times if possible, being watchful of one's mental reactions to whatever arises through sight, hearing, tasting, smelling, and mentality (thinking, feeling emotions, etc), and using that vigilance to avoid all unwholesome reactions that have not yet arisen, to cut short all unwholesome reactions already arisen, to encourage wholesome reactions to arise, and to sustain and to further all wholesome reactions already arisen. This amounts to "right effort". It is excellent to pursue this at all regular times. Guarding the senses and observing sila are background Dhamma activities that condition the mind to be purer and more effective at all times including the times that one is meditating. But guarding the senses in the detailed way mentioned is not what one should be engaged in while meditating. While meditating, one's "right effort" is different. The unwholesomeness to be avoided or cut short is that of being lost in thought or otherwise distracted, and the wholesomeness to be encouraged or sustained and furthered is the clear and peaceful awareness of exactly what is going on at the moment, with the only picking and choosing to be this sort of right effort, using the meditation subject, for example the breath, as an aid in this. While it is true that by thinking in certain ways, you can encourage certain states (e.g. sadness or joy) to arise, there is no point in trying to do so while meditating, and doing so is *not* meditating. Meditating is not an exercise in "proper thinking", it is not an exercise in what we can generate, it is not an exercise in picking and choosing, and it is not an exercise in acquiring or pushing away. Meditation is a practice of clarification-purification and relinquishment. It is a matter of ungraspingly attending to whatever arises, seeing it as clearly as possible - whatever it is (!), and simply letting it come and go as it will, with as much ease and clarity as possible. It is a subtle practice! As it is done, the mind calms down and clears up, and, eventually, with sufficient cultivation, and conditioned in part by ones background practice of guarding the senses at ordinary times, the common tripartite nature of all phenomena reveals itself - namely, their nature of not remaining, their inability to satisfy, and their impersonality, interdependence, and utter lack of self or own being. Looking to induce particular phenomena during a sitting is nothing but counter-productive. A non-grasping mindfulness will reveal the general and specific nature of dhammas. What is wholesome will occur more frequently, what is unwholesome less frequently, and most importantly of all, equanimity and wisdom will arise. ----------------------------------------------------- > > I mean, presuming that I know a particular attachment/defilement is > strong in my life, would it not make sense to, during meditation, > intentionally draw that desire up inside yourself regularly and then > mindfully be aware of it to weaken it? (not getting lost in it or > attaching though ... just treating it the same way one does in normal > meditation, but taking one extra step of "pulling" things into focus) ----------------------------------------- Howard: I would say that, no, usually it would not make sense. Some Tibetan Vajrayana practitioners might engage in such a technique, and there may be cases for the rare individual under perfect tutelage that this might work, but my guess is that in the overwhelming number of cases this would not only not work, but could cause considerable harm. ----------------------------------------- > > What I've tried doing goes something like this: > > I know I read too much fiction. So, during meditation, after centering > myself, I mindfully push my attention to the mental object that > represents whatever book I'm currently reading. Memories of the story, > the last time I read, etc. I just let that remembrance/etc linger, > while being aware of it and the feelings that arise, attached to it > and my ego. -------------------------------------------- Howard: To me that sounds like some sort of psychological, self-help, bad-habit-breaking exercise. It may be useful for you in some ways, but I don't consider it to be a form of Dhamma practice. ----------------------------------------- > > It's definitely had a powerful affect on my habits lately, but I want > to be practicing meditation the best way possible, so I'd like to know > why this is good or bad, as compared to just waiting and not > intentionally "pulling things up". I can see the merit in not getting > -lost- in future speculation and memories and whatnot, and I realize > that memories and mental objects don't represent reality, but calling > them up in my mind intentionally does allow me to weaken them, it seems. > > Mental objects are one of the sense-doors, right? And Buddha said > that, though we abandon even skillful processes before full > enlightenment, we have to develop skillful intention, desire, etc. > Wouldn't the intention to overtly pull mental things up be skillful, > and beneficial to unbinding? ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. --------------------------------------- > > Much thanks for any help on this! :) > > ~Evan > ====================== The above is my perspective, Evan. Others may see the matter differently. I'm not maintaining that unquestionably what I say is right in all respects and all else is wrong. But what I said above I do truly believe to be largely correct. 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) 55548 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:33pm Subject: Re: Some questions on meditation practice htootintnaing Dear Evan, Thanks for your post. Know 5 khandhas or 5 aggregates in detail. Know 12 aayatanas or sense-bases in detail. Know 18 dhaatu or elements in detail. Start with breath. But do not stop there but study all phenomena. Then there will be the answer that you are looking for. Dhamma Thread posts ( 001 to 653) explain many. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "emj8888" wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm new to this group, and Buddhism in general. I've only been > studying for two weeks or so... Thus far I've read a few books. The > Wings To Awakening and The Road To Liberation seemed the most > enlightening of what I've read thus far, but I still have some > confusions about the meditative practice itself. I'd appreciate > anyone's input on my current practice and how it correlates to > official paths of meditation. Thanks in advance for anyone who can > give me some advice from a position with a bit more experience :) > > I initially read several things, but they only discussed the basics of > Buddhism and then told to just focus on the sensation of the breath at > the tip of the nostrils, and it then didn't really detail any further > practice at all. That seemed off, or at least inefficient to me... if > you're just blanking your mind, then it doesn't seem like you'd really > be cutting off defilements because you wouldn't be bringing them into > your mind to study them. > > Then I read more advanced books like the Wings to Awakening and some > things describing the Abhidhamma and whatnot, and I realized that the > stage of just focusing on the sensation of the breath is just a > center, and initially only done in order to build concentration. > > But I'm a bit confused because a lot of books don't even mentioned > anything beyond that practice, and it seemed that doing that for a few > minutes, then calling to mind defilements that you know exist in your > life would be a better way to proceed. I've had a lot of desires > lately fade as I do that during meditation. I just breath, get calm > and mindful, then focus intensely on the feelings that emerge in me as > I think of an experience that brought defilements about in me that > day/week/etc. For instance, if I spent some time doing something > unskillful that day (reading some unproductive fiction book), then I'd > focus on the idea of going and doing that thing again, and then > observe the feelings that arise when I bring that to mind (an urge > inside myself to do that activity again - craving), and then I would > think on how those are defilements (desires/craving) and think on > whether the activity itself is skillful or not, and then the desire > for that thing would abate and it'd be less after that, even outside > meditation. > > Sorry for the long paragraph, but yeah...that's what I've been doing. > I just wanted to know if there are problems with that approach, in the > long run? Should I be spending time solely focusing on breath? If so, > what does one gain from that practice verses using that as a center > instead and focusing on mental elements? If both should be done, what > should the balance between the two be? > > Thanks in advance! > > ~Evan > 55549 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:38pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 654 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Sa.laayatana paccayaa phasso.' Sa.laayatana conditions contacts. 'Phassa paccayaa vedanaa'. Contacts condition feelings. Here it just show the conditional relations. This has not to be assumed as linear links like from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3. Because contact in real term arises at the very same time of feeling. But feelings may well be including later feelings. Because of 6 sam-phassa or 6 contacts there have to arise 6 feelings-born-of-contact or 6 sam-phassajaa-vedanaa. These 6 feelings are 1. cakkhu-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of eye-contact) 2. sota-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of ear-contact) 3. ghaana-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of nose-contact) 4. jivhaa-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of tongue-contact) 5. kaaya-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of body-contact) 6. mano-sam-phassajaa-vedanaa (feeling born of mind-contact) 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. 55550 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:47pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 655 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Phassa paccayaa vedanaa'. Contact can arise feeling in the same citta. But still contact conditions later arising of feelings. Because of 6 contacts there have to arise 6 feelings. 'vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa'. Feeling conditions craving. Here salayatana-contact-feeling do not arise with craving. Craving arise only with unwholesome consciousness called lobha-muula-cittas or consciousness of various degrees of greediness. But feeling arises and falls away all the time. But because of avijjaa people think that feeling is them, themselves, theirs and because of that there have to arise craving to self and other that do not exist. 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. 55551 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Charles: "Regardless of the things being clinged, I think clinging can only be happen when there is the thought of 'I', I want this or that, I want to be born here or there, I want it. Mere concept cannot be experienced. For example, house has a color, but what color is a house?" Hi Charles, I would say it depends on what you mean by "when". Taking a broad view, I agree that as long as there is clinging there is an "I", but at the very moment of clinging, that's all there is. For example, there is probably clinging with every key stroke but not an "I" for every key stroke. You made a good point about house the concept. Is that the house we cling to, or is there another house. Larry 55552 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 653 ) lbidd2 Hi Htoo, Thanks for your reply. Would you clarify this; I don't understand: Htoo: "Mind base is consciousness but this consciousness is not directly consciousness dictated by sankhaara. Sankhaara dictate vipaaka consciousness." L: I thought mind base is vipaaka citta. Also, would you clarify which rupas belong with namarupa and which with the ayatanas. I know you explained this before but I just realized that the ayatanas are also namarupa, only different ones. Larry 55553 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > I would say it depends on what you mean by "when". Taking a broad view, > I agree that as long as there is clinging there is an "I", but at the > very moment of clinging, that's all there is. For example, there is > probably clinging with every key stroke but not an "I" for every key > stroke. Hi Larry, I take this quote from Sammaditthi Dipani -------------------------------------------------- People do not perform bodily, verbal and mental acts, which are conditioned by craving, on account of things which they do not regard as themselves or their own and they accordingly do not feel any concern. There is no likelihood of their committing any vice or sin on account of such things. This is quite clear from what we see and experience in this world. ================================================== > You made a good point about house the concept. Is that the house we > cling to, or is there another house. That's the point, the 'name' house need to be associated with a (thought to be) real 'house' first. After that it can be experienced. People only mistakenly take what they experience to be a house, not the rupa of color, hardness, etc. 55554 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 6:51pm Subject: Re: Some questions on