55600 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Feb 8, 2006 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas.About Mana, BelatedThxFr EddieLou mlnease Hi Eddie and Phil, As I understand it maa.na means considering "oneself" superior, equal or inferior. So not just pride. Big difference I think. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eddie Lou" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas.About Mana, BelatedThxFr EddieLou > 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 55601 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 2:58am Subject: Jewel come together with jewel htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, MSN, Yahoo, Smartgroup, and many other groups are working on their accord. At any given group there are more or less problems among the members. Whatever it is DSG is a cool place with rich wealth of Dhamma information and experts. I must say that those who voluntarily leave the group lose something invaluable, at least they lose 'association with nice people'. With many thanks, Htoo Naing 55602 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard --- upasaka@... wrote: > 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. Yes, I can see how that impression could be gained from a casual reading of the posts. However, I would say that your description of 'present as a truly observed phenomenon' describes the object of satipatthana rather than the object of ordinary consciousness. > 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! > ------------------------------------------------- ;-)) Ironically, it is in the Abhidhamma that one finds elaboration of the difference between dhammas and concepts. Jon 55603 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:11am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 661 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Upadaana paccaya bhavo'. 'Clinging conditions becoming (existence).' There are 6 clingings as there are 6 cravings. This classification is based on sense-base. If the classification has to be based on 'existence' or 'becoming' then there will be three kinds of craving. These three kinds of craving are craving-for-sensuality (kaama- tanhaa), craving-for-existence (bhava-tanhaa), and craving-for-non- existence (vibhava-tanhaa). As there are 3 craving then there will arise three clinging or 3 upadaana in connection with 3 cravings. Because of these craving and clinging beings are doing their kammic actions and again because of these kammic actions that they commit daily there have to arise kaama-bhava or becoming or existence. It is true that human beings and many other animals crave for sensuality. This is no doubt. Again they also crave for existence as we can understand that no one seems wanting to die right now. Even if there is someone who want to die there is craving to relieve from current pain and craving for further existence. If craving for further existence is not there then it is sure that there is craving for non-existence. This craving for non-existence dictate to have wrong view that there is no kamma, there is no effect of kamma, there is nothing after death and so on. 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. 55604 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Larry) - > ... > 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. > ---------------------------------------- Yes, or other abstract notions (status, security, etc). Varies from person to person, situation to situation. > > 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. > ------------------------------------------ That makes it two (or is it more?) in a row ;-)) Jon 55605 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi TG Thanks for the detailed explanation. Previously you said your position regarding the object of consciousness being reality only and not concept was based on experience rather than assumption. But the explanation you give below seems to be mostly assumption and very little experiential observation ;-)) So I go back to my original question: what is the basis for your assertion that the object of consciousness must be a reality and cannot be a concept? Hoping this reaches you before you go away. Jon --- TGrand458@... wrote: > 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. ... 55606 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:25am Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Andrew T and Howard, Andrew wrote: ------------------- > If "illusion" is "an erroneous perception of reality", what is pannatti? -------------------- And Howard replied: ----------------------------- > Illusion is an erroneous *perceiving* [note the verbal form] of reality. And pa~n~natti is nothing! It is merely imagined. ------------------------------ KH: Conventionally speaking, an illusion is erroneous. However, when we are discussing Dhamma, I think all concepts - erroneous or otherwise - can be called illusion (or illusory). I would say pannatti, illusion and 'not ultimately real' were interchangeable. ------------------- AT: > > 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. ------------------- Without a glossary of Howard's terms I can't be sure if I agree with the last part. :-) There are only dhammas, and the only ultimately real mental operations are those that are performed by cetasikas in the time span of one citta. -------------- AT: > How do you two define pannatti? Since you are both in agreement these days, an answer from one of you will suffice. LOL! --------------- (Very funny!) Pannatti means thoughts and ideas. And before you ask, Howard and I believe a conventional understanding of "thoughts and ideas" is all the explanation you need. :-) ------------ AT: > So pannatti isn't necessarily associated with imagining (or ignorance). ------------- No more than are thoughts and ideas. -------------------- AT: > 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'? (-: -------------------- You won't be getting much metta the way you're going! Actually, I don't think this question needs an answer now, does it - now that you have come around to Howard's and my way of thinking? :-) Ken H 55607 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jonoabb Hi Joop --- Joop wrote: > 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) Yes, 'behaviour' can only be described in conventional language. But as I see it behaviour is only kusala if the accompanying consciousness is kusala, so it is always a question of dhammas. > (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. Sorry, sorry! But in my defence may I point out that I was only wanting to suggest an alternative to the view that 'concepts are dangerous', namely, concepts that tend to be (wrongly) taken for realities. I hope you are not going to admonish me every time I make this observation! ;-)) > (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. If you are just saying that a dhamma that falls away no longer exists, I have no issue with that. I thought you were saying that a dhammas do not arise unless they are the object of experience; this would be a different issue altogether. Look forward to hearing from you on your return Jon 55608 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles --- Charles wrote: > --- 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 Am I correct that you think we have a choice as to how rupas are perceived? I do not see it that way. Rupas (or their characteristic) become apparent only when awareness occurs, and this is not a matter of conscious choice or deliberate intention. > 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. I'm not sure about this simile. If we take a wooden bowl and analyse it to the nth degree, we end up with cellulose molecules. But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such correlation. Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed out of the experiencing of rupas. Jon 55609 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry --- Larry wrote: > Hi Jon, Joop, and all, > > I wonder if we could say that concepts are words and words are > referential realities, The problem with taking this as the hypothesis for what follows is that concepts includes mental images other than words. Also, words and mental images are not 'things'. 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. When we say "tree" the reference is likely to be pure concept, I would say. Of course there are dhammas that are taken as tree, but they mey or may not be the experiencing of any of those dhammas at the time. Jon 55610 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 1:48am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/9/06 6:27:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > 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. > ------------------- > > Without a glossary of Howard's terms I can't be sure if I agree with > the last part. :-) There are only dhammas, and the only ultimately > real mental operations are those that are performed by cetasikas in > the time span of one citta. > ====================== Except for my emphasis on relation, we're saying the same thing, though I'm speaking English! ;-) [BTW, Ken, what sort of operations do you picture occuring within a single citta? In your view, does a citta take some time, or is it of zero duration?] With metta, Howard 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) 55611 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 2:03pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------------------ H: > [BTW, Ken, what sort of operations do you picture occuring within a single citta? In your view, does a citta take some time, or is it of zero duration?] ------------------------ The way I see it, the operations are the various functions of citta and cetasika. For example, mind-door citta mentally experiences an object, while sanna (always a tricky one) remembers, or marks, it. I picture such operations to be occurring all at once rather than developing through stages. Even though it occurs in stages - arising, persisting and falling away - the function of each dhamma takes the same form in each stage. For example, whenever the function of sanna is to remember the concept, "apple" there will be the arising of remembering apple, the persisting of remembering apple and the falling away of remembering apple. There won't be; "It's a fruit of some kind" "It's an apple!" "I knew I could do it." :-) As for time span; there are no seconds or milliseconds in absolute reality, but there is anicca. Therefore, every conditioned dhamma is absolutely fleeting. Ken H 55612 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 2:54pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 662 ) htootintnaing Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Upadaana paccaya bhavo'. 'Clinging conditions becoming (existence).' Here bhavo or becoming or existence means 'kamma-bhava' or 'existence of kamma-seed' because of clinging. Clinging is firm grasping holding not to be liberated. Kamma-bhava or kamma or sankhaara have the same implications. As soon as one commit a thing there arises kamma. Example when one kills another being there arises kamma. There are four different kamma depending on where they will give rise to their results as beings. They are 1. akusala kamma 2. kaama-kusala kamma 3. ruupa-kusala kamma 4. aruupa-kusala kamma. These four kamma can be re-classified into three sankhaaras. They are apunnaabhi-sankhaara, punnaabhisankhaara, and anenjaabhi-sankhaara. The names seem different because the indication of implication is different. Here sankhaara is not sankhaara as it does not indicate avijjaa or ignorance directly. But it indicates becoming or becoming of kamma. So it is called becoming-of-kamma or simply becoming (bhava) and it is not called here as sankhaara even though they are the same. 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. 55613 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 3:28pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts corvus121 Hi KenH and Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Andrew wrote: > ------------------- > > > If "illusion" is "an erroneous perception of reality", what is > pannatti? > -------------------- > > And Howard replied: > ----------------------------- > > Illusion is an erroneous *perceiving* [note the verbal form] of > reality. And pa~n~natti is nothing! It is merely imagined. > ------------------------------ > > KH: Conventionally speaking, an illusion is erroneous. However, when > we are discussing Dhamma, I think all concepts - erroneous or > otherwise - can be called illusion (or illusory). I would say > pannatti, illusion and 'not ultimately real' were interchangeable. AT: KenH, I'm struggling with the concept of non-erroneous illusions. Do you mean the correct perceiving of illusion? What is the yardstick that measures whether illusion is erroneous or otherwise? The citta of an arahant experiences concept/illusion but there is no possibility of it being "misread". Pannatti has no sabhava and is therefore neither inherently right or wrong. Right or wrong? KenH: There are only dhammas, and the only ultimately > real mental operations are those that are performed by cetasikas in > the time span of one citta. AT: Probably most of Khun Sujin's Survey book is devoted to "processes of cittas" spanning multiple mind-moments. I've never quite been able to grasp how you marry that 'fact' with your famous one-liner above. I suspect you are going to run for your copy of "A Single excellent night" and inspire us with the thought that there is only the present (mind-moment). But why are you able to stop there while KS feels the need to carry on and talk about what happens in a patterned way in the succeeding cittas? Any crumbs to throw my way? KenH: Actually, I don't think this question needs an answer now, does it - > now that you have come around to Howard's and my way of thinking? AT: Your air of triumphalism makes me wonder what sparked this whole thing off. I was trying to make a point to help Joop. I think essentially, if we accept this dichotomy of "absolute reality" and "conventional reality", then it behoves us to express ourselves clearly with the agreed vocab. But what has transpired is disputation about whether "conventional reality" can properly be called "reality" at all. The new KenH-Howard duopoly label it "imagined" and "illusory" and caution not to inject sabhava into concepts (or 'reify' them) even though our language tends that way (eg. calling them 'mental objects' at times). KenH, I still think you should stop using strongly dismissive language about pannatti because experiencing pannatti is a part of the process, neither inherently erroneous nor otherwise. Understanding the arising, persisting and falling away of dhammas requires knowledge of pannatti. Best wishes Andrew T 55614 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 11:27am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/9/06 6:34:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > KenH: There are only dhammas, and the only ultimately > >real mental operations are those that are performed by cetasikas in > >the time span of one citta. > > AT: Probably most of Khun Sujin's Survey book is devoted > to "processes of cittas" spanning multiple mind-moments. I've never > quite been able to grasp how you marry that 'fact' with your famous > one-liner above. I suspect you are going to run for your copy of "A > Single excellent night" and inspire us with the thought that there is > only the present (mind-moment). But why are you able to stop there > while KS feels the need to carry on and talk about what happens in a > patterned way in the succeeding cittas? Any crumbs to throw my way? > ========================= I don't think that anything happens in zero time. I don't think that mindstates are instantaneous, with zero duration, but arise (increasingly), level off, and then steadily decrease (as a wave), with one mind wave leading directly into the next. Moreover, I think that genuine processing typically requires an entire train of mindstates to be accomplished - what Abhidhammikas call a process. Is that a crumb or two? ;-)) 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) 55615 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 Hi Jon, L: "I wonder if we could say that concepts are words and words are referential realities,..." J: "The problem with taking this as the hypothesis for what follows is that concepts includes mental images other than words. Also, words and mental images are not 'things'." L: Actually, I changed my mind slightly in a subsequent discussion with Charles. I still think "pannatti" simply means "word". For example: "House, chariot, village, etc., are called samuuhapa~n~natti, collective concepts, since they correspond to a collection or group of things." "The kasina signs are called nimittapa~n~natti, sign concepts, since they correspond to mental signs gained by meditative development."(CMA,p.327) I am taking "correspond to" to mean "refer to". The words "earth kasina" refers to a mental sign (mental image) "gained by meditative development". Previously, I thought "correspond to" meant "is". If "pannatti" means "word" then the collection of dhammas it refers to is not a concept, not a word; it is a collection of dhammas. I would say that a word, itself, is a collection of dhammas, (vocal intimation, perception and memory, views, etc.). A mental image is a collection of nimitta (signs). A collection of dhammas is not an ultimate reality because it is a collection, not ultimate. Beyond that, there are misperceptions of apparent phenomena that don't exist, e.g., lastingness, wholeness, solidity, and agency. J: "When we say "tree" the reference is likely to be pure concept, I would say. Of course there are dhammas that are taken as tree, but they may or may not be the experiencing of any of those dhammas at the time." L: For me, whenever the word "tree" actually means something it refers to the sign of a tree. It's a little difficult to say whether a sign is an ultimate reality. I would say it is partly misperception but there is also the memory perception of visible data. Are perceptions and/or misperceptions ultimate realties? I would say an ultimate reality is an element that cannot be divided by analysis. I would also say that all experience is a combination, collection, formation of elements that usually include misperceptions. However, if the elements of experience are not real then there is no reality. Larry 55616 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 7:43pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Andrew T and all, ------------- > > KH: Conventionally speaking, an illusion is erroneous. However, when > we are discussing Dhamma, I think all concepts - erroneous or > otherwise - can be called illusion (or illusory). I would say > pannatti, illusion and 'not ultimately real' were interchangeable. .... AT: > KenH, I'm struggling with the concept of non-erroneous illusions. ---------------------------- I believe it is standard usage in Buddhist circles. Even non- Abhidhammika Buddhists are prone to saying, "We know the knife is illusory, and yet we pick it up by the handle." So a knife is ultimately illusory and conventionally real (conventionally a non-erroneous perception). On the other hand, a flying purple elephant (FPE) is ultimately illusory and conventionally illusory as well. --------------------------------------- AT: > Do you mean the correct perceiving of illusion? What is the yardstick that measures whether illusion is erroneous or otherwise? ---------------------------------------- This is a side issue, really. Howard mentioned that an illusion was an "erroneous perceiving" and, of course, he was right. However, I made the point that, when we are discussing Dhamma, all concepts (erroneous and non-erroneous) are considered ultimately illusory. Therefore, ultimately, knives and FPE's are equally illusory. Aren't they? ------------- AT: > The citta of an arahant experiences concept/illusion but there is no possibility of it being "misread". Pannatti has no sabhava and is therefore neither inherently right or wrong. Right or wrong? ------------- Right and very interesting, I would say. Pariyatti (right conceptual understanding of Dhamma) is right, isn't it? And yet, concepts have no sabhava - they can't be inherently right, inherently wrong or inherently anything. The answer, of course, lies in the namas that experience concepts. If panna is among them, then there is right conceptual understanding. If not, then there is just kusala awareness (or even akusala awareness) of concepts. Rightness or wrongness is inherent, not in the concepts themselves, but in the namas that experience them. -------------------------- > > KenH: There are only dhammas, and the only ultimately > real mental operations are those that are performed by cetasikas in > the time span of one citta. .... AT: Probably most of Khun Sujin's Survey book is devoted to "processes of cittas" spanning multiple mind-moments. I've never quite been able to grasp how you marry that 'fact' with your famous one-liner above. I suspect you are going to run for your copy of "A Single excellent night" and inspire us with the thought that there is only the present (mind-moment). But why are you able to stop there while KS feels the need to carry on and talk about what happens in a patterned way in the succeeding cittas? Any crumbs to throw my way? ----------------------------- That famous one-liner (certainly not mine) is the overriding understanding that we all must have. The only ultimate reality is the reality of the namas and rupas that are arising now - in the present moment. Do we directly know those namas and rupas? (I.e., is there right understanding now?) No, would be my answer. Why does right understanding not exist now? Because the true Dhamma has not been sufficiently heard, considered and applied. Hearing the true Dhamma includes hearing about citta processes: The present citta was conditioned by the immediately preceding citta, and it, in turn, will condition the next citta. -------------------------------------------- AT: > ... I think essentially, if we accept this dichotomy of "absolute reality" and "conventional reality", then it behoves us to express ourselves clearly with the agreed vocab. But what has transpired is disputation about whether "conventional reality" can properly be called "reality" at all. The new KenH-Howard duopoly label it "imagined" and "illusory" and caution not to inject sabhava into concepts (or 'reify' them) even though our language tends that way (eg. calling them 'mental objects' at times). KenH, I still think you should stop using strongly dismissive language about pannatti because experiencing pannatti is a part of the process, neither inherently erroneous nor otherwise. Understanding the arising, persisting and falling away of dhammas requires knowledge of pannatti. ------------------- I have to agree with all of that. And I will try to be less dismissive of pannatti. It might not reveal the three characteristics of conditioned existence, but it bakes a very nice apple pie. :-) Ken H 55617 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (5) jonoabb Hi Joop (and all) There was a typo in my earlier post. The passage: I was only wanting to suggest an alternative to the view that 'concepts are dangerous', namely, *concepts that tend to be (wrongly) taken for realities*. should have read: I was only wanting to suggest an alternative to the view that 'concepts are dangerous', namely, *that concepts tend to be (wrongly) taken for realities*. Sorry for any confusion. Jon Jonothan Abbott wrote: >>(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. >> >> > >Sorry, sorry! But in my defence may I point out that I was only wanting >to suggest an alternative to the view that 'concepts are dangerous', >namely, concepts that tend to be (wrongly) taken for realities. I hope >you are not going to admonish me every time I make this observation! ;-)) > > 55618 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities jonoabb Hi Charles Thanks for this very detailed explanation. It covers a lot of ground. I hope you don't mind if I pick out a few points for my reply. C: Do you think atta, pancakkhandha, the All refer to different thing? J: The pancakkhandha and the All are both ways of referring to dhammas (that is to say, namas and rupas). 