meditation practice gazita2002 Hello Evan, Welcome to dsg. I think if u stick around u'll enjoy and learn from this 'mottely crew'. we have varied points of view which is great and can be entertaining - for me anyway :-) I'm time constrained rightnow so just want to make a short comment on one of your statements/ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "emj8888" wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm new to this group, and Buddhism in general. I've only been > studying for two weeks or so... Thus far I've read a few books. The > Wings To Awakening and The Road To Liberation seemed the most > enlightening of what I've read thus far, but I still have some > confusions about the meditative practice itself. I'd appreciate > anyone's input on my current practice and how it correlates to > official paths of meditation. Thanks in advance for anyone who can > give me some advice from a position with a bit more experience :) > > I initially read several things, but they only discussed the basics of > Buddhism and then told to just focus on the sensation of the breath at > the tip of the nostrils, and it then didn't really detail any further > practice at all. That seemed off, or at least inefficient to me... if > you're just blanking your mind, then it doesn't seem like you'd really > be cutting off defilements because you wouldn't be bringing them into > your mind to study them. azita; inefficient seems like a good description. Your last sentence says all IMO. Defilements, in fact all states, good and bad need to be known for what they are, impermanent and not to be taken as self or anything lasting. defilements are very real. they are called, in Pali, cetasikas. There are 52 cetasikas in all - some are wholesome eg metta; some are unwholesome eg clinging/lobha in Pali. Wisdom, panna, is another wholesome cetasika which eventually can grow/develop given the right conditions, to see all realities for what they really are ; impermanent, not self and unsatisfactory, anicca, anatta, dukkha. unfortunatly I have to go. I apoligise if I've confused u more, maybe it'll just make u more curious :-) Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 55555 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 8:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Larry: "You made a good point about house the concept. Is that the house we cling to, or is there another house." Charles: "That's the point, the 'name' house need to be associated with a (thought to be) real 'house' first. After that it can be experienced. People only mistakenly take what they experience to be a house, not the rupa of color, hardness, etc." Hi Charles, I agree. But what if I am not actually in my house when I am clinging to it. If none of the rupas of my house is an object of present consciousness, am I clinging to the mere concept "house"? I think there is a flaw in the syntax of the quote from Sammadittha Dipani. It doesn't quite make sense; but I think he (Ledi Sayadaw?) is saying action conditioned by desire is also condtioned by self view. Maybe so. Abhidhamma gives me the impression there can be selfless desire, but I can't actually think of a clear instance of such a thing. "People do not perform bodily, verbal and mental acts, which are conditioned by craving, on account of things which they do not regard as themselves or their own and they accordingly do not feel any concern. There is no likelihood of their committing any vice or sin on account of such things. This is quite clear from what we see and experience in this world." Larry 55556 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] CORRECTION -- SUTTA source DENIES "Own Characteristic" in 5 Aggre... jonoabb Hi RobK rjkjp1 wrote: >Dear Jon and all, >Sorry to miss the session today. I got in a bit late on a flight >Sunday via Taiwan and slept in. Will be there tommorow! >see you soon >Robert > Sorry you missed the session yesterday. See you there this afternoon! Jon 55557 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) lbidd2 Joop: "There is more conventional truth than the Buddha's speech? When I say: "it's raining" than that is conventional truth (today, not tomorrow, I hope)" Hi Joop and all, I don't know. What determines a conventional truth? If it is that many people believe it then it is true only as long as many people believe it. What if only one person believes that the earth is not the center of the universe? Because only one holds this idea is it false? What if one day 51% believe one thing, then the next day 51% believe the opposite and it goes back and forth like that for years? Larry 55558 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 10:27pm Subject: Re: clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > I agree. But what if I am not actually in my house when I am clinging to > it. If none of the rupas of my house is an object of present > consciousness, am I clinging to the mere concept "house"? Hi Larry, I think ... At that time the object of grasping is a mind-object (mental image). So I think it is better said, clinging to a mental picture of a house, not clinging to a house. But the mental picture comes from the house. The word mental image is a concept (name) for dhamma-arammana. > I think there is a flaw in the syntax of the quote from Sammadittha > Dipani. It doesn't quite make sense; but I think he (Ledi Sayadaw?) is > saying action conditioned by desire is also condtioned by self view. > Maybe so. Abhidhamma gives me the impression there can be selfless > desire, but I can't actually think of a clear instance of such a thing. It could be. I think Ven. Ledi is speaking about relation of things too, not about a single state of consciousness. 55559 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 10:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > I don't know. What determines a conventional truth? I think the truth of conventional truth ends on the words used, ie concepts that cannot be traced to reality --------------------------------------------------- The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of ' explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect Qne (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. =================================================== (Buddhist Dictionary) 55560 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 10:39pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Andrew T, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi KenH > > Another quick comment ... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > There are only dhammas. > > AT: That's right when we are talking about absolute reality. ------------------ I don't want to be pedantic, but isn't it always right? ------------------------------- > > When we have got that firmly into our heads ... AT: > When is that? Stream entry? Enlightenment? What do we do in the meantime? -------------------------------- I simply mean; when we have given it some serious thought and we have agreed with the logic of it. It seems to me we should go no further with our Dhamma studies until we have agreed there are only dhammas. And we can't have too many refreshers. ------------------- > > we can safely talk about the concepts that make dhammas known. ... AT: > So it's not "safe" to discuss Dhamma now because we haven't got it firmly into our heads that there are only dhammas at the level of absolute reality? Please elaborate. ------------------ Who hasn't got it firmly into their heads? I thought we all had (except for a few diehard conventionalists who reject Abhidhamma). ------------------------------ > > Those > concepts are no less illusory than are the concepts that make flying > purple elephants known. ... AT: > The concepts are not "illusory" according to many meanings of that English word. They are illusory in having no sabhava, and no characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. That is how I read Khun Sujin. Have I stumbled? ------------------------------- I must have been particularly unclear in my previous message. I was not trying to say anything that you have not agreed with on previous occasions. I like to put things differently, just for interest's sake, but essentially I was making the same points I always make. ---------------- <. . .> AT: > Why don't you explain what you mean by "religiosity being passed off as Dhamma"? Did I write something fitting of that description? ---------------------- Again, I was just repeating my well-known opinions on formal practice. 'Religiosity passed off as Dhamma' might be a bit strong for some people, let's see. And, no, you didn't write anything fitting that description; you just queried my way for speaking dismissively of concepts. The main reason I speak dismissively of concepts is that many people (the majority of modern-day Buddhists) wrongly insist that vipassana means concentration on concepts (formal practice). ----------------- <. . .> AT: Do you not see any profundity in the Buddha's teachings that deal with concepts? ---------------- It is especially rewarding to see profundity in what might otherwise seem conventional. To quote KS (from memory): "The Buddha taught satipatthana, and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana." -------------------------------------------------- AT: > Or Khun Sujin's talking about concepts being means of knowing? -------------------------------------------------- It is fine to talk about concepts as 'means of knowing' but it is not fine to talk about them as 'objects of satipatthana.' Some people find that distinction inconvenient because they want to see the Dhamma as a conventional teaching. ---------------------- AT: > Motherhood statements? Where have you been surfing lately? ---------------------- Politicians aren't the only ones to pad their arguments with motherhood statements. I do it occasionally, and I thought you did it on this occasion. It's no big deal. -------------------------------- KH: > > I suspect (and I may be wrong) that you still have some lingering ideas of hanging on to (not dismissing) certain concepts for the purposes of satipatthana. (!!!) > > ... AT: > I can't control what I hang onto or dismiss, KenH. Can you? --------------------------------- No, and, forgetting my personal style for the moment, if I speak about concepts in a way that contradicts KS then I would certainly like you to point that out. ------------------------- AT: > As for understanding satipatthana, give me a little while to work on it. Rome wasn't built in a day! ------------------------- Always rely on me for helpful, carefully worded reminders. :-) ---------------------------- KH: > > Are you thinking that when there is the concept of, for example, a pain in the knee, we should deliberately practise some "benign" kind of deliberate mindfulness? > > AT: > Where did that come from? ---------------------------- Just a bit of amateur psychology. From time to time, every worldling Dhamma-student tries to direct mindfulness. Formal practice can take subtle forms. ------------------------------------- KH : > > Such a practice might be nothing more than a formal admission to being aware only of the concept of pain, and an acknowledgement that only panna can directly know vedana. Even so, I would be highly dismissive of any such formal practice. > > "The Path is, but no traveller on it is seen." (Vis.) > > ... AT: > ... in absolute reality. You keep forgetting to add that bit. Why? Are you so disappointed in your past Dhamma mentors that you cannot even brook to dabble in the "hows" and "whys" of conventional reality? Doesn't understanding "reality now" require understanding of what is absolute AND what is conventional, what is parramattha AND what is pannatti? What's the problem here? Really? --------------------------------------- Holler but don't hit! :-) Ken H 55561 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 11:15pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 Hi KenH You know I speak affectionately when I say that you are like a dog with an old bone! I'll give it one more try, shall I? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > There are only dhammas. > > > > AT: That's right when we are talking about absolute reality. > ------------------ > > I don't want to be pedantic, but isn't it always right? AT: When mind-base has pannatti as object, there aren't only dhammas - there are pannatti too. One can say, however, that there are only dhammas "in an absolute sense" - and that's perfectly correct. But you doggedly refuse to add those few little words that make all the difference in terms of precision. I can't work out why. KS does it. Why won't you? KenH: Holler but don't hit! AT: You make that very hard at times! (-: Best wishes Andrew T 55562 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 0:04am Subject: Note the Coming & Going, the Arising & Ceasing = Only Ever Change ... bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: A good friend suggested this good & rational mental Exercise: Whenever a new phenomena emerges: Note: What was the originating cause of this arising! Whenever this new phenomena soon ceases: Note: Having exhausted its cause, any phenomena ceases! Conclude: How can one ever possibly keep or cling to such evanescence ??? PS: Some momentary causalities of momentary objects: The proximate cause of the body is food, fluid & air. The proximate cause any feeling is sense contact. The proximate cause any perception is sense contact. The proximate cause any intention is sense contact. The proximate cause any mental construction is contact. The proximate cause any consciousness is object+sense organ. The proximate cause any phenomenon, being a mental state, is attention ... Dig it! Again and again ... The praxis of this discrimination is the freeing way to detaching disillusion ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <....> 55563 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some questions on meditation practice mr39515 Dear Evan Hi there... to answer your question, I think I should touch a little on the only truth: The 4 Noble Truth which stated: 1. There is Suffering 2. The Cause of Suffering 3. The Ceasation of Suffering 4. The Path Leading to the Ceasation of Suffering. If you notice carefully, the Truth is all about Suffering. Life is already full of suffering so you do NOT need to bring "intentionally" all the objects into your meditation. On the other hand, you are also not "waiting" for spark to arises. I like to stress again, all achievement begins with theory, then practical and finally reliazation. You need to know what is the 4 station of mindfulness and if you know them, you will notice that all these phenomenas arises every moments. You do not need to "wait" as they arises every moment. As you proceed, try to notice the beginning, the continuity and the falling of those phenomena. And if you proceed further, you will notice that all those phenomena arises by itself if the conditions is available. Example: people don't just get angry unless there is a condition(s) to make them angry. Phenomena arises by itself (if the conditions is available) and fall by itself. Then you will see the true nature of things which is Im-permanance, Suffering and Non-self. Further development, you will notice that there must be an intention before any action thus you will notice mind and matter and mind/matter are 2 different thing and there is no one in control as they also arises if there the conditions is right. With all has been said, they are all theory. One must experience this themselves thru practical, only then one will reliaze the true nature of phenomena. It is preferred that beginners to mediation are guided by a teacher and not just reading from books. For sure, I am not going to visit a doctor who practice medicine from reading books alone. Thus I believe meditation is best learned from experience teachers. Hope this helps Metta mr39515 --- emj8888 wrote: <....> > My question is basically just: Why should I only > idly *wait* for > things to occur at the sense-doors, instead of > intentionally > awakening defilements in order to have the most > important ones > occur? Sometimes I find that many things don't pop > up in my mind when > I'm sitting idly, focused on breathing, but crop up > in my daily life > with much, much more regularity. > > I mean, presuming that I know a particular > attachment/defilement is > strong in my life, would it not make sense to, > during meditation, > intentionally draw that desire up inside yourself > regularly and then > mindfully be aware of it to weaken it? (not getting > lost in it or > attaching though ... just treating it the same way > one does in normal > meditation, but taking one extra step of "pulling" > things into focus) <....> 55564 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 653 ) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: Hi Htoo, Hi Htoo, Thanks for your reply. Would you clarify this; I don't understand: Htoo: "Mind base is consciousness but this consciousness is not directly consciousness dictated by sankhaara. Sankhaara dictate vipaaka consciousness." L: I thought mind base is vipaaka citta. Also, would you clarify which rupas belong with namarupa and which with the ayatanas. I know you explained this before but I just realized that the ayatanas are also namarupa, only different ones. Larry -------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Larry, Thanks for your reply. Eye-base and form-base are pair and work together. Likewise mind-base and dhamma-base are pair and work together. The first pair sparks off as eye-consciousness. The second pair sparks off as mind-consciousness. Dhamma-base are 1. 16 subtle materials 2. 52 mental factors 3. nibbana Mind-base are appropriate consciousness. There are 89 consciousness. 10 consciousness are panca-vinnaana cittas or 5 pairs and they are the sparks from meeting of 5 pairs. So there left 79 consciousness. Again 3 cittas are mind-element or mano-dhaatu. Other 76 cittas are mano-vinnaana-dhaatu or mind- consciousness elements. These 76 are sparks, I think. Mind-base may well be vipaaka because mind-consciousness-element have to arise also from vipaaka cittas. Examples are that we can think only after completetion of 5-sense- door procession has finished. With respect, Htoo Naing 55565 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 3:16am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 656 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Phassa paccayaa vedanaa'. As there are 6 phassas or 6 contacts there also are 6 vedanaa or 6 feelings. All these feelings are conditioned by their respective counterpart 6 contacts or 6 phassas. These 6 vedanaa or feelings are 1. cakkhu-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of eye contact) 2. sota-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of ear contact) 3. ghaana-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of nose contact) 4. jivhaa-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of tongue contact) 5. kaaya-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of body contact) 6. mano-sam-phassa-vedanaa (feeling born of mind contact) Again these feelings further condition yet another dhamma called tanhaa or craving. This means that tanhaa are conditioned by vedanaa or feeling. There might exist a gap between actual arising of feeling and actual arising of lobha cetasika as a link even though yet another feeling also co-exists with lobha citta where there also associates with lobha cetasika which is craving. Example; when we see something see-consciousness or eye-consciousness arise. At that actual moment of cakkhu-vinnaana-citta there is no lobha or tanhaa. But tanhaa or lobha only arise in javana cittas when citta fully apperceive the object with lobha or craving or tanhaa. 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. 55566 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 3:25am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 657 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa'. Feeling conditions craving. Here is the main point where the bridge well connects two worlds of reception and reaction. That is feelings are received into to implement craving dictated things. This exact bridge is broken by arhatta magga naana or eradicating- path- knowledge. This happens because that KNOWLEDGE or 'NAA.NA' is very powerful so that there is permanent disruption of the connection between these two dhamma and craving dies forever. Evn though craving is eradicated there are still feelings in arahats. But their feelings do not condition further arising of craving. There arise permanent peace, which is kilesa-nibbana or 'the peace that arises because of extinguishment of the fires of defilements. Apart from arahats there always is the bridge between vedanaa or feeling and tanhaa or craving whatever someone has ruupa-jhaana or aruupa-jhaana. As long as tanhaa is there there is tendency to arise many akusala in connection with that tanhaa. 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. 55567 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 0:54am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/7/06 2:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi KenH > > You know I speak affectionately when I say that you are like a dog > with an old bone! I'll give it one more try, shall I? --------------------------------------------- Howard: When the bone is a tasty one, no need to toss it, is there? ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > >>>There are only dhammas. > >> > >>AT: That's right when we are talking about absolute reality. > >------------------ > > > >I don't want to be pedantic, but isn't it always right? > > AT: When mind-base has pannatti as object, there aren't only dhammas - > there are pannatti too. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Are there? Where? And what are they? When the mind "has pa~n~natti as object," isn't it really the case merely that thinking is in progress, and, to neologize, that "pa~n~natizing" is occurring? When I "look out the window and see a tree," is there an "I" doing the looking, and are there actually "window" and "tree" pseudo-dhammas/pa~n~natti present ... somewhere? And, BTW, when I no longer "look out the window and see the tree," have those pa~n~natti ceased? (They aren't supposed to do that, you know! ;-) Actually, they don't arise, and they don't cease, because in truth and reality, there are no such things at all except in a manner of speaking. To speak of pa~n~natti is already figurative speech. --------------------------------------- One can say, however, that there are only > dhammas "in an absolute sense" - > and that's perfectly correct. But > you doggedly refuse to add those few little words that make all the > difference in terms of precision. I can't work out why. KS does > it. Why won't you? -------------------------------------- Howard: I would say "because there are no such things at all, and speaking of 'them' is just to speak in a certain figurative manner." --------------------------------------- > > KenH: Holler but don't hit! > > AT: You make that very hard at times! (-: --------------------------------------- Howard: I find that true also. LOL! How ironic, then, that I'm taking Ken's "side " on this! ;-)) Where I do think you go overboard, Ken, is in your apparent tendency to think that conventional truth is not just true figurative speech, but untruth, plain and simple. -------------------------------------- > > Best wishes > Andrew T > ===================== 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) 55568 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi TG You say that 'thoughts are [partly] based on recollections/learnings from past experience', and I'm sure that is so. Are you saying that such recollections are dhammas rather than concepts? It seems to me this requires an assumption about what are dhammas, what are concepts. To my understanding, the many processes of thinking that follow each moment of sense-door experiencing have concept as their object, the object of the sense-door experience having fallen away. How would you see this? Jon TGrand458@... wrote: > >In a message dated 2/5/2006 5:56:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > >I see this as a separate issue to the earlier one. > >Your view that concepts are dhammas seems to be based on an assumption >that only dhammas can be object of consciousness. I was wondering where >that assumption comes from. > >Jon > > > >Hi Jon > >The answer is direct experience. I do not admit any assumption at all in >this matter, although I could be wrong. (Remember, concepts to me are mental >formations.) Here's the process... > >I watch the mind and observe the causes of its changing states. When >thoughts are there, I look into "what caused those thoughts"? I find two primary >causes...one is that those thoughts are based on recollections/learnings from >past experience. The second primary cause is a current condition that is >acting in an associated manner to "trigger those 'past' thoughts." The thoughts >technically are not past, they are "currently existing impressions" that can >be accessed by attention...given the necessary associations that lead to >their recall. (Things experienced in the past that cannot be recalled do not >have powerful enough "impressions" to recall them...or the "current >associations" are not powerful enough to "draw them out." > >Also, I have actually tried to generate thoughts of something that I have no >previous experience with. I find it to be impossible. The best that can be >done is merging two or more thoughts that have been previously >learned/experienced...such as "flying" "pink" "elephant." > >Now I'll be interested in what you think about this. (And remember, your >answer and thoughts about it are being triggered by associations with the >"current ideas" that are being proffered in this post. Your mind will need to >search through 'past experiences' --> 'current impressions' to find reasons to >agree or disagree. All of those things are not only based on actual >experience, but are actual experience as they "formulate" an answer.) ;-) > >TG > > 55569 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 8:11am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts mlnease Hi Ken and Andrew, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew" To: Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 11:15 PM Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts > AT: When mind-base has pannatti as object, there aren't only dhammas - > there are pannatti too. One can say, however, that there are only > dhammas "in an absolute sense" - and that's perfectly correct. But > you doggedly refuse to add those few little words that make all the > difference in terms of precision. I can't work out why. KS does > it. Why won't you? It seems to me that even the Buddha spoke in this way, e.g. "...this thought...has arisen in me..." (from the Twofold Thought Sutta). mike 55570 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 8:31am Subject: Correction mlnease Of course that was the Bodhisatta speaking, NOT the Buddha. My apologies for the error. A major distinction! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "m. nease" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:11 AM Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts > It seems to me that even the Buddha spoke in this way, e.g. "...this > thought...has arisen in me..." (from the Twofold Thought Sutta). > > mike 55571 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 2/7/2006 7:02:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG You say that 'thoughts are [partly] based on recollections/learnings from past experience', and I'm sure that is so. TG: First of all I say 'partly' because the other parts of a thought are things like consciousness, attention, effort, etc. that we probably indisputably agree are actually happening during a thought process. Here's the way I see it Jon... When the mind perceives something, that perception I believe is 'etched' into the physical brain. The information is stored in some 'physical manner' ... let us say perhaps a 'readjustment of brain molecules.' (As to the exact mechanics at work, I can't say.) When remember past experiences or just having thoughts about something, (the 'remembering' being a present state in all ways), the mind is scanning these 'etched in' perceptions. The 'etched in perceptions' are the actual mind-object. They actually arise into consciousness at the time of the remembering. The rest of the time they are like the wall behind your head. Its there, but the mind is not conscious of it because the conditions to "see it" are not currently in place. During conceptualization... the mind and mind-object actually occur, the delusion actually arises, but the "representation" or "referent" never arises. It is just "our delusion" that makes us think is does. Delusion makes the mind think that 'the referent' is the object. But in truth, its a "actual physical/psychical state" that is the object of consciousness. It is not this "referent" that is the mind-object. It is the 'perceptual impressions' being '"scanned" by other mental factors that are the mind-object. Are you saying that such recollections are dhammas rather than concepts? It seems to me this requires an assumption about what are dhammas, what are concepts. TG: The above should have answered this. I'll have to stand by the position that "mind-objects" are "always actual states." To my understanding, the many processes of thinking that follow each moment of sense-door experiencing have concept as their object, the object of the sense-door experience having fallen away. How would you see this? TG: Again, the above should have shown my position. But to elaborate... A 'sense-door experience' generates an 'impression' in the mind/brain. It is this 'impression' that becomes the mind-object, that in part structures, (along with consciousness, attention, effort, etc.) the thinking that follows the prior sense-door experience. If the thinking that follows a particular sense-door experience is not associated with THAT experience, then it would be involving other previously sensed 'impressions.' Jon I'll be interested in what you think about that. I'll be leaving for a week on Thursday so if I don't hear from you tomorrow, it will be about 9 or 10 days before I'll be able to post again. Best Wishes, TG 55572 From: "emj8888" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 1:43pm Subject: Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Arahants emj8888 Hi everyone, Thanks for replies regarding my meditation question earlier. I'm still learning, and I'm confused regarding something that seems to be a blocking point for me... Buddha says that one can't *confirm* karma or rebirth except through Awakening, and that it must simply be taken on faith till then. I know that another Buddha hasn't emerged since Gothama, and that he predicted the arising of the next one in 5,000 years or so, correct? Gave his name, etc... If no new Buddha has come along, then who has confirmed karma/rebirth? Are those confirmed at the level of non-returning, which some people have attained? At what point are those two confirmed, and who has reached that point? How does that confirmation manifest itself in an experiential sense? Visions? When was the last time it occured? If nobody's ever confirmed something then I can't really proceed with "knowledgeable faith" in practice - it might be unwise... Without something to fill in, once all layers of delusion are stripped away, we might just be left with ultimate nihilism, without the idea of karma and rebirth there to fill in a moral imperative. Thanks! -Evan 55573 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Araha... upasaka_howard Hi, Evan - In a message dated 2/7/06 4:49:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, emj8888@... writes: > Hi everyone, > > Thanks for replies regarding my meditation question earlier. I'm still > learning, and I'm confused regarding something that seems to be a > blocking point for me... ----------------------------------------- Howard: What does it block? Please recall how the Buddha taught the simile of an arrow-wounded man who required knowing everything there was to know before removing the arrow: "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." ----------------------------------------------------- > > Buddha says that one can't *confirm* karma or rebirth except through > Awakening, and that it must simply be taken on faith till then. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Are you certain of that, Evan? I don't recall reading of his saying that. Certainly with his enlightenment he *did* gain such knowledge, but I don't recall his saying that it is otherwise unknowable, nor do I recall his suggesting that either of these be taken on faith. ---------------------------------------- I know> > that another Buddha hasn't emerged since Gothama, and that he > predicted the arising of the next one in 5,000 years or so, correct? > Gave his name, etc... If no new Buddha has come along, then who has > confirmed karma/rebirth? > ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think that only Buddhas know about rebirth. I believe that even some worldlings recall previous lives. As for kamma, it may well be so that only Buddhas are aware of kamma in full detail, but I have little doubt that others are aware on a first-hand basis of kamma and kammic fruits at least to some extent. (Also, and I'm not clear on whether you realize this or not, Buddhas are not the only fully enlightened beings. It isn't so that 'arahant' and 'buddha' have the same meaning.) --------------------------------------- Are those confirmed at the level of> > non-returning, which some people have attained? At what point are > those two confirmed, and who has reached that point? How does that > confirmation manifest itself in an experiential sense? Visions? When > was the last time it occured? > > If nobody's ever confirmed something then I can't really proceed with > "knowledgeable faith" in practice - it might be unwise... Without > something to fill in, once all layers of delusion are stripped away, > we might just be left with ultimate nihilism, without the idea of > karma and rebirth there to fill in a moral imperative. ---------------------------------------- Howard: By 'kamma' the Buddha meant nothing more or less than volition and volitional action. The effect kamma has on one's mindstream, influencing one's experience including the realm of experience into which one is born, is known as kamma vipaka (kammic effect). In simple ways, not the (lifetime) rebirth aspect, we can directly experience this all the time if we but pay attention. Moment by moment rebirth, with kamma producing kammic fruit, *is* knowable even by you and me with proper training. --------------------------------------- > > Thanks! > > -Evan > ==================== 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) 55574 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard I am in general agreement with much of what you say below ;-)) You wonder how I would view the statement: "When 'object' is used as in 'object of thought', that is (actually always) figurative speech". This is an interesting area. I would put it this way: When 'object' is used as in 'object of thinking (i.e., of citta which thinks)', there is no actual phenomenon that is object, there is only concept which is mind-created. I am not clear in my own mind in what sense (i.e., figurative or literal) it is said that a concept is the 'object' of the citta that thinks of the concept, but I see no particular significance in the answer being one way or the other. Jon upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, TG (and Jon) - > >... > > > I think that a problem with this discussion itself is that it involves >an unnoticed or ignored mixing of literal speech and figurative speech >(paramattha and sammati sacca) as regards "objects". When 'object' is used as in >'object of thought', that is (actually always) figurative speech, though I'm not >sure that Jon would accept that statement. So, when I say that I'm thinking of >the film I saw last week, what this means is that I'm engaged in a complex >process of thinking, of remembering, of feeling, and of experiencing emotions. >But not only is there no film present at the time that I'm "thinking about it," >and, of course, the film itself is concept-only(!), but also there is no >*single* mental phenomenon, no single citta or cetasika, that is "the" object of >the thinking. There is no object in the same literal sense that there is when >we see or hear or touch. Nowhere to be found is the film I saw last week, nor >is there a single citta or cetasika that is surrogate for it. And yet it is >perfectly correct to say that I'm thinking of the film I saw last week. It is >meaningful and even true but merely figurative speech. ... > > 55575 From: "emj8888" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 4:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Araha... emj8888 > Howard: > What does it block? Please recall how the Buddha taught the simile of > an arrow-wounded man who required knowing everything there was to know before > removing the arrow: Right, I've read that simile before. What I meant by blocking point is that, unless I can justify the faith in karma and rebirth, then the entire practice of Buddhism needs to be evaluated in a new light. Karma and rebirth seem to be the sole things that insure a moral, rather than nihilistic, approach as we shed our sense of self through practice. Thus, it's important whether we have faith or not, and it's important to only have faith in things that one can reason as being probable, rather than to just have faith in anything, blindly. > > > > Buddha says that one can't *confirm* karma or rebirth except through > > Awakening, and that it must simply be taken on faith till then. > > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are you certain of that, Evan? I don't recall reading of his saying > that. Certainly with his enlightenment he *did* gain such knowledge, but I don't > recall his saying that it is otherwise unknowable, nor do I recall his > suggesting that either of these be taken on faith. > ---------------------------------------- I'm quoting "The Wings To Awakening" when I said that. Here are some pertinent passages from it: "The Buddha had an additional difficulty, however, in that his definition of health -- Unbinding -- was something that none of his listeners had yet experienced for themselves. Hence the most important point of his teaching was something that his listeners would have to take on faith." "Without faith in the regularity of the Dhamma -- including conviction in the principle of kamma and the impersonality of the causal law, making the path open in principle to everyone -- one could not fully have faith in one's own ability to follow the path. Of course, this faith would then be confirmed, step by step, as one followed the teaching and began gaining results, but full confirmation would come only with an experience of Awakening. Prior to that point, one's trust, bolstered only by partial results, would have to be a matter of faith [M.27]." "The Buddha employed various means of instilling faith in his listeners, but the primary means fall into three classes: his character, his psychic powers, and his powers of reason." (I also question why no demonstration of psychic powers have ever been used in the modern era, when such things could be publicized world-wide now that we have global media and whatnot. From a scientific perspective, demonstration of psychic phenomena that are documented in the scripture would seem to be an almost instant confirmation of Buddhism for millions who would otherwise doubt or ignore Buddhism...) "Faith based on reason and understanding, the Buddha taught, was more solid than unreasoned faith, but neither could substitute for the direct knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma and of Unbinding, for only the experience of Unbinding was a guarantee of true knowledge. Nevertheless, faith was a prerequisite for attaining that direct knowledge. Only when the initial presentation of the teaching had aroused faith in the listener, would he/she be in a position to benefit from a less-adorned presentation of the content and put it into practice." "As we saw under the frames of reference, the proper development of mindfulness leads to concentration, or the four jhanas, while the jhanas provide the foundation for the arising of discernment, the fifth and final member of this set. When discernment is strengthened to the point of transcendence, leading to the attainment of stream-entry, it then confirms the truths that were previously taken as a matter of conviction and faith [§74]." ... of course, these are just quoting the body of the Wings To Awakening, rather than the scriptures directly, but I can only assume that this is a fair analysis of them? http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/B%20-%20Theravada/Suttas%20I/wings/index.html#toc > Howard: > I don't think that only Buddhas know about rebirth. I believe that > even some worldlings recall previous lives. As for kamma, it may well be so that > only Buddhas are aware of kamma in full detail, but I have little doubt that > others are aware on a first-hand basis of kamma and kammic fruits at least to > some extent. (Also, and I'm not clear on whether you realize this or not, > Buddhas are not the only fully enlightened beings. It isn't so that 'arahant' and > 'buddha' have the same meaning.) Oh... what's the difference between an Arahant and a Buddha? Have other Arahants emerged, then? If so when/who? > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > By 'kamma' the Buddha meant nothing more or less than volition and > volitional action. The effect kamma has on one's mindstream, influencing one's > experience including the realm of experience into which one is born, is known as > kamma vipaka (kammic effect). In simple ways, not the (lifetime) rebirth > aspect, we can directly experience this all the time if we but pay attention. > Moment by moment rebirth, with kamma producing kammic fruit, *is* knowable even by > you and me with proper training. > --------------------------------------- Everything has an effect on everything else, because of the way the universe works, in a physics-notion. The universe can be looked at as a deterministic system. But whether the effect I have on my environment results in carry-over to the next life is an extremely important thing, because otherwise the effect I have on my environment doesn't matter, because I just vanish on death. If that's true, then there's no point to any sort of morality. If that's true, then stripping away all social mores, without cloaking oneself in a false belief in a moral carry-over through rebirth, would result in someone purely nihilistic, with no compunction about doing anything, right or wrong. Also, if the premises of Buddhism, in the mystical senses, aren't correct, then I need to be more wary of adopting each recommendation of practice. IE: If there's nothing "else" out there, then there's nothing waiting for us when we strip everything else away. I'd like to believe in Buddhism without slicing and dicing certain parts out due to an inability to have faith in those parts, but there doesn't seem to be any real evidence given that I've encountered yet. And that's why I've written this email :) Knowledge that a large body of people have realized experiential confirmation of these assertions would really help my ability to have knowledgeable faith. The idea that there's determinism in a physical sense (I shout at someone and I reinforce the mental process in my brain that's attached to anger and my sense of self) does not, logically, carry over to indicate anything beyond that...that there's any mystical link to anything else... rebirth in other bodies, other realms of existence, the belief in gods, devas, hell, and a million other things. Thanks! ~Evan 55576 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 5:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Hi Charles, Larry: "I agree. But what if I am not actually in my house when I am clinging to it. If none of the rupas of my house is an object of present consciousness, am I clinging to the mere concept "house"?" Charles: "Hi Larry, I think ... At that time the object of grasping is a mind-object (mental image). So I think it is better said, clinging to a mental picture of a house, not clinging to a house. But the mental picture comes from the house. The word mental image is a concept (name) for dhamma-arammana." L: Regarding mental image, there seems to be some ambiguity as to what is concept and what is perception. Perception perceives by way of signs (nimitta). One aspect of a complex object is used to identify that object. A young deer sees a scarecrow and thinks it is a man, because of the shape. Perception perceives signs and remembers them. Are perceptions concepts? Larry 55577 From: "Charles" Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 6:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > L: Regarding mental image, there seems to be some ambiguity as to what > is concept and what is perception. Perception perceives by way of signs > (nimitta). One aspect of a complex object is used to identify that > object. A young deer sees a scarecrow and thinks it is a man, because of > the shape. Perception perceives signs and remembers them. Are > perceptions concepts? Hi Larry, I do not know. Maybe your opinion is right. I get this quote "That which is ultimately real are the momentary phenomena (dhammas) all else are mental concepts (pannati) constructed by perception." http://my.tbaytel.net/arfh/dhamma/abhi1.html So reality touch our senses, perceptions get it, after that the javanas either take it as reality or they create concepts. Anyway, why is the purpose the terms pannati and sabhava used in the commentaries? Maybe we should not use the terms more than they are intended to :D 55578 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 1:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Araha... upasaka_howard Hi, Evan - In a message dated 2/7/06 8:05:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, emj8888@... writes: > (Also, and I'm not clear on whether you realize this or > not, > >Buddhas are not the only fully enlightened beings. It isn't so that > 'arahant' and > >'buddha' have the same meaning.) > > Oh... what's the difference between an Arahant and a Buddha? Have > other Arahants emerged, then? If so when/who? > ========================= An arahant is a fully awakened being, with all defilements, emotive and cognitive, uprooted. S/he is fully liberated and fully realizing of nibbana. For an arahant, there is nothing further for him/her to attain, and there is no awakening or enlightenment superior to that of an arahant. A buddha is certainly an arahant. But he is more, in that he has, over vast aeons, fully mastered "the ten perfections" and put himself into the position of becoming a being with the capacity to achieve the goal of Buddhahood, namely to not only attain arahanthood, but to do so unaided, in a world in which the Dhamma is unknown, and to then reintroduce the Dhamma in that world. As for whether other arahants have emerged, the suttas speak of many who became arahants under the Buddha, and there have been purportedly many who have achieved arahanthood since then. 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) 55579 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 9:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas.About Mana, BelatedThxFr EddieLou eddielou_us Hi, Phil, Thx for all your info. I know what you are trying to say. Mana is pride and is the cause of a lot of problems for human beings. I know the 3 main fundamental akusala (vices) are lobha, dosa (hatred), and delusion. Thx again. Metta, Eddie Phil wrote: Hi again Eddie > Best to stick with lobha. Also best to stick with "mana" rather than the usual translation, conceit, because in Dhamma mana is not only thinking oneself better, but comparing oneself in anyway, thinking oneself important in any way. Much, much broader and more prevalent than what we think of as "conceit." Phil 55580 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 10:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts lbidd2 Charles: "Anyway, why is the purpose the terms pannatti and sabhava used in the commentaries? Maybe we should not use the terms more than they are intended to :D" Hi Charles, Maybe so. Sabhava is a very minor issue in Visuddhimagga and not even mentioned in Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Maybe I'm misunderstanding nimittapannatti: "The kasina signs are called nimittapannatti, sign concepts, since they correspond to mental signs gained by meditative development." In all other cases pannatti simply means word. "Well, cave, etc., are called akasapannatti, spatial concepts, since they correspond to spatial regions void of perceptible matter." In other words, the word "cave" refers to ("corresponds to") a particular spatial region. Likewise, "earth kasina" refers to ("corresponds to") a particular jhana nimitta. That does not mean that the nimitta _is_ a concept any more than a particular kind of spatial region is a concept. I think I was misunderstanding "corresponds to" to mean "is" when it more likely means "refers to". How this relates to sabhava is a different issue. A cave space is known through a synthesis of many ultimate realities but that synthesis is not an ultimate reality. Not being an ultimate reality does not mean that the cave space synthesis of experience is a concept, a word. A word is also a synthesis of many ultimate realities: vocal sound, perceptions, views, etc. So, like a cave space, a word is not an ultimate reality. I would say a simple sign or mental image is an ultimate reality. I think the main reason for understanding sabhava is to understand relationship. For there to be a relationship there has to be at least two somethings. Relationship is the main lesson of dependent arising and exposes the nonexistence of an agent or actor, a self. Dependent arising is not an ultimate reality. It is empty of ultimate reality because it is the relationship of ultimate reality. However, I agree with Howard and TG that sabhava can be misperceived as something solid when in actuality it is nothing other than ephemeral experience. This is the difference between sanna and panna. Larry 55581 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 11:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Arahants mr39515 Dear Evan Hi there... I am glad that you ask question to clear doubts. Please continue to ask and also remember to valuate all the answer shared so that doubt can be clear. Kamma or some called Kamma Vipaka is one of the law govern our lives. I shall not touch on Abhidhamma explanation as it make new comer confuse. So what is Kamma/Vipaka. Kamma is Voliation with Intention. Vipaka is Resultant of the Voliation. If an action with intention is "completed" then it can bear results. And this is call Kamma-Vipaka. The law of Kamma Vipaka says that all resultant has a cause or causes. It is NOT all action has a result. To understand kamma, one must understand resultant. What are resultant... Anything that arises are resultant. It is like you see a coconut tree. This is a resultant of the action of planting the coconut seed. Someone has planted this coconut seed previously and it grew into a coconut tree. The question is who plant those seed? So is for Kamma/Vipaka. The things of what you see, hear, smell, etc are the resultant of previous action. And who create all those actions? Who ever plant the seed, get the enjoy the fruits (either good or bad). Until here, things seem all fated as there is nothing can be done from our previous kamma. However, there is nothing much we can do on our previous kamma but you must remember that kamma do NOT only based on previous kamma. Present kamma also must be taken into consideration. In fact, Present Kamma is more important in our life as it is taking place right now. Coming back to the coconut tree story. If you see a coconut tree, you know that the coconut tree is a resultant of a action of planting the seed previously. However, present kamma could change everything. If one decide to take an action to cut down the tree, the coconut tree will be gone. And the coconut fruit will be gone. Thus, nothing is fated. Only Buddhism speak of such ability to change our life. Buddhism speak of Impermanance which means nothing is permanant and things changes. This is because anything that is created can NOT last. Kamma is an action created thus the results of the action can NOT last forever as well. For another example: If you buy a car which is also created by some designer, no matter how good or how well you take good care of the car, one of these days, it also be gone. So will be for good or bad kamma. So who do you blame if the car (which is created) that you buy came damage. We will surely blame it all on the creator. So in life, who create you?? We create out own kamma (from past and present) thus Kamma is the only Property we have. We plant the seeds, we get the enjoy the fruits. It is NOT possible that you plant a coconut tree and get a mango fruits. We eat thus, we are full. I am sorry that I can't eat for you. Kamma is one of the subject that the Buddha did advice us lay people not to examine too deep. This is because, we have been around and around for so many cycle of rebirth and death and created so many past kamma (good or bad) thus, it is so difficult to determine which resultant came from which action. Only a Arahant who fully understand the law of cause and effect could see which resultant came from which action. I believe that is the reason why you read some books which says things like only the Arahant fully knew kamma. We, as lay people do not need to examine thing until that detail as things will come clear as we walk the path. This is a path we walk alone..... So do I help to answer the question who "confirm" kamma. I think the more importnat question is whether we can make good kamma arises in this life. Kamma is an energy which continous finding ways to arise thru our 6 sense door. If the condition is right, kamma will flow thru the doors and the result will be felt. Since we can DO something at present kamma, we can condition good or bad kamma to arise. We can not "delete" past kamma but we can postpone it or create conditions for it to arise. If your past kamma bear fruits that you are born rich. Present kamma can change all this to either better or worse. Some are born rich and loose all his money and some are born rich and make more big bucks. All you see now is already a resultant. There is nothing much we can do with all those resultant. It is the question of what you do from here..... As a summary, we are the creator of our own kamma. We walk this path alone. Who plant the seeds, who enjoy its fruits.... By the way, the next Buddha won't be coming so soon. There will still be millions of years before He come. Metta mr39515 Note: Kamma-Vipaka is just one law goverment our existance. There are still other laws which goverment our lives.... The force of gravity is also here... --- emj8888 wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thanks for replies regarding my meditation question > earlier. I'm still > learning, and I'm confused regarding something that > seems to be a > blocking point for me... > > Buddha says that one can't *confirm* karma or > rebirth except through > Awakening, and that it must simply be taken on faith > till then. <.....