'Atta', on the other hand, does not refer to dhammas. There is no dhamma called 'atta'. The idea that there is a dhamma called 'atta',or that dhammas have the characteristic of atta, is wrong view, according to my understanding of the teachings. Is this how you see it? C: Pancakkhandha is thought to be existing, so it is viewed as the atta of a being. Therefore one can say, "This is me". J: The idea that any one or more of the dhammas is 'me' would be wrong view, based on ignorance (not seeing the dhamma as it truly is). C: If the pancakkhandha are known to be unreal by means of wisdom, then it cannot be viewed as the atta of a being anymore. J: Wisdom is the mental factor accompanying consciousness that sees dhammas as they truly are. Thus, wisdom would not know the pancakkhandha (i.e., dhammas) to be 'unreal' (whatever that means). However, wisdom knows wrong view about dhammas to be wrong view. C: More generally, I think the Buddha did not teach what really existing (paramattha dhamma) as anatta. J: I think the Buddha taught that dhammas (the pancakkhandha) are anatta. Do you have a different view? C: 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. J: I think there could be a problem with your use of the word 'real' or 'existing'. What do you mean by these words? Is there a specific Pali term you have in mind? Nice talking to you. Jon Charles wrote: >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. > 55619 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >--- 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? > > But do we not cling to the idea of 'I'? That idea is a concept, surely ;-)) Jon 55620 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice jonoabb Dear Pablo Welcome to the list from me. Many thanks for telling us about yourself. I found it very interesting. Judging from your story, you have a very strong connection with the teachings. It's good that you'll have the chance to ask questions at your next retreat, as this is the best way to find out about the teachings. In the meantime, please feel free to bring up any questions here. We would all be happy to have the opportunity to discuss them. Jon Pablo wrote: >>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. > 55621 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry I agree that words are not dhammas, but this does not mean that (all) pannattis are words. What about mental images other than words, such as visual mental images? Jon LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi Jon, > >L: Actually, I changed my mind slightly in a subsequent discussion with >Charles. I still think "pannatti" simply means "word". For example: >"House, chariot, village, etc., are called samuuhapa~n~natti, collective >concepts, since they correspond to a collection or group of things." >"The kasina signs are called nimittapa~n~natti, sign concepts, since >they correspond to mental signs gained by meditative >development."(CMA,p.327) > >I am taking "correspond to" to mean "refer to". The words "earth kasina" >refers to a mental sign (mental image) "gained by meditative >development". Previously, I thought "correspond to" meant "is". If >"pannatti" means "word" then the collection of dhammas it refers to is >not a concept, not a word; it is a collection of dhammas. I would say >that a word, itself, is a collection of dhammas, (vocal intimation, >perception and memory, views, etc.). A mental image is a collection of >nimitta (signs). A collection of dhammas is not an ultimate reality >because it is a collection, not ultimate. Beyond that, there are >misperceptions of apparent phenomena that don't exist, e.g., >lastingness, wholeness, solidity, and agency. > >J: "When we say "tree" the reference is likely to be pure concept, I >would say. Of course there are dhammas that are taken as tree, but they >may or may not be the experiencing of any of those dhammas at the time." > >L: For me, whenever the word "tree" actually means something it refers >to the sign of a tree. It's a little difficult to say whether a sign is >an ultimate reality. I would say it is partly misperception but there is >also the memory perception of visible data. Are perceptions and/or >misperceptions ultimate realties? I would say an ultimate reality is an >element that cannot be divided by analysis. I would also say that all >experience is a combination, collection, formation of elements that >usually include misperceptions. However, if the elements of experience >are not real then there is no reality. > >Larry > > 55622 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice jonoabb Hi Pablo 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. >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. > > Your questions are very clear! There are 2 kinds of bhavana (mental development) mentioned in the teachings: samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha means tranquility and vipassana means insight. Both are accompanied by the mental factor of panna (wisdom). Some people understand the teachings to say that if we focus on (or watch) the breath or certain objects with the aim of developing samatha or insight, this is a kind of 'practice' that will lead in due course to the development of samatha or vipassana. To my understanding, however, the arising of panna is dependent on very specific conditions, and these do not include undertaking a form of 'practice'. In essence those conditions are hearing the teachings properly explained in a way that is appropriate to our level of understanding, reflecting on what we have heard and understood, and relating what has been understood to the present moment. The references in the texts to monks who have gone to the root of a tree, have established mindfulness to the fore, and then undertake mindfulness of breathing are references to monks who have already developed samatha and vipassana to a high degree. I do not believe there are many, if any, people who fall within this description today. In any event, for those of us who are clearly not in this class, the task is to learn the basics, such as what is the difference between samatha and vipassana. So I think the answer to your question is: have more understanding of a presently arising dhamma (any dhamma). Thanks for the opportunity to consider your questions. I hope the answer I have given is helpful. Jon 55623 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott Am I correct that you think we have a choice as to how rupas are > perceived? If you mean rupa as in nama-rupa and not in 28 rupas, yes I think so, ie as real and unreal. > I do not see it that way. Rupas (or their characteristic) > become apparent only when awareness occurs, and this is not a matter of > conscious choice or deliberate intention. When we see the ultimate reality of rupa (as in rupa 28) the other concept of rupa (as in nama-rupa) will disappear, isn't? It's like a fatamorgana, when we have been close enough with, the truth being revealed, we lose interest in it. Same thing, same truth, only different view make it completely looks like different things. > I'm not sure about this simile. If we take a wooden bowl and analyse it > to the nth degree, we end up with cellulose molecules. But the body does > not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such correlation. Rather, the > situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed out of the > experiencing of rupas. Then what is being practiced in the catudhatuvavatthana ? :D Let's being honest with ourselves, unless we have been an ariya puggala, we do believe that the body is a reality, that I exist. Which one do you actually believe, that the body is real or unreal :D ? I am lost in this darkness, having only this map of the Middle Path. I am not interested in stories about the place of light, I only need to know that it is light. Thinking about how beautiful is the place of light is no different than dreaming. Personally, I think any view as whether nama-rupa is unreal is beautiful, but useless. I prefer to take the body as real, but then to show how could it can be taken as unreal. I think that's why the Buddha only taught the abhidhamma in the higher plane, where there was many ariya-puggala who can understand what the Buddha taught, while in human world, the Buddha taught in sammuti-sacca, ie bottom-up: because this body is this and this, so the body is unreal. For example, we can see which path of thinking is applicable to non- ariya puggalas premis 1: There is the body, it is like this and this premis 2: What is real cannot be this and this conclusion: the body is not real or by directly saying: premis 1: There is not the body premis 2: What is not real is illusion conclusion: the body is illusion 55624 From: "Charles" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:20am Subject: Re: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi Jon You know, I think I believe that atta is exist, that the 5 khandas are I, that I am. But I would be really interested in how to make myself conscious about the truth, ie how to fill the gap between premis 1: I am premis 2: ??? <- this is the way conclusion: I am cannot be If I deny that "I am" from the first time, it would not only be unhonest to myself, but it is like trying to go directly to the conclusion without going through the premisses. That is, it is like trying to go directly to the conclusion "I is an illusion" from our current belief that "I cannot be". So, come on, do not say that "I is an illusion" without having see it directly by knowledge. What we need to say is that why "I cannot be". .. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Nice talking to you. Nice talking to you too Jon :D My statements above are actually not replies to your statements, but I am currently in a shift of paradigm :D so I would like to write it here :D. For a patient, thinking about how a healthy man would be is somehow useless, it is better to think how to cure the pain. 55625 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:45am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Andrew) - In a message dated 2/9/06 10:44:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > I believe it is standard usage in Buddhist circles. Even non- > Abhidhammika Buddhists are prone to saying, "We know the knife is > illusory, and yet we pick it up by the handle." > > So a knife is ultimately illusory and conventionally real > (conventionally a non-erroneous perception). ====================== There is, in fact, no knife, yet there is more to say than this and that it is conventionally real. The perceiving(conceiving)-of-the-knife is a validly predictive mental process. It enables us to not only be aware of rupas and relationships among them, but it also enables us to know that should certain volitions and experiences occur "with regard to that knife" such as what we call "grabbing it by the blade," then other unpleasant and harmful experiences would result. So, there is a pragmatic, predictive aspect to the perceiving of "a knife" that is important even though in truth and reality there is no knife as an actual thing. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55626 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 Jon: "Hi Larry I agree that words are not dhammas, but this does not mean that (all) pannattis are words. What about mental images other than words, such as visual mental images?" Hi Jon, I believe what I said is that words are not ultimate realities. They are a combination of ultimate realties and, often, misperceptions. As to the question of mental images, the solution is easy. Visual mental images are not concepts. They are signs, often a combination of signs. Signs have to do with perception. Pannatti are only words. Larry 55627 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:48pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 663 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Upadaana paccaya bhavo'. Because of clinging there have to arise existence (of kamma) or becoming (of kamma). 6 cravings or 6 tanhaa leads to 6 clingings or 6 grasping. These 6 are in connection with aayatana. Upadaana on its own can be classified as 4 upadaana or 4 clingings. They are 1. kaamupadaana or 'clinging to sense desire' 2. ditthupadaana or 'clinging to speculation' 3. silabbatupadaana or 'clinging to beliefs in rites' 4. attavadupadaana or 'clinging to belief in soul theory' Basically there are only two dhamma in all these 4 upadaana dhamma. They are lobha cetasika and ditthi cetasika. Lobha comes with the name of kaamupadaana or clinging to sense desire. Latter three upadaana or clingings are all ditthi cetasika or mental factor of worng view. As they each differ from one another there have to be three different wrong views and clinging to these 3 wrong views are called ditthupadaana, silabbatupadaana and attavadupadaana. Because of these 4 upadaana beings commit actions and these actions become kaama-bhava or becoming. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com (htoo.naing@...) htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55628 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:09pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 664 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Bhava paccayaa jaati'. Becoming as a supporting condition conditions birth. Here 'becoming' or 'existence' means 'becoming-of-kamma' or 'existence-of-kamma'. All births are because of these becomings or kamma. Without 'kamma' there is no birth. Arahats do not have 'kamma-leading-to-birth'. So arahats do not have further births. But they all have already born and when they were born those births were all because of the kamma that exist at the time of birth. But at the time of arahats' death (parinibbana) there is no kamma- leading-to-birth. So there is no birth. As there is no birth there is no linking consciousness and there is no further life after death of arahats. This is the main point that all true Buddhists should clearly understand. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55629 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:26pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 665 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Bhava paccayaa jaati'. Jaati or birth may be explained in many different ways. But if the whole life is taken into consideration and if that whole life is looked into minute details there is no life as we think. That is there is no atta, no jiiva or life, no self, no spirit but everything that is dhamma is anatta. If that whole life is seen as it is there is nothing more than naama-ruupa. Among naama or 'dhamma that have the qualities of knowing' and ruupa or 'dhamma that do not have the qualities of knowing' naama dhamma are more important as they are mainly in the cycle of kamma. Among naama dhamma the most powerful is citta or consciousness. So consciousness or cittas are examined so that we can understand the whole life. But life that we know is more than citta or consciousness but a mixtures of many that is naama, ruupa, names and concepts. If life is seen mainly focused on citta then there will see that there is a citta which is initial consciousness in that whole life and there is another citta which is the last consciousness in that whole life. In between are infinite cittas and some are door-free cittas and some are cittas-at-doors. Anyway the initial citta is here jaati or linking consciousness or pa.tisandhi or rebirth. But for the reason of understandability jaati is explained in many different ways. Because jaati or birth there have to arise jaraa (ageing)/marana(death). 'Jaati paccayaa jaraa/mara.na'. Actually dhamma explanation is already completed at 'bhava'. Because jaati, jaraa, mara.na are not separate things but they are just names of naama-ruupa. When The Buddha contemplated on D.O or Dependent Origination there was an inner cycle in the outter cycle of D.O. That inner cycle is 'vinnaana paccayaa naama-ruupam. Naama-ruupa paccayaa vinnaana'. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55630 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:35pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 666 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Jaati paccayaa jaraa/mara.na'. Because of birth (rebirth) there have to arise jaraa/marana or ageing/death. This is quite true. Everything that has existed are ageing. Every dhamma that arises disappears. When we see life there are more than birth-death matters. They are 1. jaraa (ageing) 2. byaadhi (disease) 3. mara.na(death) 4. soka (sorrow) 5. parideva(lamentation) 6. dukkha (physical suffering) 7. domanassa(mental suffering) 8. upayaasaa(despair or hopelessness) and many other dukkha have to arise in due course even though these things are different from being to being. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55631 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava htootintnaing Dear Larry, Thank you. Very clear. These 4 words if I speak will arise as voice, which is sound and they are realities. But realities and concepts are almost always intertwine. With respect, Htoo Naing On 05/02/06, Larry wrote: > > 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 > 55632 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:46pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------------------------- H: > There is, in fact, no knife, yet there is more to say than this and that it is conventionally real. The perceiving(conceiving)-of-the- knife is a validly predictive mental process. -------------------------- Yes, I suppose it is, but predictive of what? Predictive of other concepts, I would say. ------------------- H: > It enables us to not only be aware of rupas and relationships among them, ------------------- Hold on, Howard, this involves a major (perhaps the major) point of contention on DSG and yet you drop it into the conversation as if it were a forgone conclusion. :-) I, for one, strongly believe that the perception of concepts does not enable us to be aware of dhammas. This reminds me of Jon and CharlesC's conversation, in which they were talking about wooden bowls (rather than knives). Jon wrote: "I'm not sure about this simile. If we take a wooden bowl and analyse it to the nth degree, we end up with cellulose molecules. But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such correlation. Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed out of the experiencing of rupas." ----------------- H: > but it also enables us to know that should certain volitions and experiences occur "with regard to that knife" such as what we call "grabbing it by the blade," then other unpleasant and harmful experiences would result. ------------------ The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya). So you cannot confidently trace any experience (e.g., painful physical contact) to its cause (the volition to pick up a knife by the blade). That sort of tracing-back belongs purely in conventional reality. ---------------- H: > So, there is a pragmatic, predictive aspect to the perceiving of "a knife" that is important even though in truth and reality there is no knife as an actual thing. ---------------- Sorry, I see no such (ultimately) important aspect. Ken H 55633 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:27pm Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/10/06 11:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > -------------------------- > H: > There is, in fact, no knife, yet there is more to say than this > and that it is conventionally real. The perceiving(conceiving)-of-the- > knife is a validly predictive mental process. > -------------------------- > > Yes, I suppose it is, but predictive of what? Predictive of other > concepts, I would say. > > ------------------- > H: >It enables us to not only be aware of rupas and relationships > among them, > ------------------- > > Hold on, Howard, this involves a major (perhaps the major) point of > contention on DSG and yet you drop it into the conversation as if it > were a forgone conclusion. :-) I, for one, strongly believe that the > perception of concepts does not enable us to be aware of dhammas. --------------------------------------- Howard: You're missing my point, Ken. In fact, the only actual phenomena we are aware of are paramattha dhammas, for there are no others than these. Many and varied relations hold among those dhammas, but, as worldlings, there is no direct realization of those relations. We indirectly grasp them by mentally grouping interrelated dhammas as conventional objects. It is solely by means of conceptualization that worldlings grasp relations among dhammas. -------------------------------------- > > This reminds me of Jon and CharlesC's conversation, in which they > were talking about wooden bowls (rather than knives). Jon wrote: > > "I'm not sure about this simile. If we take a wooden bowl and > analyse it to the nth degree, we end up with cellulose molecules. > But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such > correlation. > Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed > out of the experiencing of rupas." > > ----------------- > H: >but it also enables us to know that should certain volitions and > experiences occur "with regard to that knife" such as what we > call "grabbing it by the blade," then other unpleasant and harmful > experiences would result. ----------------------------------- Howard: I really don't get your point, Ken. Why don't you pull a knife away from someone by the blade? (I assume you would not.) I believe that you don't do this because you correctly predict, based on what you know about knives, that doing so will result in serious pain and danger. Now, all such conventional stories are a shorthand for experiences of rupas and namas leading to other such experiences. Ken, concepts are our means to grasp relations, and to predict. Why don't you touch a red-hot stove? Because "Once burned, twice shy." ---------------------------------- > ------------------ > > The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya). So you > cannot confidently trace any experience (e.g., painful physical > contact) to its cause (the volition to pick up a knife by the > blade). That sort of tracing-back belongs purely in conventional > reality. ------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, Ken! Here you're just engaging in sloganeering! Conventional reality isn't a dream world, not all of it. It is a nonliteral representation of the literal. Taking the nonliteral for literal is ignorance. But taking the nonliteral for outright falsity is also error in many, many cases. We do valid tracing back all the time, Ken. And we do valid predicting all the time. If we were unable to do so, we couldn't survive for minute. ------------------------------------ > > ---------------- > H: >So, there is a pragmatic, predictive aspect to the perceiving > of "a knife" that is important even though in truth and reality there > is no knife as an actual thing. > ---------------- > > Sorry, I see no such (ultimately) important aspect. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think you would do well to seriously consider this matter further. :-) --------------------------------------- > > Ken H > =================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55634 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >Hi Jon, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott onothan, > > >>Am I correct that you think we have a choice as to how rupas are >>perceived? >> >> > >If you mean rupa as in nama-rupa and not in 28 rupas, yes I think so, >ie as real and unreal. >... > > >When we see the ultimate reality of rupa (as in rupa 28) the other >concept of rupa (as in nama-rupa) will disappear, isn't? > What is the distinction you see between rupa of the 28 rupas and rupa of nama-rupa? To my understanding, rupa in both instances refers to dhammas, not concepts. >>I'm not sure about this simile. If we take a wooden bowl and analyse it to the nth degree, we end up with cellulose molecules. But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such correlation. Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed out of the >>experiencing of rupas. >> >> >Then what is being practiced in the catudhatuvavatthana ? :D > > (Do you have a specific sutta reference in mind? I'd be happy to discuss.) In general terms, I do not understand the Buddha to be laying down a 'practice' of 'seeing' the body as the 4 elements or whatever. To try to do that would be getting ahead of oneself. First we have to know about nama and rupa, samatha and vipassana, etc. >Let's being honest with ourselves, unless we have been an ariya >puggala, we do believe that the body is a reality, that I exist. > >Which one do you actually believe, that the body is real or unreal :D > ? > >I am lost in this darkness, having only this map of the Middle Path. >I am not interested in stories about the place of light, I only need >to know that it is light. Thinking about how beautiful is the place >of light is no different than dreaming. > > Well I agree that we all take the body as being something real, as being a whole. The reason we do so is a lack of understanding of dhammas. If dhammas are seen with panna as they truly are, any wrong view of the world is going to be gradually swept away. >Personally, I think any view as whether nama-rupa is unreal is >beautiful, but useless. I prefer to take the body as real, but then >to show how could it can be taken as unreal. > >I think that's why the Buddha only taught the abhidhamma in the >higher plane, where there was many ariya-puggala who can understand >what the Buddha taught, while in human world, the Buddha taught in >sammuti-sacca, ie bottom-up: because this body is this and this, so >the body is unreal. > I see it in quite a different way ;-)). The Abhidhamma is like the primer (for beginning students) that introduces in direct and unambiguous language the subject matter that is talked about in more conceptual terms in the suttas. Don't forget that the suttas were, on the whole, spoken to those most ready for enlightenment and hence of the highest degree of developed panna. (As far as know, it is not correct to say that the Abhidhamma was given as a teaching for ariya puggala.) >For example, we can see which path of thinking is applicable to non- >ariya puggalas > >premis 1: There is the body, it is like this and this >premis 2: What is real cannot be this and this >conclusion: the body is not real > >or by directly saying: > >premis 1: There is not the body >premis 2: What is not real is illusion >conclusion: the body is illusion > I do not see it as a case of suttas for one class of listener, Abhidhamma for another. There is a lot of overlap between the two (khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, Four Nobel Truths, etc). Knowledge of the material in both baskets is necessary. Again, I am interested in your use of 'real' and 'not-real'. Can you point to parallel passages from the suttas? To my understanding, the Buddha taught about dhammas and the understanding of dhammas and their characteristics. Jon 55635 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry LBIDD@... wrote: >I believe what I said is that words are not ultimate realities. They are >a combination of ultimate realties and, often, misperceptions. As to the >question of mental images, the solution is easy. Visual mental images >are not concepts. They are signs, often a combination of signs. Signs >have to do with perception. Pannatti are only words. > > Are you saying visual mental images are dhammas? If you conjure up an imaginary scene, surely that is a concept. Jon 55636 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities jonoabb Hi Charles You say at the end of your post: "My statements above are actually not replies to your statements, but I am currently in a shift of paradigm :D so I would like to write it here :D. For a patient, thinking about how a healthy man would be is somehow useless, it is better to think how to cure the pain." I agree with this, but I think it is not always obvious how the medicine of the dhamma will effect the necessary cure. We tend to think we can treat ourselves without reading the instructions properly ;-)). There is no 'quick fix'. Charles wrote: >Hi Jon > >You know, I think > >I believe that atta is exist, that the 5 khandas are I, that I am. > >But I would be really interested in how to make myself conscious >about the truth, ie how to fill the gap between > >premis 1: I am >premis 2: ??? <- this is the way >conclusion: I am cannot be > >If I deny that "I am" from the first time, it would not only be >unhonest to myself, but it is like trying to go directly to the >conclusion without going through the premisses. That is, it is like >trying to go directly to the conclusion "I is an illusion" from our >current belief that "I cannot be". > I agree that it is not a matter of denying "I am". It is a matter of seeing things more and more as they truly are. This takes time and careful study of the teachings. There is no 'practice' that will somehow make dhammas appear as they truly are. But there can be moments of awareness and panna if the teachings are considered and pondered upon in the right way. >So, come on, do not say that "I is an illusion" without having see it >directly by knowledge. What we need to say is that why "I cannot be". >.. > Yes, there is not point in denying that we have wrong view of things ;-)). Jon >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott ..> wrote: > > >>Nice talking to you. >> >> > >Nice talking to you too Jon :D > >My statements above are actually not replies to your statements, but >I am currently in a shift of paradigm :D so I would like to write it >here :D. For a patient, thinking about how a healthy man would be is >somehow useless, it is better to think how to cure the pain. > > 55637 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:24am Subject: Re: Samvega/Urgency philofillet Hello again Howard There is an awful lot of babble ahead. I think perhaps you write as you read, so perhaps you'd like to skim through first to see what's worth responding too! :) H: > > > > >The time is now, my friends! The time is now for Dhamma practice > > in its > > >fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita, > > > ---------------------------------------- Ph > 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. Ph: Yes, this is true. Best not to think about it. But when urgency arises, act. However, I think it's good to remember that urgency arises due to conditions and can't be whipped up by thinking about it. For example, when you wrote your post, you were motivated by samvega - we can assume you were. But for someone who was reading it and perhaps bothered by something, or sad about something, there might be thinking "yes, Howard is right, there should be a sense of urgency" and thinking about urgency, but it wouldn't be urgency, it would be lobha, wanting to have urgency. Then again, your post might happen to fall at the right time to condition true urgency for someone! Why am I writing this? It seems like I'm criticizing your post, but that's not my intention. I'm curious about to what degree words of encouragement rooted in metta or samvega or other kusala ends up conditioning kusala in the other. Who knows, right? Why think about it. But I do.... I remember Rob M's post about smiling with metta at tollbooth operators. For him, it was a wholesome habit that had evolved over time. For those who read, who like the idea, it would not necessarily be so. They might assume that friendly notions towards others are always metta. There might be a lot of lobha involved that they would never become aware of, and it is only by becoming aware of all the lobha that can creep into our approach to Dhamma that we can begin to understand it in order to begin to eradicate it ever so gradually. So I guess my point is that when people of understanding encourage others to have kusala by doing this or that it might mislead people a little. You wrote "the time is now for Dhamma practice in its fullness including dana, metta, karuna, mudita." If the time is now for the brahma-viharas, the time is now. If it is not, it is not. We really shouldn't think we can have them so readily, I feel. Not that you do. But I just sense that is the case, in general, in the Buddhist world today. > ---------------------------------------- > 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. Phil: Yes, you're right. Those suttas that use similes to get at the incalculable depth of the suffering we have gone through during aeons are not intended for us to relax and not sweat it! I think I have been taking them the wrong way. > ------------------------------------- > > 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! Ph: Yes, you're right, of course. And yet, there is, I find, a kind of intellectual detachment that runs deeper than casual reflection, really soaks into one's daily life. Acharn Sujin talks about "detachment from the beginning" and I didn't understand that - how can there be detachment from the beginnning when the goal is detachment? I thought it was "starting from where we want to be", as you put it. But there is something there - can't put my finger on it but there is a form of intellectual detachment rooted in right intellectual understanding that really helps. It is an infinitely weak distant cousin of the true detachment, perhaps, or nothing to do with it. I don't know. > ------------------------------------ > > > > > Maybe not. There is the turban on fire simile, of course. > > > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, there are many such urgings. Phil: Yes, and many very active verbs for crushing, annihalating akusala. As I've wriiten before, I find that there is much more room for intentionally and forcefully stamping out crude kusala fires when they arise than my teacher teaches. I tend to think that the second right effort, abandoning akusala when it arises, is not something we need to hesitate or think too much about. But when it comes to the third and fourth efforts, giving rise to and maintaining (?) kusala, it is a much, much subtler kettle of fish. And the first and second efforts are much subtler when it comes to subtler forms of akusala. So when it comes to forcefully stopping myself from using pornography, to give one example, there is no fooling around. But when it comes to metta et al, I'm very ....careful...? > ---------------------------------- > 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*! Phil: Well, this is another thing. I've written about this to Nina, about some passages in Survey of Paramattha Dhammas and some things I've heard in the talks about how we *should* investigate present dhammas. Again, I find that *should* to be off-putting, because if the investigating is done with the desire to investigate and understand dhammas now, I think it'll just be a lot of lobha. We can't pierce the fog of ignorance we are wrapped in by will power, I feel. Something subtler has to arise, due to conditions. I suppse that something is sati, but I have hardly begun to understand sati, even intellectually. > --------------------------------- > 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. Phil: Right. Well, physically it can come, by following certain methodic techniques. I remember the Venerable who was on the list for a few weeks about a year ago, who taught a method of meditation that sounded very pleasant and relaxing, and I'm sure would be. So it is possible to use the breath to be relaxed, as we know. And we know better. > > 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. Phil: I find this encouraging. And feel mudita. > > > > > 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. Phil: It's not an aphorism or affirmation, really. Well it depends on the citta. But there is reflection at times, fairly deep reflection that goes beyond words. > Howard: Be well, Phil. Thanks Howard, you too. I hope your grandaughter is well, and that your friend is spending precious time with his loved ones.?@(I'm sure you are one of them.) Phil ?@ ?@ 55638 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:45am Subject: How can we say "there are few, if any, like that today" etc? philofillet Hi Jon, Pablo and all Jon > The references in the texts to monks who have gone to the root of a > tree, have established mindfulness to the fore, and then undertake > mindfulness of breathing are references to monks who have already > developed samatha and vipassana to a high degree. I do not believe > there are many, if any, people who fall within this description today. Ph: I hear this a lot, and feel that it is true. And I really think it's important for people to realize that we are where we are and the bhikkhus who sat at the roots of trees in the Buddha's day were where they were. But what is the scriptural support for saying this? (I think Rob K posted a sutta that gets at it somehow, but I can't remember.) I know the sutta (in Sn 35 but don't have it here) that made me feel it most deeply (but which didn't prove anything) is one where the Buddha helps to open a new holy building of some kind. He comes in and sits, and his bhikkhus come and sit behind him, and then the bhikkhus he will address come and sit in front of him. When I reflected on it it struck me deeply how very far we are from those bhikkhus who sat facing the Buddha and heard him talk. But, again, it doesn't prove anything. Phil 55639 From: "Charles" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > What is the distinction you see between rupa of the 28 rupas and rupa of > nama-rupa? To my understanding, rupa in both instances refers to > dhammas, not concepts. To me, it sorts of like, both a plastic and a collection of H-C-O atoms refer to the same thing, but we do not think or said like "I use a collection of H-C-O atoms to eat", instead we said "I use a plastic spoon to eat". > (Do you have a specific sutta reference in mind? I'd be happy to discuss.) Maybe this one: "Again the bhikkhu abides reflecting this body as elements in whatever posture it is. There are in this body, the elements, earth, water, fire and air.Just as a clever butcher or his apprenticewould be seated in a hut at the four cross roads with a killed cow dissecting it into small bits. In the same manner, in this body, there are the elements earth, water, fire and air.When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developped" [Kayagatasati Sutta] > In general terms, I do not understand the Buddha to be laying down a > 'practice' of 'seeing' the body as the 4 elements or whatever. To try > to do that would be getting ahead of oneself. Then what would be your interpretation about the practice of catudhatuvavatthana above ? > I see it in quite a different way ;-)). The Abhidhamma is like the > primer (for beginning students) that introduces in direct and > unambiguous language the subject matter that is talked about in > more I must agree I think, different people need different treatment. > Again, I am interested in your use of 'real' and 'not-real'. Can you > point to parallel passages from the suttas? My definition would be, real = things with sabhava unreal = anything else About passages from the suttas, I think the whole abhidhamma itself points to real things, ie 89 cittas, 52 citasikas, 28 rupa, and nibbana, other things than these are unreal, am I correct ? 55640 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 6:46am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 667 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, 'Avijjaa paccayaa sa`nkhaaraa, sa`nkhaara paccayaa vi~n~naa.naa, vi~n~naa.na paccayaa naama-ruupam, naama-ruupa paccayaa sa.laayatanaa, sa.laayatana paccayaa phasso, phassa paccayaa vedanaa, vedanaa paccayaa tanhaa, tanhaa paccayaa upadaanaa, upadaana paccayaa bhavo, bhava paccayaa jaati, jaati paccayaa jaraa, mara.na, soka, parideva, dukkha, domanassa, upayaasaa sa.mbhavanti.' avijjaa --> sa`nkhaara --> vi~n~naa.na --> naama-ruupa-->sa.laayatana--> phassa --> vedanaa --> tanhaa --> upadaana --> bhava --> jaati --> mara.na (jaraa/mara.na) There are 12 links. 1. avijja (ignorance) 2. sankhara(formation) 3. vinnaana(consciousness) 4. naamaruupa(mentality-materiality) 5. sa.laayatana(6 sense-bases) 6. phassa (contact) 7. vedanaa (feeling) 8. tanhaa (craving) 9. upadaana(clinging) 10.bhava (becoming) 11.jaati (birth/rebirth) 12.jaraa/mara.na (ageing/death) These 12 links are conditional relation. 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12 -> 1 -> 2 There is no specific kind of relationship and this just show only relationship. It is conditional relation and it is dependent on the former dhamma. So it is called Dependent Origination. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55641 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega/Urgency upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - Thank you for your very worthwhile post, Phil. There is a great deal in it with which I agree, and what I don't agree with I sympathize with. There is only one specific part of your post that I want to address specifically. But before I do, thank you for the kind wishes for our granddaughter and for our so seriously ill friend. :-) In a message dated 2/11/06 5:25:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > However, I think it's good to remember that urgency arises due to > conditions and can't be whipped up by thinking about it. For > example, when you wrote your post, you were motivated by samvega - > we can assume you were. But for someone who was reading it and > perhaps bothered by something, or sad about something, there might > be thinking "yes, Howard is right, there should be a sense of > urgency" and thinking about urgency, but it wouldn't be urgency, it > would be lobha, wanting to have urgency. Then again, your post might > happen to fall at the right time to condition true urgency for > someone! > ======================== Yes, urgency, as all conditioned dhammas, arises due to conditions. Otherwise the world would operate randomly or by magic. But among conditions are thinking processes and volitions. They are actual events, not fictions, and they do serve as conditions. It should be so clear to us that negative papa~nca "does us in" much of the time. To give an explicit example, when we fall prey to various desires (sexual, for example), thinking over scenarios (i.e., sexually fantasizing, for example) aggravates matters, increasing desire and compulsion. That is negative papa~nca and its fruit. Don't you think positive papa~nca operates as well? Sometimes "Right Intention" is rendered by "Right Thought". In this regard, please see the following: _______________________ "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do. "While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it."Having performed a bodily act, you should reflect on it... If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental qualities....[similarly for verbal and mental acts]... "Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental acts through repeated reflection.' That is how you should train yourself."— MN 61 ============================ 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) 55642 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:06am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 668 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, In Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppaada) there are 12 links of dhamma (realities). They are 1. avijja (ignorance) 2. sankhara(formation) 3. vinnaana(consciousness) 4. naamaruupa(mentality-materiality) 5. sa.laayatana(6 sense-bases) 6. phassa (contact) 7. vedanaa (feeling) 8. tanhaa (craving) 9. upadaana(clinging) 10.bhava (becoming) 11.jaati (birth/rebirth) 12.jaraa/mara.na (ageing/death) These 12 links are conditional relation. 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 -> 9 -> 10 -> 11 -> 12 -> 1 -> 2 There is linear relationship. 1 causes 2. 2 causes 3. 3 cause 4 and so on. Unlike patthaana dhamma (where specific kinds of relationship are mentioned), Dependent Origination (D.O) does not explain 'what kinds of relationship exist between conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma. The former is conditioning dhamma and the latter is conditioned dhamma. It just says dhamma conditions dhamma. To understand D.O much more deeply one has to know what the realities are; what paramattha dhamma are or what dhamma are in terms of their own characteristics. There are 12 links in D.O. All are dhamma. They are not concept. The only thing is that the last two links are a bit different from foregoing 10 links that they are characters of dhamma and they also compose dhamma. If D.O components are divided into group according to time line there are three group of dhamma. They are a) past dhamma (dhamma that happened some time ago) b) present dhamma (dhamma that are current ones) c) future dhamma (dhamma at a later time) a) past dhamma (dhamma that happened some time ago) In this group there are two dhamma. They are avijjaa (ignorance) and sa`nkhaara (formation). b) present dhamma (dhamma that are current ones) In this group present dhamma are 1. vinnaana (consciousness) 2. naama-ruupa (mentality-materiality) 3. sa.laayatana (6-sense-base) 4. phassa (contact) 5. vedanaa (feeling) 6. tanhaa (craving) 7. upadaana (clinging) 8. bhava (kamma-bhava or existence or becoming) c) future dhamma (dhamma at a later time) In this group there are two dhamma. They are 1. jaati (birth or rebirth or initiation of life) 2. jaraa/mara.na (ageing/death or ageing and happening/ceasing life) There are 12 links in D.O. a) past dhamma 02 b) present dhamma 08 c) future dhamma 02 ------------------- D.O links dhammas 12 May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com htootintnaing-at-hotmail.com 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. 55643 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:25am Subject: velocity and effect scottduncan2 Hello All, I've enjoyed the threads I've been able to read lately. I have a question, but find it hard to word properly. Citta arises and falls away with a rapidity that defies perception (I surmise). With such a speed, and such a marvelous lack of control over this arising and falling away, I wonder about the dynamics of the effects of things that "I" express a will to undergo. I refer to practise in particular, I guess. How does an intention formed consciously and at such an obviously slow speed effect the flow of citta cycling away rapidly? Or, conversely, how does the effect of citta manifest, for example lokuttara citta? Sincerely, Scott. 55644 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samvega/Urgency htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil - > > Thank you for your very worthwhile post, Phil. There is a great deal > in it with which I agree, and what I don't agree with I sympathize with. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard, Is it new version that you sign with a signature? ''============================ 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)'' Htoo: I am just thinking, :-)) With respect, Htoo Naing 55645 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:33am Subject: Re: velocity and effect htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Hello All, I've enjoyed the threads I've been able to read lately. I have a question, but find it hard to word properly. Citta arises and falls away with a rapidity that defies perception (I surmise). With such a speed, and such a marvelous lack of control over this arising and falling away, I wonder about the dynamics of the effects of things that "I" express a will to undergo. I refer to practise in particular, I guess. How does an intention formed consciously and at such an obviously slow speed effect the flow of citta cycling away rapidly? Or, conversely, how does the effect of citta manifest, for example lokuttara citta? Sincerely, Scott. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Scott, 'an intention formed consciousnessly' is what we though slow. But in actual sense they are also cycling. Lokuttara cittas have effect of cooling. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55646 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:35am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 669 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, In Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppaada) there are 12 links of dhamma (realities). These 12 links go into 3 separate groups as past, present, and future links. There are 5 dhammas as past group, 5 dhammas as present resultant dhammas, 5 dhamma as present conditioning dhammas, and 5 future dhammas. a) past dhammas (conditioning dhamma for the present conditioned dhamma or present resultant dhammas) 1. avijjaa (ignorance) 2. sa`nkhaara(formation) 3. tanhaa (craving) [always associated with moha or avijjaa] 4. upadaana(clinging)[always associated with moha or avijjaa] 5. kamma-bhava (existence-of-formation) NB: tanhaa and upadaana are always arise with moha (avijjaa). So when we say avijjaa is past dhamma then these two dhamma also include. Likewise when we say sa`nkhaara is past dhamma bhavo or kamma-bhava or 'existence-of-kamma' can be said that it is past dhamma. So there are 5 past dhammas. b) present conditioned dhamma or present resultant dhamma 1. vinnaana (consciousness) 2. naama-ruupa (mentality-materiality) 3. sa.laayatana (6-sense-bases) 4. phassa (contact) 5. vedanaa (feeling) c) present conditioning dhamma or causing dhamma 1. tanhaa (craving) 2. upadaana (clinging) 3. bhava (existence or becoming) 4. avijjaa (ignorance)[always arises with tanhaa and upadaana] 5. sa`nkhaara (formation) [when there is bhava or kamma-bhava or kamma-existence or kamma- becoming' this already include sa`nkhaara or kamma-formation. d) future resultant dhamma 1. vinnaana (consciousness)[jaati cause arising of consciousness] 2. naama-ruupa (mentality-materiality) 3. sa.laayatana (6-sense-bases) 4. phassa (contact) 5. vedanaa (feeling) [as pa.tisandhi consciousness arise latter 4 dhammas also include in the future resultant dhammas. So there are 20 parts in D.O. 5 parts are in the past, 5 & 5 are in the present and another 5 are in the future. The past 5 are causes of the 5 present resultant dhammas. The present 5 conditioning dhammas are the causes of future 5 resultant dhammas. So there are 12 links in D.O. There are 3 time lines. There are 20 constituent parts in these 3 time lines. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55647 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:51am Subject: Re: velocity and effect scottduncan2 > "'an intention formed consciousnessly' is what we though slow. But in > actual sense they are also cycling. > > Lokuttara cittas have effect of cooling." Dear Htoo, Thank you. So my intention, say, to sit and watch the in and out breath until I experience the first level of jhaana would actually consist of a continuous cycle of cittas accompanied by appropriate cetasika? Can I will such things into existence through my intention consciously adopted? Sincerely, Scott. 55648 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega/Urgency upasaka_howard Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 2/11/06 10:35:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Is it new version that you sign with a signature? > > ''============================ > 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)'' > > Htoo: I am just thinking, :-)) > > With respect, > > Htoo Naing > ========================= LOL! It must be a Tibetan Buddhist mantra based on the Perfection of Wisdom in One Letter sutra! ;-)) 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) 55649 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Larry > > LBIDD@... wrote: > > >I believe what I said is that words are not ultimate realities. They are > >a combination of ultimate realties and, often, misperceptions. As to the > >question of mental images, the solution is easy. Visual mental images > >are not concepts. They are signs, often a combination of signs. Signs > >have to do with perception. Pannatti are only words. > > > > > > Are you saying visual mental images are dhammas? If you conjure up an > imaginary scene, surely that is a concept. > > Jon > Hi Jon, I think we have misread one sentence in CMA: "The kasina signs are called nimittapa~n~natti, sign concepts, since they correspond to mental signs gained by meditative development." In other words, "earth kasina" refers to a particular kind of mental sign. A mental sign is not a word, but a word refers to a mental sign. Mental signs are mental images. Mental images are not words but words can refer to mental images and often depend on mental images for their meaning. If by "dhammas" you mean ultimate realities, I would say a mental image is an ultimate reality. It arises and ceases and could be classified with perception (sa~n~naa). However, in satipatthana a mental image is dependently arisen and dependent arising is empty of ultimate reality because it is full of ultimate realities. "Ultimate conditioned reality" is practically an oxymoron. It means a conditioned reality that is not a compound, but no conditioned reality arises alone. So every conditioned reality combines with other conditioned realities. In satipatthana we can distinguish between realities without separating them. Mental image depends on the body. That is the basic nama/rupa distinction. Dependence is a kind of combination and combinations are empty of ultimate reality because they are not ultimate. They are several things at once. Being several dhammas at once, they are empty of being a single dhamma. That is to say, they have no self nature. No self nature is different from not self. "Not self" refers to not lasting, not whole, not solid, not an agent. "No self nature" refers to compounds. "Not self" refers to compounds and ultimate realities. "No self nature" does not encompass ultimate realities. A word has no self nature because it depends on several ultimate realities. A mental image is an ultimate reality but it arises in dependence on other ultimate realities. There is only a slight difference between the two. The "self" of "not self" is a word that refers to a misperception or a wrong belief (ditthi). A compound can also be misperceived or believed to have a self nature. A moment of perception or belief does have a self nature, but is not self. Larry 55650 From: Ken O Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities ashkenn2k Hi Charles > 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. k: Then dreams and imagination will be a reality then :-). > 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. k: No one can attain Nibbana as long as the taints are not eradicated. A single attachment will be a great obstacle to Nibbana. >> > 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. k: In anatta sutta, "Since form is not self, hence it lead to afflictions". Anatta is a characteristics of a paramatha dhamma. Buddha said in all teachings that self is not real but he does not say paramatha dhamma like feelings, perceptions, etc are not real. Cheers Ken O 55651 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:09pm Subject: Re: velocity and effect htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > > > "'an intention formed consciousnessly' is what we though slow. But in > > actual sense they are also cycling. > > > > Lokuttara cittas have effect of cooling." > > > Dear Htoo, > > Thank you. So my intention, say, to sit and watch the in and out > breath until I experience the first level of jhaana would actually > consist of a continuous cycle of cittas accompanied by appropriate > cetasika? Can I will such things into existence through my intention > consciously adopted? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Scott, I just used your term 'cycling'. I did not say 'a continuous cycle'. But it mmay well be a continuous flow of cittas. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55652 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:18pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 670 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, In Dependent Origination (paticca-samuppaada) there are 12 links. There are 3 time lines. There are 20 constituent parts in these 3 time lines. These 20 constituents can be divided into 4 layers. They are 1. past causes (avijja, tanhaa, upadaana, sankhaara, kamma-bhava) 2. present results (vinnaana, namarupa, salayatana, phassa, vedana) 3. present causes (tanha, upadaana, avijjaa, bhavo(kamma), sankhara) 4. future results (vinnaana, namarupa, salayatana, phassa, vedana) There are three boundries. 1. between sankhaara and vinnaana 2. between vedanaa and tanhaa 3. between bhava and jaati There are two roots (muula). They are 1. avijjaa 2. tanhaa May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55653 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:34pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 671 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, In the teachings of The Buddha Dependent Origination is important. So does Four Ariya's Noble Truths. There is relationship between Dependent Origination and Four Ariya's Noble Truths. In the United States there are many academic papers based on Dependent Origination and Four Ariya's Noble Truths. These papers are performed by scholars of Buddhists Study. What is the goal of Buddhists? Nibbana? This is not very direct if nibbana is defined in various ways. There are three nibbanas. They are 1. kilesaa nibbana (extinguishment of fire of defilements) 2. khandhaa nibbana(extinguishment of fire of naama-ruupa dukkha) 3. dhaatu nibbana (extinguishment of all remains) The first one is that exists in arahats. Arahats may be suffering khandhaa-dukkha but they are free of kilesaa-dukkha. The second one is that exists when arahats die at the time of actual death. That is there is no kaamaja ruupa, cittaja ruupa, aharaaja ruupa and no naama after parinibbana. We can say that Buddhists goal is nibbana. The ticket is arahatta magga naana or 'eradicating path knowledge' and this knowledge arises at the time when magga cittas, which are lokuttaraa cittas arise. So the main goal should be arahatta magga naana. To see nibbana through arahatta magga naana there have to pass 4 stages including arahatta magga citta. At all 4 stages nibbana is seen. This mean that 4 ariya's noble truths are seen. This already includes seeing of Dependent Origination. Those who see nibbana also see 4 ariya's noble truths. Those who see 4 ariya's noble truths also see Dependent Origination. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55654 From: "Charles" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > k: Then dreams and imagination will be a reality then :-). I do not know :P If we know they are they really are, then they will be reality, otherwise they are illusion. > k: In anatta sutta, "Since form is not self, hence it lead to > afflictions". Anatta is a characteristics of a paramatha dhamma. > Buddha said in all teachings that self is not real but he does not > say paramatha dhamma like feelings, perceptions, etc are not real. Ken, the body is viewed as atta, so a wise man, the Buddha, taught us that it is not atta. When you see a pool of water in a desert, a wise man will tell you, it 's fake. But when you have come to the pool and see yourself that it is actually sands, would the wise man still telling you that the sands are fake ? 55655 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:36pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Howard ---------- KH: > > . . . the perception of concepts does not enable us to be aware of dhammas. .... Howard: > You're missing my point, Ken. In fact, the only actual phenomena we are aware of are paramattha dhammas, for there are no others than these. Many and varied relations hold among those dhammas, but, as worldlings, there is no direct realization of those relations. We indirectly grasp them by mentally grouping interrelated dhammas as conventional objects. It is solely by means of conceptualization that worldlings grasp relations among dhammas. -------------------------------------- In the ultimately real world taught by the Buddha, interrelationships are between citta, cetasika, base and object. I don't believe the Buddha tells us how, for example, a group of rupas conventionally known as a car interrelates with another group of rupas conventionally known as a road. Or am I still missing your point? This is not an easy matter, but it is an important one. ----------------------------------- KH quoting Jon: > > But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. There is no such correlation. > Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed > out of the experiencing of rupas." ... Howard: > I really don't get your point, Ken. Why don't you pull a knife away from someone by the blade? (I assume you would not.) I believe that you don't do this because you correctly predict, based on what you know about knives, that doing so will result in serious pain and danger. Now, all such conventional stories are a shorthand for experiences of rupas and namas leading to other such experiences. ----------------------------------- Picking up a knife without getting hurt is a part of everyday conventional reality. However, I am studying Abhidhamma in daily life. Therefore, knives, handles, blades and picking-up are all to be known as mere concepts, whereas hardness, feeling, and volition (for example) are to be known as conditioned paramattha dhammas. You say that the interrelationships of dhammas can be learnt or deduced from concepts (e.g., from the way we pick up a knife with or without getting hurt). I can't agree: concepts can be useful by way of analogy - e.g., we can say that panna knows dhammas the way a money lender knows coins; sati, the way a villager knows coins; and citta, the way a child knows coins. But the idea of a knife (or a coin) as being a "mental grouping of interrelated dhammas" doesn't help in any way that I can see. -------------- H: > Ken, concepts are our means to grasp relations, and to predict. Why don't you touch a red-hot stove? Because "Once burned, twice shy." -------------- Again, I don't believe that Dhamma study involves the idea of one group of dhammas (such as a stove) being touched by another group of dhammas (such as a person). In Dhamma study there are no such groups: there are only citta, cetasikas, base and object. Even contact (phassa) is a cetasika. ------------------ KH: > > The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya). So you > cannot confidently trace any experience (e.g., painful physical > contact) to its cause (the volition to pick up a knife by the > blade). That sort of tracing-back belongs purely in conventional > reality. ... Howard: > Oh, Ken! Here you're just