> 55582 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Question regarding the confirmation of karma/rebirth by other Araha... mr39515 Dear Evan Hi there... I deleted some of the message and left only the question which you ask... (could delete the wrong thing so if I miss out anything, pls re-ask again). --- emj8888 wrote: > > (I also question why no demonstration of psychic > powers have ever been > used in the modern era, when such things could be > publicized > world-wide now that we have global media and > whatnot. From a > scientific perspective, demonstration of psychic > phenomena that are > documented in the scripture would seem to be an > almost instant > confirmation of Buddhism for millions who would > otherwise doubt or > ignore Buddhism...) > mr39515: The purposes of Buddhism is to seek the truth. This is done thru in-sight or wisdom. Buddhism is NEVER about psychic powers. Long before the Buddha, a lot of people already knew about meditation and this meditation is call Samatha Meditation. This meditation uses one suitable object and the purposes of this meditation is to attain Jhana. There are 4 stages of Jhana and if one attain the 4th Jhana, one SUSPRESS all the 5 hindercess thus gaining supernormal powers. Some can fly. Some can walk on water. Some has devine eyes etc depanding on the individual character and the object of the meditation. When Buddha arises in this world, He introduce us Satipatana Meditation which uses momentary concentary on the 4 station of mindfulness. Satipatana or Vipassana as we call it today is meant to see the deep nature of all phenomena as Anica (impermance), Dukha (suffering) and Anata (non-self). It is meant for us to gain in-sight and wisdom on things which is really are and attain enlightenment. Buddhism is never about any power of flying, or walking etc. Just imagine if you manage to find a teacher who show the world that he has those supernormal power, do you think the student who go to him wanted to learn in-sight and wisdom or supernormal power? All those power came from Jhana which basically came from Samatha Meditation. Samatha meditation is Kusala (good merits) but NOT Right as it is the accordance to the 8 fold path which lead to enlightenment. As a result of that, people can not attain enlightenment from samatha meditation. Long before the Buddha people in india has already master this samatha meditation. This power is nothing special in Buddhism. Having said this, Samatha meditation is Maha Kusala as it generate Great good merits and will have good resultant as those who has Jhana will be reborn in Rupa planes. Then again, once the is birth, death will surely follow. And they cycle of samsara will continue. So better practice Vipassana. > "Faith based on reason and understanding, the Buddha > taught, was more > solid than unreasoned faith, but neither could > substitute for the > direct knowledge of the regularity of the Dhamma and > of Unbinding, for > only the experience of Unbinding was a guarantee of > true knowledge. > Nevertheless, faith was a prerequisite for attaining > that direct > knowledge. Only when the initial presentation of the > teaching had > aroused faith in the listener, would he/she be in a > position to > benefit from a less-adorned presentation of the > content and put it > into practice." mr39515: Faith is the forerunner for all attainment. All religion uses faith. Buddhism starts with faith as well. However faith alone do not assure things. Faith usually fall when one gets into trouble. Faith must be supported by knowledge and wisdom. When knowledge increases, faith increases. So learn as much as possible and do experience yourselves as it will verify the knowledge and faith. > > "As we saw under the frames of reference, the proper > development of > mindfulness leads to concentration, or the four > jhanas, while the > jhanas provide the foundation for the arising of > discernment, the > fifth and final member of this set. When discernment > is strengthened > to the point of transcendence, leading to the > attainment of > stream-entry, it then confirms the truths that were > previously taken > as a matter of conviction and faith [§74]." mr39515: The path leading to the ceasation of suffering or the 4th Noble Truth starts with Right View and end with Right Concentration. Right Mindfulness will lead to Right Concentration. It is NOT Jhana that lead to Right Concentration. In fact, Jhana is Wrong Concentration. However, long ago, people already knew about Samatha meditation and some has attain 4th Jhana. If this type of people meet with Buddhism and were introduced to Satipatana Meditation, it is very easily and fast for them to get into the path. This is because they already have the concentration and easily switch into mindfulness meditation and it would be easy for them to ultimately see the true nature of phenomena or the truth. There is only one path and this is the 8 fold path. If you do not have Jhana right now, don't waste your time practice unless you wanted Jhana and calmness which is not the way to enlightenment. > > Oh... what's the difference between an Arahant and a > Buddha? Have > other Arahants emerged, then? If so when/who? mr39515: In Buddhism there is the Buddha, the Dhamma (truth) and the Sangha. Long ago, the Sangha is referred to those who attain enlightenment and they usually wear the monk robes. There are 4 stages of enlightenment. And the final stage is Arahanthood. There are a lot of those who attain enlightenment and a lot more in the heaven attaining as well. You ask me the number, I can't tell you as it would be in thousands and thousands and thousands. Too many to keep track. And what is the different between the Buddha and Arahant? The Buddha or SammaSamBuddha is someone who can seek the truth himself and teaches to the world. Arahant can not seek the truth himself and must learn from the Buddha or his Dhamma to attain enlightenment. A silence Buddha is someone who can attain enlightenment by himself but unable to teach. So basically there is 3 vehicle for us lay people to take to attain enlightenment: 1. The Vehicle of Boddisatta (to be future Buddha) 2. The Vehicle of Arahand (the path of wisdom) 3. The Vehicle of Silence Buddha (does not exist right now as during the period of the Buddha, this path is not available). > > Everything has an effect on everything else, because > of the way the > universe works, in a physics-notion. The universe > can be looked at as > a deterministic system. But whether the effect I > have on my > environment results in carry-over to the next life > is an extremely > important thing, because otherwise the effect I have > on my environment > doesn't matter, because I just vanish on death. If > that's true, then > there's no point to any sort of morality. If that's > true, mr39515: The problem with us "beings" is we cling to selfhood. Thus we have this thing call guilt. We can feel guity after we do something bad. And the worst part is we bring this guilt to our dead bed and moment before death 3 things will surely arises... 1. Kamma 2. Sign 3. Destination Sign When one see all those and notice: 1. Things which we should have done which we did not do. 2. Things which we should NOT do and we already did a lot. With those 2 things, fear arises. Together with fear and guilt, one will be lead to suffering planes of existance. This is the results of the actions we did. So does it matter or not the action we did in our life? I guess you can figure out yourselves. We live in the world of conditions else causation. You should look at the law of Depandant Origination and you will understand how the cycle of birth and death take place. And how one thing condition the arises of the other thing. As a summary, DO is 1. Ignorance 2. Mental Formation 3. Consciousness 4. Mind and Matter 5. 6 Bases 6. Contact 7. Feeling 8. Craving 9. Clinging 10. Becoming 11. Birth 12. Death, Suffering.... The way you read this is Ignorance condition Mental Formation... mental formation condition consciousness ... and so on. And so the cycle begins .... life after life and after life.... metta mr39515 55583 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 3:24am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Andrew T and Howard, ---------------- Andrew: > One can say, however, that there are only dhammas "in an absolute sense" - and that's perfectly correct. But you doggedly refuse to add those few little words that make all the difference in terms of precision. I can't work out why. KS does it. Why won't you? ------------------ I just can't see how it is imprecise (or confusing or whatever). We seem to agree with the facts (as Howard has put them) but we can't agree on the need to add the words, "in the absolute sense," whenever we say, "There are only dhammas." Let's leave it for now, but it will be good to come back to later, I think. ------------------------------------- <. . .> Howard: > Where I do think you go overboard, Ken, is in your apparent tendency to think that conventional truth is not just true figurative speech, but untruth, plain and simple. -------------------------------------- I am not aware of that tendency. In what way does it become apparent? Can I assume it is connected with my views on formal meditation? :-) I would say, for example, "Trees are impermanent in the conventional sense, but meditation on trees will never condition the realisation of anicca." Would that, in your opinion, be equivalent to my saying, "Conventional truth is untruth?" Ken H 55584 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 1:55am Subject: On Types of Dukkha upasaka_howard Hi, all - On another list, there has been a discussion of dukkha. The following is the content of a reply by me to a post there that I thought might be of some interest here. So I'm reproducing what I wrote there: In SN 38.14, Sariputta taught "There are these three forms of dukkha, my friend: the dukkha of dukkha, the dukkha of fabrication, the dukkha of change. These are the three forms of dukkha." [My modification of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation.] The first of these is dukkha-dukkha, the second of these is sankhara-dukkha, and the third is viparinama-dukkha (also translatable as dukkha of alteration). The problematical ones are the second and third. Everywhere that I've seen any attempt at explanation of these, there is mentioned for the second, an unsatisfactoriness due to conditioned dhammas, khandhic phenomena, not remaining, which at first hearing sounds hardly different from viparinama-dukkha. My hypothesis is the following: 1) Dukkha-dukkha is outright (physical and mental) suffering, 2) Sankhara-dukkha is the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned paramattha dhammas due to the fact that none of them remains - they all cease as the conditions for their existence cease, and 3) Viparinama-dukkha is the unsatisfactoriness of conventional objects due to their being subject to change or alteration. The examples of the third, viparinama-dukkha, always seem to be conventional phenomena. I see the third of these, the suffering due to the changing of conventional phenomena, to be a consequence of the second of these, the impermanence of conditioned dhammas. Here is a so-so model suggestive of what I mean: Imagine a computer screen composed of a multitude of pixels. The pixel pattern provides a picture on the screen. As various individual pixel-contents cease and new contents arise, the pattern and the picture changes. The individual pixel-images rise and cease discretely, at least from the macroscopic perspective, but the alteration of the picture may appear continuous. Another, probably better, model would be that of a wooden ship. From time to time, some planks are removed, and new planks added. In terms of planks, the change is that of discrete arising and cessation, but in terms of the entire ship, the change is gradual, and is more of a continuous transformation or alteration. 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) 55585 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/8/06 6:36:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Howard: >Where I do think you go overboard, Ken, is in your apparent > tendency to think that conventional truth is not just true figurative > speech, but untruth, plain and simple. > -------------------------------------- > > I am not aware of that tendency. In what way does it become apparent? > Can I assume it is connected with my views on formal meditation? :-) --------------------------------------- Howard: No. But you know that! LOLOL! --------------------------------------- > > I would say, for example, "Trees are impermanent in the conventional > sense, but meditation on trees will never condition the realisation of > anicca." Would that, in your opinion, be equivalent to my > saying, "Conventional truth is untruth?" --------------------------------------- Howard: No, it would not be. I happen to agree with your statement in quotes, though clear comprehension of conventional impermanence is only to the good, IMO. In any case, given that you say that you have, to quote myself, no "tendency to think that conventional truth is not just true figurative speech, but untruth, plain and simple," I retract my assertion that you see things that way. I must have misread you, for which I apologize. =================== 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) 55586 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 11:21am Subject: Re: On Types of Dukkha htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > On another list, there has been a discussion of dukkha. The following > is the content of a reply by me to a post there that I thought might be of > some interest here. So I'm reproducing what I wrote there: > In SN 38.14, Sariputta taught "There are these three forms of dukkha, > my friend: the dukkha of dukkha, the dukkha of fabrication, the dukkha of > change. These are the three forms of dukkha." [My modification of Thanissaro > Bhikkhu's translation -------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, Thanks for bringing up this message. I think I wrote at triplegem about 'Four Ariya's Noble Truths (01) and series'. There have been many classifications of dukkha. Worth studying. With respect, Htoo Naing 55587 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 11:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 658 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa'. Feeling conditions craving. As there are 6 vedanaas that arise from 6 contacts, there also are 6 cravings that dictate arising of 6 clinging. These 6 cravings are 1. ruupa-tanhaa (craving-at-form) 2. sadda-tanhaa (craving-at-sound) 3. gandha-tanhaa(craving-at-smell) 4. rasa-tanhaa (craving-at-taste) 5. photthabba-tanhaa(craving-at-touch) 6. dhamma-tanhaa(craving-at-dhamma/thought/though-object) When vedanaa or feeling is not seen then it is like automatic things that tanhaa has to arise immediately after vedanaa. There is a minimal gap between vedanaa and arising of tanhaa. 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. 55588 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] On Types of Dukkha TGrand458@... Hi Howard, All The traditional interpretation of the 3 sufferings/dukkhas is 1) pain 2) formations are impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory, 3) impermanence. This has always seemed strange to me because the Buddha would not likely define 3 aspects of suffering and then basically say two of them are the same, i.e. -- impermanence. (Although overlap would not be unusual...not that much overlap.) I also don't think there is any evidence that it is a ultimate vs. convention reality issue. Basically a non-issue in the Suttas. Sankhara is used as the mental formations aggregate. I think that all issues of affliction dealing with sankhara (conditioning), as well as perhaps meaning to point out mental sufferings including "craving and volitions that perpetuate those afflicting conditions," are the intended target of that suffering...i.e., # 2. If looked at this way we have -- 1) suffering that is pain. 2) suffering that is "the system" (12 fold chain) that perpetuates pain. 3) suffering due to impermanence which will always-eventually conflict with desires/attachments. To me this seems like a well balanced interpretation of the 3 sufferings. TG PS, leaving for a week so probably will not be able to respond to posts on this topic unless made soon. In a message dated 2/8/2006 8:00:01 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, all - On another list, there has been a discussion of dukkha. The following is the content of a reply by me to a post there that I thought might be of some interest here. So I'm reproducing what I wrote there: In SN 38.14, Sariputta taught "There are these three forms of dukkha, my friend: the dukkha of dukkha, the dukkha of fabrication, the dukkha of change. These are the three forms of dukkha." [My modification of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation.] The first of these is dukkha-dukkha, the second of these is sankhara-dukkha, and the third is viparinama-dukkha (also translatable as dukkha of alteration). The problematical ones are the second and third. Everywhere that I've seen any attempt at explanation of these, there is mentioned for the second, an unsatisfactoriness due to conditioned dhammas, khandhic phenomena, not remaining, which at first hearing sounds hardly different from viparinama-dukkha. My hypothesis is the following: 1) Dukkha-dukkha is outright (physical and mental) suffering, 2) Sankhara-dukkha is the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned paramattha dhammas due to the fact that none of them remains - they all cease as the conditions for their existence cease, and 3) Viparinama-dukkha is the unsatisfactoriness of conventional objects due to their being subject to change or alteration. The examples of the third, viparinama-dukkha, always seem to be conventional phenomena. I see the third of these, the suffering due to the changing of conventional phenomena, to be a consequence of the second of these, the impermanence of conditioned dhammas. Here is a so-so model suggestive of what I mean: Imagine a computer screen composed of a multitude of pixels. The pixel pattern provides a picture on the screen. As various individual pixel-contents cease and new contents arise, the pattern and the picture changes. The individual pixel-images rise and cease discretely, at least from the macroscopic perspective, but the alteration of the picture may appear continuous. Another, probably better, model would be that of a wooden ship. From time to time, some planks are removed, and new planks added. In terms of planks, the change is that of discrete arising and cessation, but in terms of the entire ship, the change is gradual, and is more of a continuous transformation or alteration. With metta, Howard 55589 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On Types of Dukkha christine_fo... Hello Howard, Htoo, TG, all, Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the following translation and notes to the sutta: 14. Sufferings "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is suffering?" "There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations,the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] "But, friend, is there a path, is there a way for the full understanding of these three kinds of suffering?" "There is a path, friend, there is a way ... this Noble Eightfold Path ...." Note 274: "The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to formations (sa.nkhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (vipari.naamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end." metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 55590 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] On Types of Dukkha upasaka_howard Hi, Chris - In a message dated 2/8/06 3:09:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth1@... writes: > Hello Howard, Htoo, TG, all, > > Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the following translation and notes to the sutta: > > 14. Sufferings > "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is > suffering?" > "There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering > due to pain, the suffering due to formations,the suffering due to > change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] > "But, friend, is there a path, is there a way for the full > understanding of these three kinds of suffering?" > "There is a path, friend, there is a way ... this Noble Eightfold > Path ...." > > Note 274: "The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. > 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is > painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to formations > (sa.nkhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three > planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering > due to change (vipari.naamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which > brings suffering when it comes to an end." > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > ========================== Thank you for this. The problem that I see with that explanation is twofold: 1) the sutta doesn't mention feeling with respect to suffering due to change, and 2) that formulation makes suffering due to change an instance of suffering due to formations, and not a distinct mode. 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) 55591 From: "Andrew" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 2:53pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 Hi Howard and KenH Now that I have managed to reconcile you two, I think I'll move on to my next "mission impossible", shall I? LOL! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > AT: When mind-base has pannatti as object, there aren't only dhammas - > > there are pannatti too. > > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Are there? Where? And what are they? When the mind "has pa~n~natti as > object," isn't it really the case merely that thinking is in progress, and, to > neologize, that "pa~n~natizing" is occurring? When I "look out the window and > see a tree," is there an "I" doing the looking, and are there actually > "window" and "tree" pseudo-dhammas/pa~n~natti present ... somewhere? And, BTW, when > I no longer "look out the window and see the tree," have those pa~n~natti > ceased? (They aren't supposed to do that, you know! ;-) Actually, they don't > arise, and they don't cease, because in truth and reality, there are no such things > at all except in a manner of speaking. To speak of pa~n~natti is already > figurative speech. AT: Can we not go even further - to speak is already figurative? I understand the point you are making in this paragraph. If we see an illusion, it doesn't really exist but we can address questions like 'how did that illusion come to be perceived?' So, how did it? If "illusion" is "an erroneous perception of reality", what is pannatti? A by-product of erroneous citta- function? But it can't necessarily be tied up with akusala or ignorance (because arahants take pannatti as object, too). How do you two define pannatti? Since you are both in agreement these days, an answer from one of you will suffice. LOL! Best wishes Andrew T 55592 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 10:37am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/8/06 5:57:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > > Hi Howard and KenH > > Now that I have managed to reconcile you two, I think I'll move on to > my next "mission impossible", shall I? LOL! --------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) -------------------------------------- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >>AT: When mind-base has pannatti as object, there aren't only > dhammas - > >>there are pannatti too. > >> > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Are there? Where? And what are they? When the mind "has > pa~n~natti as > >object," isn't it really the case merely that thinking is in > progress, and, to > >neologize, that "pa~n~natizing" is occurring? When I "look out the > window and > >see a tree," is there an "I" doing the looking, and are there > actually > >"window" and "tree" pseudo-dhammas/pa~n~natti present ... > somewhere? And, BTW, when > >I no longer "look out the window and see the tree," have those > pa~n~natti > >ceased? (They aren't supposed to do that, you know! ;-) Actually, > they don't > >arise, and they don't cease, because in truth and reality, there > are no such things > >at all except in a manner of speaking. To speak of pa~n~natti is > already > >figurative speech. > > AT: Can we not go even further - to speak is already figurative? I > understand the point you are making in this paragraph. If we see an > illusion, it doesn't really exist but we can address questions > like 'how did that illusion come to be perceived?' > So, how did it? If "illusion" is "an erroneous perception of > reality", what is pannatti? > ------------------------------------ Howard: Illusion is an erroneous *perceiving* [note the verbal form] of