engaging in sloganeering! ------------------------------------- Is "The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya)" a slogan, or is it profound Dhamma? I suppose the answer depends on the understanding (or lack thereof) of the person who says it. But it is correct in theory, isn't it? ------------------ H: > Conventional reality isn't a dream world, not all of it. It is a nonliteral representation of the literal. Taking the nonliteral for literal is ignorance. But taking the nonliteral for outright falsity is also error in many, many cases. We do valid tracing back all the time, Ken. And we do valid predicting all the time. If we were unable to do so, we couldn't survive for minute. ------------------------------------ You say that I am taking the non-literal as outright falsity. Have I said that grasping a knife by the blade will NOT cut the fingers? No, but I have said that the specific cause of a specific instance of vipaka is unknowable. We can safely say that care with knives can avoid accidental injury. But we cannot safely say that we have control over the arising or non- arising of painful vedana. The former statement can be made in conventional daily life without any reference to the Buddha's Dhamma, and so it need not involve wrong view. The second, however, is a reference to Dhamma and is a contradiction of it. ------------- Howard: > I think you would do well to seriously consider this matter further. :-) ------------- Well, yes, if you are not tired of the subject I would like to know how "mental groupings of interrelated dhammas" can lead to awareness of dhammas. Ken H 55656 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:51pm Subject: Free Will & the Brain corvus121 Hi all Forgive me for introducing some interesting cognitive science in a Dhamma forum. I know the pitfalls of comparing science and Dhamma and how they have different purposes. But, I can't resist this one ... (-: It comes from comments by SS Obhi and P Haggard in the American Scientist 2004 92:358, discussing work done in 1983 by Benjamin Libet at UCSF. In experiments, Libet's team measured: RP = basically the brain's movement preparation; W = will, subjective judgement; M = subject's judgement of when they actually moved. They found that RP preceded W by 300 to 500 milliseconds. In other words, the brain prepared for movement *before* the person consciously decided to move. This was a surprise to the experimenters because it seemed to contradict prevailing notions of "free will". I have said before on this list that I do not believe that cetana is the all-powerful king many hold it to be. Hence this science note caught my eye (I probably jumped over those that didn't fit my ideas!!). Nonetheless, I find it useful to reflect on how underlying accumulated tendencies play a big conditioning role in actions. Best wishes Andrew T 55657 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:12am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 672 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dependent Origination is one of core teachings in Buddhism. D.O is quite unique that the teaching of D.O cannot be found in any other religions except Buddhism. Once I had been constantly attacked by a person who is from other religion. He just tried to explain me the power of God and many things. I just smiled. He was just machinegunning me. But I shot him back with a revolver. The machinegunning stopped. My single shot was D.O. But I do not think he took D.O. Instead he stop educating me with God idea. D.O is very important and it occurs many time in script in different forms. But the core dhamma is as I explained before paramattha dhamma and they relate each other. There are two ways of explanation on these relationship. One is D.O or paticca-samuppaada and another is patthaana dhamma. D.O seems a bit linear while patthaana dhamma is much much more complex and complicated. That is why The Buddha Himself put consideration or contemplation on patthaana only after He became a Sammaasambuddha. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55658 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:28am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 673 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dhamma Thread have reached at number 673. Dhamma Thread starts with very very simple things and always encourage to raise any queries whenever there arise problems. Different Groups have different rules but I think my posts may fit for these five groups of dhammastudygroup, dhamma-list, triplegem, JourneyToNibbana and AahaaraDhammaUniversity. The most simple archive can be found at AahaaraDhammaUniversity Group. That is from Dhamma Thread 001 to 673. It starts with where are we and then dips into realities. Realities or paramattha dhamma are each explained thoroughly. In loka or in the world there are just naama and ruupa. Among these naama and ruupa, naama is the main and chief dhamma as it can lead everything. Cittas are explained with many different methods and cittas are classified into many different ways. When cittas are at least digested there arises base foundation of Dhamma in the readers' mind. Citta is the most important when we study Dhamma. Now Dhamma Thread reach conditional relationship in Dhamma. The first way to explain is D.O and so far D.O have explained to some extent. Patthaana Dhamma have also been explained at the web site ' www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana.html '. There are 107 web- pages. Page 108 has not been worked out. What is left is kamma.t.thaana. This is the most practical. Some group like practical rather than scholarstic discussion. But practical cannot be passed on in theoretical way that is through reading of scripture. But will try to be able to clearly follow. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55659 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:33am Subject: Re: Free Will & the Brain htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi all > > Forgive me for introducing some interesting cognitive science in a > Dhamma forum. I know the pitfalls of comparing science and Dhamma > and how they have different purposes. But, I can't resist this > one ... (-: > > It comes from comments by SS Obhi and P Haggard in the American > Scientist 2004 92:358, discussing work done in 1983 by Benjamin Libet > at UCSF. In experiments, Libet's team measured: > RP = basically the brain's movement preparation; > W = will, subjective judgement; > M = subject's judgement of when they actually moved. > > They found that RP preceded W by 300 to 500 milliseconds. > > In other words, the brain prepared for movement *before* the person > consciously decided to move. This was a surprise to the > experimenters because it seemed to contradict prevailing notions > of "free will". > > I have said before on this list that I do not believe that cetana is > the all-powerful king many hold it to be. Hence this science note > caught my eye (I probably jumped over those that didn't fit my > ideas!!). Nonetheless, I find it useful to reflect on how underlying > accumulated tendencies play a big conditioning role in actions. > > Best wishes > Andrew T --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Andrew T, Thanks for bringing up this message. Interesting. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55660 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:41am Subject: Re: velocity and effect rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Hello All, > > I've enjoyed the threads I've been able to read lately. I have a > question, but find it hard to word properly. Citta arises and falls > away with a rapidity that defies perception (I surmise). With such a > speed, and such a marvelous lack of control over this arising and > falling away, I wonder about the dynamics of the effects of things > that "I" express a will to undergo. I refer to practise in > particular, I guess. How does an intention formed consciously and at > such an obviously slow speed effect the flow of citta cycling away > rapidly? Or, conversely, how does the effect of citta manifest, for > example lokuttara citta? > _____________ Dear Scott, all cittas arise and pass away rapidly as you say. Because of delusion it might seem that citta or vedana can last for split seconds- but actually they are gone even before they are known. However, panna is also a momentary reality that arises and passes away exactly as rapidly as citta. So panna can arise momentarily and know, do some degree, the nature of its object. Impossible for anyone to control this a) because there is no one. b) all happening far too quickly. Knowing this there will be detachment from trying to get something, letting go will happen naturally, and panna can then work its subtle ways. If there is not detachment then there is lobha (attachment) and this is combined with avijja (ignorance ) that is already so powerful. The wrong path becomes dominant and it may cut- off the right path completely. These days Buddhists find this hard to understand, so there is much emphasis on trying to control and putting in effort. But without real understanding effort is counterproductive and is an aspect of wrong path. The pali term patipatti is often translated as Practice(in contrast to pariyatti, theory) and is taken to mean something one does. But genuine patipatti is momentary insight, it is not a matter of where or what one is doing, it is a mental phenomena. Robert 55661 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:44am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 674 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dependent origination seems showing up linear relationship. Let us see it again. Avijjaa paccayaa sa`nkhaara. There are two dhamma; one is avijjaa or ignorance and another is sa`nkhaara or formation. Dhamma is so clear. But understanding might be different from person to person depending on their accumulation of perfection, perception, wisdom etc etc. It is so clear when Dhamma says 'avijjaa paccayaa sa`nkhaara'. The problems start at the outset that it is translation, interpretation, understanding that make the already existing scriptures more and more active. Depending on us who are on this earth and being active just before we die the actual usefulness of scripture will play its roles. Avijjaa. What is avijjaa? Sa`nkhaara. What is sa`nkhaara? Paccayaa. What is paccayaa? 'Avijjaa paccayaa sa`nkhaaraa'. What exactly that means? Do we really need to know each piece of scripture rather than overall understanding on Dhamma and applying to our real life. Avijjaa has been explained in many different ways. Sa`nkhaara also has been explained in many ways. Here D.O just reveals that 'avijjaa' or 'ignorance' is related to 'sa`nkhaara' or 'formation'. This is linear. Avijjaa goes to sankhaara. If avijjaa stops then sankhaara stops. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55662 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] How can we say "there are few, if any, like that today" etc? jonoabb Hi Phil Good to hear from you. Your questions came up in the discussions in Bangkok (mostly brought up by Nina). Will try to give a brief report shortly. Phil wrote: > Hi Jon, Pablo and all > > Jon > The references in the texts to monks who have gone to the root >of a > > >>tree, have established mindfulness to the fore, and then undertake >>mindfulness of breathing are references to monks who have already >>developed samatha and vipassana to a high degree. I do not believe >>there are many, if any, people who fall within this description today. >> > > > Ph: I hear this a lot, and feel that it is true. And I really think >it's important for people to realize that we are where we are and the >bhikkhus who sat at the roots of trees in the Buddha's day were where >they were. But what is the scriptural support for saying this? (I think >Rob K posted a sutta that gets at it somehow, but I can't remember.) > It is all to do with the decline of the sasana over the years, beginning from the death of the Buddha; but I don't have the sutta references to hand. > I know the sutta (in Sn 35 but don't have it here) that made me feel >it most deeply (but which didn't prove anything) is one where the >Buddha helps to open a new holy building of some kind. He comes in and >sits, and his bhikkhus come and sit behind him, and then the bhikkhus >he will address come and sit in front of him. When I reflected on it it >struck me deeply how very far we are from those bhikkhus who sat facing >the Buddha and heard him talk. > I don't think anyone would argue with the proposition that receiving a teaching from the Buddha's own lips was kusala vipaka of the highest kind, and that large numbers of those who did then attained enlightenment. Jon 55663 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >Hi Jon, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott ..> wrote: > > >>What is the distinction you see between rupa of the 28 rupas and rupa of nama-rupa? To my understanding, rupa in both instances refers to dhammas, not concepts. >> > >To me, it sorts of like, both a plastic and a collection of H-C-O >atoms refer to the same thing, but we do not think or said like "I >use a collection of H-C-O atoms to eat", instead we said "I use a >plastic spoon to eat". > I agree with what you say here, but I'm having trouble seeing how this analogy explains why 'rupa' has a different meaning in each of the 2 cases you mention -- rupa of the 28 rupas and rupa of nama-rupa -- in your view. >>(Do you have a specific sutta reference in mind? I'd be happy to discuss.) >> >Maybe this one: > >"Again the bhikkhu abides reflecting this body as elements in >whatever posture it is. There are in this body, the elements, earth, >water, fire and air.Just as a clever butcher or his apprenticewould >be seated in a hut at the four cross roads with a killed cow >dissecting it into small bits. In the same manner, in this body, >there are the elements earth, water, fire and air.When he abides >diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his >mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in >this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developped" > >[Kayagatasati Sutta] > Many thanks for the sutta reference. It is an important one. I think you read this sutta as recommending a 'practice' of 'seeing' the body as just elements. But is that what the sutta actually says? To me, the passage 'the bhikkhu abides reflecting this body as elements' refers to a bhikkhu whose understanding has been developed to that stage. >>In general terms, I do not understand the Buddha to be laying down a 'practice' of 'seeing' the body as the 4 elements or whatever. To try to do that would be getting ahead of oneself. >> >Then what would be your interpretation about the practice of >catudhatuvavatthana above ? > > I do not see any words specifying a 'practice' or a technique of some kind for developing understanding.. >>Again, I am interested in your use of 'real' and 'not-real'. Can you point to parallel passages from the suttas? >> >My definition would be, >real = things with sabhava >unreal = anything else > OK, fair enough. So when you say rupas are 'real' you mean they are dhammas, and when you say something is 'not real' you mean it is not a dhamma. Is there any other significance in the word 'real' as you use it? And by 'sabhava', I take it you mean 'own characteristic'? >About passages from the suttas, I think the whole abhidhamma itself >points to real things, ie 89 cittas, 52 citasikas, 28 rupa, and >nibbana, other things than these are unreal, am I correct ? > To my understanding, yes, the Abhidhamma explains that 'dhamma' includes 89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas and Nibbana. It explains in addition the relations holding between different dhammas (paccaya, paticca-samuppada) and the various niyama ('laws') that operate. The Abhidhamma also explains what is meant by concepts. Is this how you see it too? Jon 55664 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry Larry wrote: >Hi Jon, > >I think we have misread one sentence in CMA: "The kasina signs are called >nimittapa~n~natti, sign concepts, since they correspond to mental signs gained by >meditative development." > >In other words, "earth kasina" refers to a particular kind of mental sign. A mental sign is >not a word, but a word refers to a mental sign. Mental signs are mental images. Mental >images are not words but words can refer to mental images and often depend on mental >images for their meaning. > Well the 'mental sign gained by meditative development' is a special case, so let's put that aside for the moment. When we have a mental image of, say, the features of someone we know well, or a place we visited recently, is that mental image not a concept? Jon 55665 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities jonoabb Hi Ken O Nice to see you again ;-)) Ken O wrote: >Hi Charles > > >>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. >> > >k: Then dreams and imagination will be a reality then :-). > Well it depends what is meant by 'considered'. I took Charles to mean 'wrongly considered' (to be a reality) >>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. >> > >k: In anatta sutta, "Since form is not self, hence it lead to >afflictions". Anatta is a characteristics of a paramatha dhamma. >Buddha said in all teachings that self is not real but he does not >say paramatha dhamma like feelings, perceptions, etc are not real. > Thanks for the sutta quote. As you say, all dhammas are not-self, but this does not mean they are 'not real'. One of the meanings of 'dhamma' is 'reality'. Jon 55666 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] velocity and effect jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >Hello All, > >I've enjoyed the threads I've been able to read lately. I have a >question, but find it hard to word properly. Citta arises and falls >away with a rapidity that defies perception (I surmise). With such a >speed, and such a marvelous lack of control over this arising and >falling away, I wonder about the dynamics of the effects of things >that "I" express a will to undergo. I refer to practise in >particular, I guess. How does an intention formed consciously and at >such an obviously slow speed effect the flow of citta cycling away >rapidly? Or, conversely, how does the effect of citta manifest, for >example lokuttara citta? > An 'intention formed consciously', like a decision consciously made, is really only a brief moment or brief moments of mental activity. In the following moments the intention/decision may not be there, or may be replaced by a different one (because thinking moments are conditioned). So it's not something to be given a great deal of importance, in my understanding of the teachings. Much more important is the knowledge and understanding on which any intention or decision is based. This means that for example an understanding of what dhammas are, what awareness is, and the importance of seeing dhammas as they truly are is more important than any determination to develop more awareness or to 'practice' in some particular way. Hope this makes sense. Jon 55667 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:11am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard and KenH Just a general comment on this thread, which I've been following with interest. I think you are both saying the same thing, but with a slightly different emphasis (and missing the point of the other ;-)) A concept that is 'validly predictive' is simply a concept that true in the conventional sense. But in terms of paramattha dhammas, it is no less a concept (or, better, no more a dhamma) than one that is not 'validly predictive'. Jon upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Ken - > >In a message dated 2/10/06 11:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, >kenhowa@... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, >> >>-------------------------- >>H: > There is, in fact, no knife, yet there is more to say than this >>and that it is conventionally real. The perceiving(conceiving)-of-the- >>knife is a validly predictive mental process. >>-------------------------- >> >>Yes, I suppose it is, but predictive of what? Predictive of other >>concepts, I would say. >> >>------------------- >>H: >It enables us to not only be aware of rupas and relationships >>among them, >>------------------- >> >>Hold on, Howard, this involves a major (perhaps the major) point of >>contention on DSG and yet you drop it into the conversation as if it >>were a forgone conclusion. :-) I, for one, strongly believe that the >>perception of concepts does not enable us to be aware of dhammas. >> >> >... > > 55668 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:11am Subject: eCard from Thailand jonoabb Hi All The talks in Bangkok during last week (Saturday to Wednesday) were interesting as usual. Some of the topics covered were: nimitta, upadana khandhas, internal rupas, energy as a reality, Phil's questions, the social aspect (Joop's question), breaking down of person into nama and rupa, suicide, and various points from the Vism thread. RobK, Sukin and Matt (Ivan) may like to come in with their impressions/comments. I will try to give some detail of some of the topics in a separate post. Nina and Lodewijk are now in Cambodia, and RobK has returned to Japan. Sarah and I (and Sarah's Mum) are in Koh Samui for a few days. Jon 55669 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] velocity and effect scottduncan2 Dear Jonathan, Thank you very much for your response. "An 'intention formed consciously', like a decision consciously made, is really only a brief moment or brief moments of mental activity. In the following moments the intention/decision may not be there, or may be replaced by a different one (because thinking moments are conditioned)." It strikes me now, given the above, that I'd be better off realising that when I think I've formed an intention consciously that I've actually got it backwards: My experience of citta arising with appropriate cetasikas, an arising unbidden and totally beyond control, leaves me with the deluded sense that "I" have come up with this intention. I should learn instead, perhaps, to recognise a sense that I want to form intent to do something as being a signal that, long ago already in "citta-time," this has already arisen. "So it's not something to be given a great deal of importance, in my understanding of the teachings. Much more important is the knowledge and understanding on which any intention or decision is based." With this knowledge - that is that my so-called "conscious intention" is conditioned, undbidden, and uncontrolled by "me" - a focus can be on what to do about it, how to be. As you state below (if I am following): "This means that for example an understanding of what dhammas are, what awareness is, and the importance of seeing dhammas as they truly are is more important than any determination to develop more awareness or to 'practice' in some particular way." The awareness can guide "practise" but practise is not able to "guide" awareness; not able to control or direct anything "from above" as it were. "Hope this makes sense." Do I seem to be making sense of your instruction? Sincerely, Scott. > > Jon > 55670 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:15pm Subject: How to be a Real Buddhist on Observance Day ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to be a Real True Buddhist through Observance? Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees and head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms in front of the heart, one recite these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children(!), since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! This is the very start on the path towards Nibbana -the Deathless Element- This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality, developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training Meditation... Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby" signed with name, date, town & country to me. I have put up a public list of this newly born Saddhamma-Sangha here! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm May your journey hereby be eased, light, swift and sweet. Never give up !!! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on Uposatha Observance or Poya Offering Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/uposatha2006.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/kariyawasam/wheel402.html#ch3 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 !!! <.....> 55671 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] velocity and effect jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: >Dear Jonathan, > >Thank you very much for your response. > >"An 'intention formed consciously', like a decision consciously made, >is really only a brief moment or brief moments of mental activity. In >the following moments the intention/decision may not be there, or may >be replaced by a different one (because thinking moments are >conditioned)." > >It strikes me now, given the above, that I'd be better off realising >that when I think I've formed an intention consciously that I've >actually got it backwards: My experience of citta arising with >appropriate cetasikas, an arising unbidden and totally beyond control, >leaves me with the deluded sense that "I" have come up with this >intention. I should learn instead, perhaps, to recognise a sense that >I want to form intent to do something as being a signal that, long ago >already in "citta-time," this has already arisen. > > The knowing of dhammas as they truly are is the name of the game. Yes, we inevitably have a 'story' about what is going on, about the why's and wherefore's of things, but this story (whether a correct view or not) is not the same as direct awareness. > "So it's not something to be given a great deal of importance, in my >understanding of the teachings. Much more important is the knowledge >and understanding on which any intention or decision is based." > >With this knowledge - that is that my so-called "conscious intention" >is conditioned, undbidden, and uncontrolled by "me" - a focus can be >on what to do about it, how to be. > There's nothing to be done about what has already arisen! ;-)) >As you state below (if I am >following): > >"This means that for example an understanding of what dhammas are, >what awareness is, and the importance of seeing dhammas as they truly >are is more important than any determination to develop more awareness >or to 'practice' in some particular way." > >The awareness can guide "practise" but practise is not able to "guide" >awareness; not able to control or direct anything "from above" as it were. > > That's one way of putting it. Personally, I do not find it helpful to think in terms of a 'practice', as it seems to necessarily involve an idea of doing something about already arisen dhammas > "Hope this makes sense." > >Do I seem to be making sense of your instruction? > > Yes, I find your comments to be very appropriate. Jon 55672 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:26am Subject: Re: velocity and effect scottduncan2 Dear Robert, Thank you very much for your kind response. I appreciate and benefit from the time you take. "All cittas arise and pass away rapidly as you say. Because of delusion it might seem that citta or vedana can last for split seconds- but actually they are gone even before they are known. However, panna is also a momentary reality that arises and passes away exactly as rapidly as citta. So panna can arise momentarily and know, do some degree, the nature of its object. Impossible for anyone to control this a) because there is no one. b) all happening far too quickly. Knowing this there will be detachment from trying to get something, letting go will happen naturally, and panna can then work its subtle ways. If there is not detachment then there is lobha (attachment) and this is combined with avijja (ignorance ) that is already so powerful. The wrong path becomes dominant and it may cut- off the right path completely." Jonathan was expressing similar thoughts (the consistency of which greatly reduces confusion). I see where "viveka" is defined (PTS PED) as "detachment" and includes the dual sense of "singleness of heart" and "discrimination of thought." Would viveka reflect what you mean by "detachment?" Perhaps this would also include citta rooted in alobha (or perhaps this is more like what you mean). That notwithstanding, "one" simply puts oneself "in the way" of things, lets go, and maybe waits. I suppose there is reponding to what one notices. It is hard to let go of a belief in one's capacity to direct one's spiritual life, as you note below. "These days Buddhists find this hard to understand, so there is much emphasis on trying to control and putting in effort. But without real understanding effort is counterproductive and is an aspect of wrong path." I read where "samma-padhaana", the four right efforts, include the verbs "avoid," "overcome," "develop," and "maintain." The right aspect is well expounded in A.IV.13 and 14. Forced effort or directed effort or effort consciously designed and directed to a specific end is wrong. Again, doing it "right" is hard to do. "The pali term patipatti is often translated as Practice(in contrast to pariyatti, theory) and is taken to mean something one does. But genuine patipatti is momentary insight, it is not a matter of where or what one is doing, it is a mental phenomena." I see what you mean by "genuine patipati." Nyanatiloka defines it as "practise" or "pursuance of the teaching," giving the standard definition. The PTS PED gives patipati to refer to "order" and "succession," or "successively," "in succession," "along side of," and "in order." This suggests the more precise sense which you note; the nature of arising and passing away is most clearly meant. Sincerely, Scott. 55673 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Larry > > Larry wrote: > > >Hi Jon, > > > >I think we have misread one sentence in CMA: "The kasina signs are called > >nimittapa~n~natti, sign concepts, since they correspond to mental signs gained by > >meditative development." > > > >In other words, "earth kasina" refers to a particular kind of mental sign. A mental sign is > >not a word, but a word refers to a mental sign. Mental signs are mental images. Mental > >images are not words but words can refer to mental images and often depend on mental > >images for their meaning. > > > > Well the 'mental sign gained by meditative development' is a special > case, so let's put that aside for the moment. > > When we have a mental image of, say, the features of someone we know > well, or a place we visited recently, is that mental image not a concept? > > Jon > Hi Jon, According to CMA pa~n~natti are only words. Larry 55674 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:55am Subject: Re: velocity and effect rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: >> > I read where "samma-padhaana", the four right efforts, include the > verbs "avoid," "overcome," "develop," and "maintain." The right > aspect is well expounded in A.IV.13 and 14. Forced effort or directed > effort or effort consciously designed and directed to a specific end > is wrong. Again, doing it "right" is hard to do. ++++++++ Dear scott, very hard because usually there is 'me' doing it> You have the right approach learning about the nature of right effort: i.e. effort without tanha (desire) and with alobha, detachment. _______ > > "The pali term patipatti is often translated as Practice(in contrast > to pariyatti, theory) and is taken to mean something one does. But > genuine patipatti is momentary insight, it is not a matter of where > or what one is doing, it is a mental phenomena." > > I see what you mean by "genuine patipati." Nyanatiloka defines it as > "practise" or "pursuance of the teaching," giving the standard > definition. The PTS PED gives patipati to refer to "order" and > "succession," or "successively," "in succession," "along side of," and > "in order." This suggests the more precise sense which you note; the > nature of arising and passing away is most clearly meant. > > +++++ When I was in bangkok last week, A. Sujin gave a precise explanation of the pali. I forget how it went now:) Maybe Jon remembers. Robert 55675 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:54am Subject: Re: eCard from Thailand philofillet Hi Jon > The talks in Bangkok during last week (Saturday to Wednesday) were > interesting as usual. If I'm not mistaken, there are more talks coming up this coming week. If there is time - and only if there is time - I thought I'd ask about something I came across in Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, something I hadn't come across before. "When sati is aware of the characteristics of realities that appear as they really are, this is the Path; it is dispersion (apacayagamin) because then one does not build-up dhammas that lead to accumulations, just as when a man tears down the bricks that the bricklayer has piled up." I hadn't come across this apacayagaamin (dispersion) before and wondered if it was akin to the "hole in the roof of lobha" simile that Acharn Sujin used in one memorable talk. Since she has never brought it up in talks that I've heard, I assume that it is one of those details that we had best not ponder with too much interest. But perhaps if there is time during next week's talks you could read out the above passage and we'll see if it is something Acharn Sujin thinks is worth talking about. Again, only if there's time. Hi to everyone. Phil 55676 From: Ken O Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and realities ashkenn2k Hi Charles > I do not know :P If we know they are they really are, then they > will be reality, otherwise they are illusion. k: Remember you said that "When this something is thought to be existing, it is considered a reality." We experience dreams and imagination but they are not reality. I prefer ultimate reality as in Abhidhamma term. > Ken, the body is viewed as atta, so a wise man, the Buddha, taught > us that it is not atta. > When you see a pool of water in a desert, a wise man will tell you, > it 's fake. But when you have come to the pool and see yourself that it is actually sands, would the wise man still telling you that the sands are fake ? k: Because the wise man does not know that the sand is also fake, so wise man is not Buddha. Hardnes and visible object of the sand are real but not sand as sand is a concept. Anatta is a characteristics of paramatha dhamma. We must not imply that just being anatta is nilistic view. If I used your logic as in your previous mail, panna should also be nilistic as it is also not self, then what is the point of developing panna in the first place := ). We are saying emptines meant empty of a self and not empty of a existence. All paramatha dhamma exist, just like feelings are universal to all beings but TV which is a concept is not universal. Concepts is a development of logic thinking or a collection of preceptions but it is not a reality, it is a dream or a mirage. Cheers Ken O 55677 From: "herbie" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava ashkenn2k Hi Larry mental signs do not meant that they are paramattha dhamma, because a mental image is derived from preception but it is not preception itself as preception served as remembrance as well as marking of an mental or a sense object. Hence dont equate mental image as paramatha as mental image is an object of a citta. Also dont equate a mental image as visible object as visible object are rupas :-) Ken O 55678 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:39am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/12/06 1:37:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard > > ---------- > KH: >>. . . the perception of concepts does not enable us to be > aware of dhammas. > .... > Howard: >You're missing my point, Ken. In fact, the only actual > phenomena we are aware of are paramattha dhammas, for there are no > others than these. Many and varied relations hold among those > dhammas, but, as worldlings, there is no direct realization of those > relations. We indirectly grasp them by mentally grouping interrelated > dhammas as conventional objects. It is solely by means of > conceptualization that worldlings grasp relations among dhammas. > -------------------------------------- > > In the ultimately real world taught by the Buddha, interrelationships > are between citta, cetasika, base and object. I don't believe the > Buddha tells us how, for example, a group of rupas conventionally > known as a car interrelates with another group of rupas > conventionally known as a road. > > Or am I still missing your point? This is not an easy matter, but it > is an important one. ------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha doesn't talk about the relationship between concepts and paramattha dhammas (in the suttas). He does deal in concepts all the time, as for example in all his teaching on impermanence, birth & death, realms of experience, suffering in all its aspects, self & not-self, dependent origination, and a million other matters. He doesn't seem to discuss why we are able to conceptualize, what it does for us, and what its relationship to reality is, and I suspect that this issue lies in a pile of leaves somewhere in the Simsapa Forest, and not in his hand. I was giving my own opinion on this issue, that conceptualization is our means of getting an experiential handle on relations. ------------------------------------------ > > ----------------------------------- > KH quoting Jon: >>But the body does not 'break down' into rupas. > There is no such correlation. > >Rather, the situation is that the concept of 'body' is constructed > >out of the experiencing of rupas." > ... > Howard: >I really don't get your point, Ken. Why don't you pull a > knife away from someone by the blade? (I assume you would not.) I > believe that you don't do this because you correctly predict, based > on what you know about knives, that doing so will result in serious > pain and danger. Now, all such conventional stories are a shorthand > for experiences of rupas and namas leading to other such experiences. > ----------------------------------- > > Picking up a knife without getting hurt is a part of everyday > conventional reality. However, I am studying Abhidhamma in daily > life. Therefore, knives, handles, blades and picking-up are all to > be known as mere concepts, whereas hardness, feeling, and volition > (for example) are to be known as conditioned paramattha dhammas. -------------------------------------- Howard: Geez, Ken! I KNOW they are to be known as mere concepts! Thet ARE mere concepts. But they DO provide us with information about what we will experience. And, Ken, you KNOW that they do! It's really just plain silly to act otherwise. ------------------------------------- > > You say that the interrelationships of dhammas can be learnt or > deduced from concepts (e.g., from the way we pick up a knife with or > without getting hurt). I can't agree: concepts can be useful by way > of analogy - e.g., we can say that panna knows dhammas the way a > money lender knows coins; sati, the way a villager knows coins; and > citta, the way a child knows coins. But the idea of a knife (or a > coin) as being a "mental grouping of interrelated dhammas" doesn't > help in any way that I can see. --------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, huh. --------------------------------------- > > -------------- > H: >Ken, concepts are our means to grasp relations, and to predict. > Why don't you touch a red-hot stove? Because "Once burned, twice shy." > -------------- > > Again, I don't believe that Dhamma study involves the idea of one > group of dhammas (such as a stove) being touched by another group of > dhammas (such as a person). > ----------------------------------------- Howard: And I didn't say that it did. --------------------------------------- In Dhamma study there are no such > > groups: there are only citta, cetasikas, base and object. Even > contact (phassa) is a cetasika. --------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha gave his teachings to various groups of bhikkhus and upasikas across the land for 45 years, as reported in the Sutta Pitaka, and he never spoke thusly. He spoke about the khandhas and the dhatus, of course, and he also spoke unendingly about conventional matters, more about them than anything else. When I study the suttas, if I were to ignore everything other than what you say is part of Dhamma study, I would just have to put the suttas away. Ken, when you say "Dhamma study" you mean "Abhidhamma Study," and it seems to me that you are an Abhidhammist, an adherent of a new religion that has grown out of Buddhism. ---------------------------------------- > > ------------------ > KH: >>The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya). > So you > >cannot confidently trace any experience (e.g., painful physical > >contact) to its cause (the volition to pick up a knife by the > >blade). That sort of tracing-back belongs purely in conventional > >reality. > ... > Howard: >Oh, Ken! Here you're just engaging in sloganeering! > ------------------------------------- > > Is "The workings of kamma and vipaka are unknowable (acinteyya)" a > slogan, or is it profound Dhamma? I suppose the answer depends on > the understanding (or lack thereof) of the person who says it. But it > is correct in theory, isn't it? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Of course the workings of kamma and vipaka are incredibly complex and impossible to unwind in detail. That does NOT imply, however, that we never see the results of volition and other conditions, and that we can never see what led to what. Of *course* we can! We do all the time. And of course you know this! Ken, you're being obstinately doctrinnaire, for what purpose I can't fathom. --------------------------------------- > > ------------------ > H: >Conventional reality isn't a dream world, not all of it. It is a > nonliteral representation of the literal. Taking the nonliteral for > literal is ignorance. But taking the nonliteral for outright falsity > is also error in many, many cases. > We do valid tracing back all the time, Ken. And we do valid > predicting all the time. If we were unable to do so, we couldn't > survive for minute. > ------------------------------------ > > You say that I am taking the non-literal as outright falsity. Have I > said that grasping a knife by the blade will NOT cut the fingers? No, > but I have said that the specific cause of a specific instance of > vipaka is unknowable. > > We can safely say that care with knives can avoid accidental injury. > But we cannot safely say that we have control over the arising or non- > arising of painful vedana. The former statement can be made in > conventional daily life without any reference to the Buddha's Dhamma, > and so it need not involve wrong view. The second, however, is a > reference to Dhamma and is a contradiction of it. ------------------------------------ Howard: Ken, is your aim just to win debates? I don't get what you are after here. Who was talking about controlling vedana? But it is interesting that you bring that up. It happens that when a knife blade is *not* pulled across my hand, a painful sensation has been avoided. Do you say "no" to that? ----------------------------------- > > ------------- > Howard: >I think you would do well to seriously consider this matter > further. > :-) > ------------- > > Well, yes, if you are not tired of the subject I would like to know > how "mental groupings of interrelated dhammas" can lead to awareness > of dhammas. -------------------------------------- Howard: How many examples do I have to give? The bottom line is the following, Ken: Whenever we speak *truly* about conventional objects, that is because what we are saying reflects truths about the underlying realities. If that were not so, then conventional truth would be groundless and wouldn't be truth at all. --------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > =================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 55679 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: velocity and effect upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 2/12/06 5:41:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > These days Buddhists find this hard to understand, so there is much > emphasis on trying to control and putting in effort. ==================== About 4500 years ago, the Buddha put much emphasis on effort as well. It isn't just a modern phenomenon. 