reality. And pa~n~natti is nothing! It is merely imagined. (Note: To say "It is WHAT one imagines" is already dangerous, i.e. misleading, speech.) ------------------------------------- A by-product of erroneous citta-> > function? ------------------------------------ Howard: To speak of a bi-product here is already to be reifying. What is safest to say is that there are no pa~n~natti at all in truth and reality. There are just actual experiential phenomena, including mental operations, and these are interdependent and interrelated in complex ways. Our thinking processes help us grasp these interrelationships, but in the doing of that, we also imagine as existing what does not exist. -------------------------------- But it can't necessarily be tied up with akusala or > > ignorance (because arahants take pannatti as object, too). How do > you two define pannatti? > Since you are both in agreement these days, an answer from one of you > will suffice. LOL! --------------------------------- Howard: I'll leave that last question to be answered by Ken, whom you deem to now be my ideological clone (or vice-versa)! LOLOL! Actually, I think my previous remarks should suffice to make my position clear. --------------------------------- > > Best wishes > Andrew T > > ================== 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) 55593 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 3:55pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 659 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa'. Vedana or feeling conditions craving to arise. There is argument that 'bad feeling' does not cause 'likeness'. Bad feeling here is vedanaa. Likeness seems to be saying for craving. But actual implication is that whatever good or bad feeling arise there arises craving. Example; someone hears a noise. He does not like that noise. There is aversion of dosa. There is no likeness at all. When he hears the sound there is no likeness or dislikeness. Because actual hearing of paramattha sound does not invlove likeness or dislikeness. But as soon as that consciousness passes away there follow millions of consciousness. There is delay. Dislikeness has to arise actually because of craving. Vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa. Feeling conditions craving to arise. We do not need to think but these dhamma automatically arise as long as we do not have enough pannaa to penetrate the realities and their characters. 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. 55594 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 4:17pm Subject: Kamma and Energy Internetwork htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, No one can live alone on this earth. Everyone knows about that. Sattas are living in this world in community with other Sattas. One has to depend on another or others. This dependence may be for food, shelter, and other requirements necessary for him. So, dependency is interconnected with each other in the community. Even Boddhisattas have to depend on the earth, the tree, the water, and other Sattas during his implementing Parami-fulfiling lives. There is a potential that binds together all participants in this universe at a time. This potential is Kamma. Kamma is one of the five natural laws or Niyama. There are five Niyama. 1. Bija Niyama governs all Sattas including Avinnanaka Sattas like Sattas in plant kingdom. 2. Utu Niyama governs all Rupa matters including bodies of all Savinnanaka Sattas. 3. Citta Niyama governs all Nama-Dhamma 4. Kamma Niyama governs the events in Savinnanaka Sattas and finally 5. Dhamma Niyama governs all Dhamma imaginable. Niyama are going on their own and there is no outside control over these Niyama. All Niyama are wider and deeper than great oceans. They lack boundries and if one follows all those Niyama he will not be able to grasp a straw even after billions and billions of planets like the earth have destroied one after another. Instead of searching for the indefinite answers, the Dhamma seeker should have a good knowledge of how to escape from the endless Dukkha- stuffed lives. And he should exercise the practical thing that leads to total liberation from all these Dukkha. Before proceeding to the practical matters, it is noteworthy to have some general knowledge on Kamma,which is interconnected among the related Sattas. There does exist interconnection as evidenced by happening together in nearly all events. There are different kinds of Kamma that govern all Sattas in all planes of existance or realm. Even Sammasambuddhas do have Kamma which is interrelated with their most prominent disciples and Sattas whose liberation totally depends on The Buddha's preachings. May you all have good Kamma and be liberated. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 55595 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 4:26pm Subject: Exploring Four Ariya's Noble Truths ( 16 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Dukkha are Dukkha-Dukkha, Viparinama Dukkha and Sankhara Dukkha. Apart from these, there are other types. Depending on how it is readily apparent, Dukkha may be reclassified as Paticchanna Dukkha and Apaticchanna Dukkha. Sattas have to suffer from different sorts of ailments or illnesses at one time or another. These physical pains like head-ache, back- ache, stomach-ache, tooth-ache, and all sorts of aches and pains and displeasure in mind are all called '' Paticchanna Dukkha ''. Paticchanna Dukkha means concealed suffering. This is called concealed because only the sufferers will know exactly how far they feel. Other people may have a hint that sufferers are suffering but this is not to the level that the sufferers feel. So, all sorts of physical pains and ailments which are not apparent to others and all mental sufferings are in the group of Paticchanna Dukkha. It is also known as '' Apataka Dukkha ''. '' Apaticchannna Dukkha '' or '' Pataka Dukkha '' is apparent to all viewers including the sufferers. Physical wounding like gun-shot wounds, burn, cuts, grazing, scratching, tearing, cracking, scalding,putrefied wounds are all apparent and these Dukkha are known as Apaticchanna Dukkha or Pataka Dukkha. May you all be free from any Dukkha. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 55596 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 4:32pm Subject: Three Dukkhas htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, Dukkha come in with different forms. Dukkha-Dukkha is quite apparent as they are unpleasant physical and mental phenomena. Viparinama Dukkha is Dukkha even though it is sensual things ( physical and mental pleasure ) because they are subjected to change and this change is great Dukkha. Another Dukkha is Sankhara Dukkha.We are experiencing nearly all the time this kind of Dukkha without being recognized. In everyday events there are a lot of events that are not readily apparent to Samsara traveller. For example we are touching with our vast, shirt, boots, shoes, trousers, touching with sofa, desks, papers and many other. As these events are just ordinary matter, they are not specially recognized. From Abhidhamma point of view, these experiences arise in association with Upekkha Vedana. These equanimous feelings are also Dukkha. This again is hard to realize. These also exist just a moment of their life span. So they need constant conditioning so that they are there. This constant conditioning if thoroughly analize is finally real Dukkha. In this Dukkha of Sankhara, there are other components. These are Nama and Rupa. These two Dhamma also need constant conditioning. Constant supplies of these bases go to reconstruction of conceptualized forms and structure which finally lead to attachment and clinging. As they are needed for constant conditioning they are also Sankhara Dukkha. May you all clearly see Sankhara Dukkha and try to escape from all Dukkha. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 55597 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 4:42pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 660 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Tanhaa paccayaa upadaana'. 'Craving conditions clinging'. Here both dhamma are lobha cetasika. But clinging or grasping is much much more powerful magnet. It has the quality of grasping, firmly holding and it seems never want to release the grasped object. When one see forms he actually sees form. But as there is ruupa- tanhaa or craving-at-form he is not really seeing forms. Instead he is seeing his own concepts on forms with craving. When this craving arise repeatedly then it happens that as soon as forms are seen clinging easily arise. The same applies to other cravings at other external sense-base of sound, smell, taste, touch and dhamma. The tanhaa or craving that arise when these sense-bases are perceived are called respectively craving-at-sound (sadda-tanhaa), craving-at-smell (gandha-tanhaa), craving-at-taste (rasa-tanhaa), craving-at-touch (photthabba-tanhaa), and craving-at-thought-object (dhamma-tanhaa). These cravings march toward clingings if there is no sati. 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. 55598 From: "Andrew" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 4:44pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Illusion is an erroneous *perceiving* [note the verbal form] of > reality. And pa~n~natti is nothing! It is merely imagined. (Note: To say "It is WHAT > one imagines" is already dangerous, i.e. misleading, speech.) > ------------------------------------- > A by-product of erroneous citta-> > > function? > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > To speak of a bi-product here is already to be reifying. What is > safest to say is that there are no pa~n~natti at all in truth and reality. There > are just actual experiential phenomena, including mental operations, and these > are interdependent and interrelated in complex ways. Our thinking processes > help us grasp these interrelationships, but in the doing of that, we also imagine > as existing what does not exist. Thanks Howard Yes, I see that I have sailed into dangerous seas by using "by- product". Could I have been steered there by the terms "conventional reality" (a noun) and "mental object" (another noun that can encompass pannatti)? When you say that we imagine as existing what does not exist [pannatti], an arahant does not imagine as existing what does not exist but can still have pannatti as mental object. So pannatti isn't necessarily associated with imagining (or ignorance). Should I raise the question of having metta for "living beings"? Perhaps your colleague/clone, KenH, might like to put us straight on that one with another of his 'friendly reminders'? (-: Best wishes Andrew T 55599 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 3:06pm Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 2/8/06 7:50:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Illusion is an erroneous *perceiving* [note the verbal form] > of > >reality. And pa~n~natti is nothing! It is merely imagined. (Note: > To say "It is WHAT > >one imagines" is already dangerous, i.e. misleading, speech.) > >------------------------------------- > > A by-product of erroneous citta-> > >>function? > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > To speak of a bi-product here is already to be reifying. > What is > >safest to say is that there are no pa~n~natti at all in truth and > reality. There > >are just actual experiential phenomena, including mental > operations, and these > >are interdependent and interrelated in complex ways. Our thinking > processes > >help us grasp these interrelationships, but in the doing of that, > we also imagine > >as existing what does not exist. > > Thanks Howard > > Yes, I see that I have sailed into dangerous seas by using "by- > product". > ------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I'm just being fastidious here, Andrew. Obviously we all talk as you did. (We're not machines! LOL!) ----------------------------------- Could I have been steered there by the terms "conventional > > reality" (a noun) and "mental object" (another noun that can > encompass pannatti)? --------------------------------- Howard: Well, this concept business is almost impossible to talk about without using language poorly! ------------------------------- When you say that we imagine as existing what > > does not exist [pannatti], an arahant does not imagine as existing > what does not exist but can still have pannatti as mental object. So > pannatti isn't necessarily associated with imagining (or ignorance). ------------------------------ Howard: That's right. An arahant can distinguish between what is real and what is merely thought of. (The thing is, though, when we speak of "thinking of something", whether it is an arahant doing the thinking or anyone else, there actually is no "something" present that is being related to by the "thinking of it". When I'm thinking of heat, there is no heat, and there is no single mind-door object that is that alleged "heat being thought of". There's just the mental process we CALL "thinking of heat".) ------------------------------- > > Should I raise the question of having metta for "living beings"? ------------------------------ Howard: LOL! Better not!! ----------------------------- > Perhaps your colleague/clone, KenH, might like to put us straight on > that one with another of his 'friendly reminders'? (-: > > Best wishes > Andrew T > > ================= 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)