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) 55680 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:58am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/12/06 7:12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard and KenH > > Just a general comment on this thread, which I've been following with > interest. > > I think you are both saying the same thing, but with a slightly > different emphasis (and missing the point of the other ;-)) ------------------------------------ Howard: I'm not so sure! ----------------------------------- > > A concept that is 'validly predictive' is simply a concept that true in > the conventional sense. But in terms of paramattha dhammas, it is no > less a concept (or, better, no more a dhamma) than one that is not > 'validly predictive'. ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't disagree with that. The question remains, however, as to what it means to be "true in the conventional sense". I take it to mean that it is not literally true, but there is an underlying, probably too-complex-to-express, literal truth. --------------------------------------- > > 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) 55681 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/12/06 9:49:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Jon, > > According to CMA pa~n~natti are only words. > > Larry > ========================= Now, of course, words are abstractions. They are certainly not paramattha dhammas. So they must be pa~n~natti. So, now we have that pa~n~natti are only words, and words are only pa~n~natti, and we get the grand and deep (LOL!) conclusion that pa~n~natti are only pa~n~natti! Larry, this all isn't really saying very much, is 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) 55682 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:49am Subject: Re: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > k: Remember you said that "When this something is thought to be > existing, it is considered a reality." We experience dreams and > imagination but they are not reality. I prefer ultimate reality as > in Abhidhamma term. Currently I am blank on this :D > k: Because the wise man does not know that the sand is also fake, so > wise man is not Buddha. Hardnes and visible object of the sand are > real but not sand as sand is a concept. That's an analogy, I do not mean to be that level of deep considering sands as anatta :P > Anatta is a characteristics > of paramatha dhamma. We must not imply that just being anatta is > nilistic view. If I used your logic as in your previous mail, panna > should also be nilistic as it is also not self, then what is the > point of developing panna in the first place := ). What is self to you, then :? An eternal entity like soul? It is the same concept as atman then. I take atta as no different with the thing itself, ie the atta of a house is what makes up a house. Being is anatta, what does it mean ? 1. it is empty of an eternal entity named atta 2. it is not real, because beings are composed of paramattha dhamas I take the definition of anatta as no.2 If I bring that 2nd definition to paramattha dhamma, to me it is denying the existence of paramattha dhamma. But if you take anatta as different thing, then we are really aliens trying to communicate :D And if you doubt the 2nd definition of anatta, you can read sammaditthi dipani by ven ledi sayadaw (http://buddhistinformation.com /sammaditthi_dipani.htm) at least to be evaluated. About the panna question, you know it is irrelevant question. It's like asking, there is no doer, so who's doing the kamma? There's no who, so who's who? > We are saying > emptines meant empty of a self and not empty of a existence. All > paramatha dhamma exist, just like feelings are universal to all > beings but TV which is a concept is not universal. Concepts is a > development of logic thinking or a collection of preceptions but it > is not a reality, it is a dream or a mirage. But beings take concepts as reality, and from it comes attachment. That's the problem in my mind. That's why concepts are anatta, they are empty of what makes theirselves (here I'm taking atta as what makes a thing itself). But as about reality, there is nothing that should be fixed, there are just theirselves. So Ken, how you define anatta, is defined on how you define atta. Like I write above, I take atta as what makes up a thing. In case of a being, it is the khandhas that are called the atta of a being. But as the khandas are not real because they are actually different things creating formations, so the khandas cannot be the atta of a being, in other words, the being itself cannot be. The way to realize this is by seeing the paramattha dhammas that makes up the khandhas. So I would be interested in knowing about how do you define atta itself ? Then it would be clear on what do you mean by anatta. 55683 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I agree with what you say here, but I'm having trouble seeing how this > analogy explains why 'rupa' has a different meaning in each of the 2 > cases you mention -- rupa of the 28 rupas and rupa of nama-rupa -- in > your view. Isn't rupa in nama-rupa means the body, and the body is a formation or collection of the 4 maha bhuta rupas, color, taste, etc? The rupa in nama-rupa is a concept, but beings take it as real. So they can say this body is I, it is mine. But the rupa in the 28 rupa is real, a pity beings do not see it. By the power of previous kamma, the khandhas appear in this life. By the existence of nama, rupa, and avijja, there arise atta-ditthi, i. e. that arising nama-rupa called a being create a view that this nama- rupa is I, this nama-rupa is mine. By this view, comes other wrong view, comes attachment, comes the desire for existence (rupa-upadana, arupa-upadana), comes the desire for sensual pleasure (kamma-upadana). But by knowing the Dhamma of the Buddha, that nama-rupa called a being is able to see through the reality about the nama-rupa itself. It is able to discern the realities that make up the nama-rupa (i.e. the paramattha dhammas). By discerning the reality of nama-rupa, the concept of nama-rupa disapper. When nama-rupa disappear, the concept of a being disappear. On this level, there is nothing that can be said. I cannot call it nama-rupa or a being again. At this point, it is only paramattha dhammas. Any kamma produces by this paramattha dhamma is unresultant. No more becoming will be in the future. This is how I define atta, or anatta, or the way to release oneself from sankhara, I believe. > I think you read this sutta as recommending a 'practice' of 'seeing ' the > body as just elements. But is that what the sutta actually says? To > me, the passage 'the bhikkhu abides reflecting this body as elements ' > refers to a bhikkhu whose understanding has been developed to that stage. Oh, I was thinking about the explanation in the visuddhi magga on this practice. Did you remember the text, the practice is to see each 32 parts of this body, as hardness, fluidity, heat, and movement. > I do not see any words specifying a 'practice' or a technique of some > kind for developing understanding.. Well back again to my statement above, the recollection of the four main elements in the visuddhi magga explains it all. > OK, fair enough. So when you say rupas are 'real' you mean they are > dhammas, and when you say something is 'not real' you mean it is not a > dhamma. Is there any other significance in the word 'real' as you use it? To be more precisely, real is the paramattha dhammas, unreal is the other things :D > And by 'sabhava', I take it you mean 'own characteristic'? Maybe it is better called "determining characteristic" since nothing owns the characteristic :D > To my understanding, yes, the Abhidhamma explains that 'dhamma' includes > 89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas and Nibbana. It explains in addition > the relations holding between different dhammas (paccaya, > paticca-samuppada) and the various niyama ('laws') that operate. The > Abhidhamma also explains what is meant by concepts. As far as I can remember, abhidhamma books (excluding puggala pannati and katha vatthu) do not talk about concepts, only realities, do they :? 55684 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 2/12/06 9:49:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... > writes: > > > Hi Jon, > > > > According to CMA pa~n~natti are only words. > > > > Larry > > > ========================= > Now, of course, words are abstractions. They are certainly not > paramattha dhammas. So they must be pa~n~natti. > So, now we have that pa~n~natti are only words, and words are only > pa~n~natti, and we get the grand and deep (LOL!) conclusion that pa~n~natti are > only pa~n~natti! > Larry, this all isn't really saying very much, is it! > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard, "Word" is a translation of "pa~n~natti". A mental image is not a word. The perception of 2 rupas is not a word. A mental image is not a concept. The perception of 2 rupas is not a concept. Whatever is not a word is not a concept, not pa~n~natti. We are misusing "concept". We should be talking about perception. Of course you're free to define concept differently, however you want. Larry 55686 From: "Larry" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:42am Subject: Re: concept and sabhava lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "herbie" wrote: > > Hi Larry > > mental signs do not meant that they are paramattha dhamma, because a > mental image is derived from perception but it is not perception > itself as perception served as remembrance as well as marking of an > mental or a sense object. Hence dont equate mental image as paramattha > as mental image is an object of a citta. Also dont equate a mental > image as visible object as visible object are rupas :-) > > > > Ken O > Hi Ken, Long time no see. Its just my guess. As far as I know the texts don't say whether a nimitta is a paramattha dhamma or not, nor do they say whether a perception is a paramattha dhamma or not. Mostly, the texts say perception tends to err. A scarecrow is taken for a man because they have the same shape. Perception is like a mirage; you see one thing and think it is something else. An error has two sides. One side is the reality of the error and the other side is the nonexistence of the error. Wrong view is an ultimate reality so I would say wrong perception is an ultimate reality. This doesn't address the specific question of the status of a nimitta but it adds weight to the argument that a nimitta is an ultimate reality. Another issue is that reality isn't necessarily ultimate reality. One rupa is an ultimate reality; two rupas is not an ultimate reality but it would be foolish to say two rupas is not real or is only a word. Larry 55687 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry Larry wrote: >>When we have a mental image of, say, the features of someone we know >>well, or a place we visited recently, is that mental image not a concept? >> >>Jon >> > >Hi Jon, > >According to CMA pa~n~natti are only words. > >Larry > > OK, I accept that, but what does CMA say about mental images of the kind I described above? How do you see them as being classified? Jon 55688 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: eCard from Thailand jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: > If I'm not mistaken, there are more talks coming up this coming week. > > Yes, we are looking forward to having Azita and Christine, and possibly Vince and Nancy, join us this time. I've made a note of your question and will see that it gets brought up. Thanks for raising it. Jon > If there is time - and only if there is time - I thought I'd ask >about something I came across in Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, >something I hadn't come across before. "When sati is aware of the >characteristics of realities that appear as they really are, this is >the Path; it is dispersion (apacayagamin) because then one does not >build-up dhammas that lead to accumulations, just as when a man tears >down the bricks that the bricklayer has piled up." > > I hadn't come across this apacayagaamin (dispersion) before and >wondered if it was akin to the "hole in the roof of lobha" simile that >Acharn Sujin used in one memorable talk. Since she has never brought it >up in talks that I've heard, I assume that it is one of those details >that we had best not ponder with too much interest. But perhaps if >there is time during next week's talks you could read out the above >passage and we'll see if it is something Acharn Sujin thinks is worth >talking about. Again, only if there's time. > > Hi to everyone. > > > Phil > > 55689 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:44pm Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >>A concept that is 'validly predictive' is simply a concept that true in >>the conventional sense. But in terms of paramattha dhammas, it is no >>less a concept (or, better, no more a dhamma) than one that is not >>'validly predictive'. >> > >------------------------------------- >Howard: > I don't disagree with that. The question remains, however, as to what >it means to be "true in the conventional sense". I take it to mean that it is >not literally true, but there is an underlying, probably >too-complex-to-express, literal truth. >--------------------------------------- > > I think 'conventional truth' or 'true in the conventional sense' has a less 'technical' meaning that you ascribe to it here. To my understanding, it simply means what people accept as being true (i.e., as making sense). See the quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary below (recently posted by Larry in a message to me), and particularly the quote from Digha 9: "designations in common use in the world". The importance of this issue lies I think only in the distinction between the ultimate and the conventional (i.e., the non-ultimate), rather than in a close examination of what the conventional does or does not entail. In terms of the development of the path, I see no purpose in seeking to draw a distinction between concepts that are true in the conventional sense, and concepts that are not (although as you rightly point out it is useful to know which are which, in order to get by in the world). Jon From Nyanatiloka's 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). ... 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. 55690 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >Isn't rupa in nama-rupa means the body, and the body is a formation >or collection of the 4 maha bhuta rupas, color, taste, etc? > This is a good summary, but can we not just say that in this case 'rupa' means the 4 maha-bhuta-rupas (no need to take the circular route: rupa --> body --> 4 maha-bhuta-rupas). Even where the suttas use the term 'body', we need to keep in mind that, as the quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary shows (see my post to Howard), the Buddha used conventional language to refer to paramattha dhammas. In the Kayagatasati Sutta it is spelt out for us in black and white: what we take for 'body' is in reality only the 4 maha-bhuta-rupas (in the ultimate sense, there is no 'body'). >The rupa in nama-rupa is a concept, but beings take it as real. So >they can say this body is I, it is mine. But the rupa in the 28 rupa >is real, a pity beings do not see it. > Rupa is always real. People conceptualize about the realities that are experienced through the sense-doors. Because of ignorance and wrong view, wrong conceptualization occurs. >>I think you read this sutta as recommending a 'practice' of 'seeing' >>the body as just elements. But is that what the sutta actually says? >>To me, the passage 'the bhikkhu abides reflecting this body as >>elements' refers to a bhikkhu whose understanding has been developed >>to that stage. >> > >Oh, I was thinking about the explanation in the visuddhi magga on >this practice. Did you remember the text, the practice is to see each >32 parts of this body, as hardness, fluidity, heat, and movement. > Again, what we take for parts of the body are, in reality, just rupas. But we need to be careful about thinking that this deep truth can be realised by some technique of 'seeing' the parts of the body in a certain way. If you read the Vism carefully, I think you'll find that it's not such a simple matter as you suggest. >>I do not see any words specifying a 'practice' or a technique of some >>kind for developing understanding.. >> > >Well back again to my statement above, the recollection of the four >main elements in the visuddhi magga explains it all.' > > I'm afraid I don't have the text handy. Would you care to quote the relevant passage, for discussion? >>OK, fair enough. So when you say rupas are 'real' you mean they >>are dhammas, and when you say something is 'not real' you mean it >>is not a dhamma. Is there any other significance in the word >>'real' as you use it? >> > >To be more precisely, real is the paramattha dhammas, unreal is the >other things :D > Agreed ;-)) >>And by 'sabhava', I take it you mean 'own characteristic'? >> > >Maybe it is better called "determining characteristic" since nothing >owns the characteristic :D > > Good observation! >>To my understanding, yes, the Abhidhamma explains that 'dhamma' >>includes 89 cittas, 52 cetasikas, 28 rupas and Nibbana. It >>explains in addition the relations holding between different >>dhammas (paccaya, paticca-samuppada) and the various niyama >>('laws') that operate. The Abhidhamma also explains what is >>meant by concepts. >> > >As far as I can remember, abhidhamma books (excluding puggala pannati >and katha vatthu) do not talk about concepts, only realities, do they :? > Well I can't quote chapter and verse, but Larry recently quoted from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha on concepts, so this makes me think there is some treatment of the subject in the Abhidhamma texts themselves (but I could be wrong). Jon 55691 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 4:32pm Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/12/06 11:46:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > I think 'conventional truth' or 'true in the conventional sense' has a > less 'technical' meaning that you ascribe to it here. To my > understanding, it simply means what people accept as being true (i.e., > as making sense). ===================== But what people accept as being true could well be, and often is, completely false, in which case it is not a truth in any sense. As I see it, a conventional truth must first of all be true. It has long been a common belief that being exposed to wetness and cold will make one catch a cold. But this happens to be false, and it is thus *not* a conventional truth. 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) 55692 From: "Charles" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > This is a good summary, but can we not just say that in this case ' rupa' > means the 4 maha-bhuta-rupas (no need to take the circular route: rupa > --> body --> 4 maha-bhuta-rupas). I understand what you mean. It is true. But this religion is not only about what is the real truth, but it is about the problem, how to overcome the problem, and what is the end of the problem. The problem is that rupa is viewed as real, and from that comes that many suffering. The way is to learn that rupa is composed of many different things, ie the paramattha dhammas. So personally I prefer to take rupa as in nama-rupa referring to the problem and rupa in paramattha dhamma to refer to the solution. That way, I know what to do. > > Even where the suttas use the term 'body', we need to keep in mind that, > as the quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary shows (see my post > to Howard), the Buddha used conventional language to refer to paramattha > dhammas. I agree, but I believe it is more than that. The Buddha use conventional language to refer to the problem that need to be understood by means of wisdom. > In the Kayagatasati Sutta it is spelt out for us in black and > white: what we take for 'body' is in reality only the 4 > maha-bhuta-rupas (in the ultimate sense, there is no 'body'). And I think we need to take it as a process where someone has a view that the body is I, then by taking the body as actually different thing, the person can overcome the wrong view. I think we need to reconsider that the word body is a domain for non- ariyans. For ariyans the body is no more that mere word. So if you take body as mere word, you are talking in the domain of ariyans, where there is no false view to be eliminated, no taking of the body as I or mine. But we learn dhamma because we have wrong view to be eliminated. Body has different meaning for ariyans and non-ariyans. The former take it as as it is, that is the paramattha rupas, but the latter take it as I or atta. > I'm afraid I don't have the text handy. Would you care to quote the > relevant passage, for discussion? Neither do I :D But this is a passage from the Commentary of Satipatthana Sutta (same author anyway :P) "The cow-butcher does not get rid of the cow-percept while feeding the cow, driving it to the place of slaughter, tying it and putting it up there, killing it, and even when seeing the dead carcass of the cow; not until he cuts it up and divides it into parts does the perception of a cow disappear. To that butcher sitting (with the meat before him) after cutting up the cow, however, the perception of a cow disappears, and the perception of flesh comes into being. To him, there is not this thought: "I am selling the cow; these people are taking away the cow." But to him, indeed, there occurs this thought: " I am selling flesh; these people indeed, are taking away flesh."..." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#modes) So again, I think solely speaking about paramattha dhammas is like speaking how a wealthy country would be, forgetting that actually there are many places that are ruled by hunder in this world. To make any good we need to talk about how to make hunger into wealth so that we can make it into practice. 55693 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:37pm Subject: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----------- <. . . .> H: > He doesn't seem to discuss why we are able to conceptualize, what it does for us, and what its relationship to reality is, and I suspect that this issue lies in a pile of leaves somewhere in the Simsapa Forest, and not in his hand. I was giving my own opinion on this issue, that conceptualization is our means of getting an experiential handle on relations. ----------- There have been times in our discussion where I haven't been sure of the point you were making but I have argued against it anyway. I can't defend that sort of behaviour: it annoys me when other people do it. Possibly the only time I ever stop reading a DSG thread is when I suspect someone is arguing just for the sake of argument. --------------------- <. . .> KH: > > Therefore, knives, handles, blades and picking-up are all to > be known as mere concepts, whereas hardness, feeling, and volition > (for example) are to be known as conditioned paramattha dhammas. ... Howard: > Geez, Ken! I KNOW they are to be known as mere concepts! They ARE mere concepts. But they DO provide us with information about what we will experience. And, Ken, you KNOW that they do! It's really just plain silly to act otherwise. -------------------- I must admit this is an area where my theorising can go off the rails. I tend to read too much into the non-reality of concepts. Some of my conclusions are considered 'just plain silly' by Abhidhammikas and non-Abhidhammikas alike. :-) ---------------------------------- <. . .> H: > Ken, when you say "Dhamma study" you mean "Abhidhamma Study," and it seems to me that you are an Abhidhammist, an adherent of a new religion that has grown out of Buddhism. ----------------------------------- I believe that the non-Abhidhamma teaching is the new one. The Buddha proclaimed a way that was unique, profound and difficult to see. No offence intended, but it seems to me that modern-day Buddhists want his Dhamma to be commonplace, banal and easy to see. ------------------------------------------------- <. . .> Howard: > Of course the workings of kamma and vipaka are incredibly complex and impossible to unwind in detail. That does NOT imply, however, that we never see the results of volition and other conditions, and that we can never see what led to what. Of *course* we can! We do all the time. And of course you know this! Ken, you're being obstinately doctrinnaire, for what purpose I can't fathom. ------------------------------------------------- You are right: I can be obstinately doctrinaire. Even Jon and Sarah, when they visited Cooran, were a bit shocked at some of my over-the- top extrapolations. And I don't always know when I'm doing it. In this present discussion, I am not sure which of my arguments are over the top and which are on the right track. -------------- <. . .> H: > I don't get what you are after here. Who was talking about controlling vedana? But it is interesting that you bring that up. It happens that when a knife blade is *not* pulled across my hand, a painful sensation has been avoided. Do you say "no" to that? --------------- I do say "no" to that. A painful physical sensation is the result of unwholesome volition (a fleeting paramattha dhamma). I am not sure what the Abhidhamma explanation would be for "an avoidance of painful sensation." I am tempted to say that a knife being pulled - or not being pulled - across the hand is just a story (a concept), but that could be the wrong answer. You have got me all confused! :-) -------------------------------------- H: > The bottom line is the following, Ken: Whenever we speak *truly* about conventional objects, that is because what we are saying reflects truths about the underlying realities. If that were not so, then conventional truth would be groundless and wouldn't be truth at all. --------------------------------------- OK, I suppose I can agree with that without also saying, by necessary implication, that there can be control over dhammas. I hope that doesn't make me a non-Abhidhammaist. :-) Ken H 55694 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 10:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 Hi Jon, Jon: "When we have a mental image of, say, the features of someone we know well, or a place we visited recently, is that mental image not a concept? Jon" Larry: "Hi Jon, According to CMA pa~n~natti are only words." J: "Larry OK, I accept that, but what does CMA say about mental images of the kind I described above? How do you see them as being classified?" Hi Jon, As far as I know, CMA doesn't say. Based on the definitions of sanna, nimitta, and vipallasa in the "Buddhist Dictionary" it seems that sanna (perception) is aware of signs (nimitta) and signs are distinctive "marks" of an object. Vism. has this in regard to the perception aggregate: Vism.XIV,130. But though classed in the same way as consciousness, nevertheless, as to characteristic, etc., it all has the characteristic of perceiving. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for perceiving again that 'this is the same'... L: A sign is usually perceived externally but can be remembered. I think this memory of a sign is a mental image. It functions in way very similar to words and often plays a part in lending meaning to words, as, for instance, the word 'elephant' conditions the recollection of the sign of an elephant. In 'guarding the senses' there is no awareness of 'signs of defilement', just awareness of 'things as they are'. I think signs of defilement are closely associated with (or the same as) perversions of perception (sanna vipallasa). There are also perversions of consciousness and views, but I don't know what a perversion of consciousness would be. Any ideas? What I'm trying to get at is that errors are often perceptual errors that arise through ignoring details and to dismiss all errors as concepts isn't saying much. Furthermore, concept or word or error is not the only phenomenon that is empty of own nature (sabhava). Any group or relationship is empty of own nature. To say that a group or relationship is nonexistent simply because it is empty of sabhava is an extreme view, imo. Larry http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/dictionary/bdindex.html 55695 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: velocity and effect jonoabb Hi Scott (and RobK) rjkjp1 wrote: >>"The pali term patipatti is often translated as Practice(in >>contrast to pariyatti, theory) and is taken to mean something >>one does. But genuine patipatti is momentary insight, it is >>not a matter of where or what one is doing, it is a mental >>phenomena." >> >>I see what you mean by "genuine patipati." Nyanatiloka defines it >>as "practise" or "pursuance of the teaching," giving the standard >>definition. The PTS PED gives patipati to refer to "order" and >>"succession," or "successively," "in succession," "along side of," >>and "in order." This suggests the more precise sense which you note; >>the nature of arising and passing away is most clearly meant. >> >>+++++ >> >> >When I was in bangkok last week, A. Sujin gave a precise explanation >of the pali. I forget how it went now:) Maybe Jon remembers. > > Yes, good point Rob. Apparently the literal meaning of the Pali terms in question (pa.ti and patti) is 'reaching/touching the particular', indicating that panna touches the characteristic of the dhamma that is the object of consciousness at that moment. Jon 55696 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:03pm Subject: Four Personalities ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Characterization of Personalities into Four Classes! There are these 4 types of Human Personality: One possessed by Greed, Desire, and Lust... One possessed by Hate, Anger, and Irritation... One possessed by Confusion, Doubt and Ignorance... One possessed by Pride, Self-Deception, and Arrogance... One who, having learned little, does not act up upon it... One who, having learned little, does indeed act up upon it... One who, having learned much, does not act up upon it... One who, having learned much, does indeed act up upon it... One drifting along with the stream, driven by craving... One going against the stream of ordinary convention... One remaining stuck in the middle of rusting stagnation... One who having reached the far shore dwells in fruition... One who attains calm, but not insight... One who attains insight, but not calm... One who attains neither calm, nor insight... One who attains both calm and insight... Source: The 4th Abhi-Dhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Pa��atti. 25-27 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <....> 55697 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:09pm Subject: Google Gmail is Giantly Great! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Google Gmail is Giantly Great: The free Google Gmail Offers: > 2.6 Gigabyte storage !!! No advertisements... Highly efficient Spam filtering! Free, multiple & filterable Forwarding. Free POP and SMTP mail client access. IMHO the very best free email currently! One needs to be invited to it though... If anyone is interested in a free gmail account, then send an email to me: bhikkhu.samahita@... including these words: samahita & gmail, then I will mail you an invitation asap... Have a nice day too ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <....> 55698 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:52am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >In a message dated 2/12/06 11:46:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > > > >>I think 'conventional truth' or 'true in the conventional sense' has a >>less 'technical' meaning that you ascribe to it here. To my >>understanding, it simply means what people accept as being true (i.e., >>as making sense). >> >> >===================== > But what people accept as being true could well be, and often is, >completely false, in which case it is not a truth in any sense. As I see it, a >conventional truth must first of all be true. It has long been a common belief >that being exposed to wetness and cold will make one catch a cold. But this >happens to be false, and it is thus *not* a conventional truth. > > Agreed, if a statement is false, it can't be a truth. But that aside, 'true in the conventional sense' is just what is generally accepted as true (much in the sense that words standing for things are generally accepted speech). An example would be, 'the sun rises in the east and sets in the west', even though in the conventinal sense there is no literal 'rising' and 'setting', but only the appearance of such. As I said, what's important to know is what are and are not dhammas, rather than to know more and more about concepts (useful, indeed indispensable, though they may be). Jon 55699 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Charles wrote: >I understand what you mean. It is true. But this religion is not only >about what is the real truth, but it is about the problem, how to >overcome the problem, and what is the end of the problem. > Yes, agreed. >The problem >is that rupa is viewed as real, and from that comes that many >suffering. > I think you mean that rupa is taken as 'body' and this is viewed as real. Rupa is one of the dhammas. The 5 khandhas are dhammas, they are a classification of all the conditioned dhammas. The ayatanas and the dhatus are again the same dhammas classified differently, to help us understand more easily what dhammas are. >The way is to learn that rupa is composed of many >different things, ie the paramattha dhammas. > Again, I think you mean that the body is composed of different rupas, and the individual is composed of namas and rupas. However, as I said in an earlier post, that is not a correct statement. While the wooden bowl in your earlier example can be analysed into molecules, the body does not analyse into rupas (a body analyses into the same molecules as the wooden bowl ;-)). >>Even where the suttas use the term 'body', we need to keep in mind >>that, as the quote from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary shows (see >>my post to Howard), the Buddha used conventional language to refer >>to paramattha dhammas. >> > >I agree, but I believe it is more than that. The Buddha use >conventional language to refer to the problem that need to be >understood by means of wisdom. > > Agreed ;-)) >>In the Kayagatasati Sutta it is spelt out for us in black >>and white: what we take for 'body' is in reality only the >>4 maha-bhuta-rupas (in the ultimate sense, there is no >>'body'). >> > >And I think we need to take it as a process where someone has a view >that the body is I, then by taking the body as actually different >thing, the person can overcome the wrong view. > > Do you mean a sort of retraining of our view about the body? I don't think that can work. The problem is that wrong view has been accumulated and is part of our 'makeup'. Even if we could go for the rest of our life only thinking about the body in correct terms, that would do nothing to eradicate the wrong view that lies latent in our accumulated tendencies. >I think we need to reconsider that the word body is a domain for non- >ariyans. For ariyans the body is no more that mere word. So if you >take body as mere word, you are talking in the domain of ariyans, >where there is no false view to be eliminated, no taking of the body >as I or mine. But we learn dhamma because we have wrong view to be >eliminated. Body has different meaning for ariyans and non-ariyans. >The former take it as as it is, that is the paramattha rupas, but the >latter take it as I or atta. > Yes, but the question is, how did the ariyan come to the correct view. Was it by retraining his/her thinking? I don't think so. I think it was by developing awareness and understanding of dhammas as and when they appear. >>I'm afraid I don't have the text handy. Would you care to quote >>the relevant passage, for discussion? >> > >Neither do I :D > > ;-)) ;-)). OK, perhaps later, then. >But this is a passage from the Commentary of Satipatthana Sutta (same >author anyway :P) > >"The cow-butcher does not get rid of the cow-percept while feeding >the cow, driving it to the place of slaughter, tying it and putting >it up there, killing it, and even when seeing the dead carcass of the >cow; not until he cuts it up and divides it into parts does the >perception of a cow disappear. To that butcher sitting (with the meat >before him) after cutting up the cow, however, the perception of a >cow disappears, and the perception of flesh comes into being. To him, >there is not this thought: "I am selling the cow; these people are >taking away the cow." But to him, indeed, there occurs this thought: " >I am selling flesh; these people indeed, are taking away flesh."..." > >(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#modes) > Thanks for this. But does the passage go on to say how the disciple develops awareness of the body? >So again, I think solely speaking about paramattha dhammas is like >speaking how a wealthy country would be, forgetting that actually >there are many places that are ruled by hunder in this world. To make >any good we need to talk about how to make hunger into wealth so that >we can make it into practice. > An interesting analogy. I agree that *just speaking* about paramattha dhammas is not the answer. But more understanding about paramattha dhammas is certainly a very large part of the answer ;-)) Jon 55700 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava jonoabb Hi Larry LBIDD@... wrote: >Hi Jon, > >As far as I know, CMA doesn't say. Based on the definitions of sanna, >nimitta, and vipallasa in the "Buddhist Dictionary" it seems that sanna >(perception) is aware of signs (nimitta) and signs are distinctive >"marks" of an object. Vism. has this in regard to the perception >aggregate: > >Vism.XIV,130. But though classed in the same way as consciousness, >nevertheless, as to characteristic, etc., it all has the characteristic >of perceiving. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for >perceiving again that 'this is the same'... > We are not talking about how sanna functions, but about a mental (i.e., visual) image created by the mind. Of course, sanna has a role to play, but the mental image is not the same as the sign by which sanna marks the present object of consciousness as a condition for perceiving that object again at some future time. The question here is whether the mental image is a dhamma or not. >L: A sign is usually perceived externally but can be remembered. I think >this memory of a sign is a mental image. > Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that all mental images are memories of a sign made by sanna. But in any event, surely the memory of the sign could not be a dhamma? >It functions in way very >similar to words and often plays a part in lending meaning to words, as, >for instance, the word 'elephant' conditions the recollection of the >sign of an elephant. In 'guarding the senses' there is no awareness of >'signs of defilement', just awareness of 'things as they are'. I think >signs of defilement are closely associated with (or the same as) >perversions of perception (sanna vipallasa). There are also perversions >of consciousness and views, but I don't know what a perversion of >consciousness would be. Any ideas? > A whole different topic, I think ;-)) >What I'm trying to get at is that errors are often perceptual errors >that arise through ignoring details and to dismiss all errors as >concepts isn't saying much. Furthermore, concept or word or error is not >the only phenomenon that is empty of own nature (sabhava). Any group or >relationship is empty of own nature. To say that a group or relationship >is nonexistent simply because it is empty of sabhava is an extreme view, >imo. > I don't think that existence/non-existence is much discussed in the texts. Mainly just dhammas ;-)). Jon 55701 From: Ken O Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities ashkenn2k Hi Charles > What is self to you, then :? An eternal entity like soul? It is the > same concept as atman then. I take atta as no different with the > thing itself, ie the atta of a house is what makes up a house. k: Self is an illusion, just like trees, houses. > Being is anatta, what does it mean ? > 1. it is empty of an eternal entity named atta > 2. it is not real, because beings are composed of paramattha dhamas > I take the definition of anatta as no.2 > If I bring that 2nd definition to paramattha dhamma, to me it is > denying the existence of paramattha dhamma. But if you take anatta > as different thing, then we are really aliens trying to communicate :D k: there is no enternal entity named atta as it is an illusion as I said above. Let used your logic, atta is self which is an illusion and hence anatta will mean without self which is real. A being is not anatta, it is atta as told many times in the suttas. Then again we used logic 2, would that mean that we should have been Buddha since we are composed of paramattha dhammas. We cannot infer in such a way because they are not compatible as beings are illusion while paramatthas dhammas are real. As I said earlier, anatta is a characteristics of a paramatha dhammas. Even ditthi that causes us to believe there is atta is also anatta because we cannot tell it not to arise or to go away. It rises when conditions are right. Cheers Ken O 55702 From: Ken O Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and sabhava ashkenn2k Hi Larry > Its just my guess. As far as I know the texts don't say whether a nimitta is a paramattha dhamma or not, nor do they say whether a perception is a paramattha dhamma or not. k: A nimitta is sign and it can mean anything so it is not paramattha dhamma as far as I am concern, because paramattha dhammas have definite characteristics. Perception is a paramattha dhamma, can we break down perceptions into many other parts, can we say that preception is not real. Perception is not as what we think as perception in our logic human mind, what we think as perception in our logic mind is already an avalanche of perceptions in Abidhamma contxt. Mostly, the texts say perception tends to err. A scarecrow is taken for a man because they have the same shape. Perception is like a mirage; you see one thing and think it is something else. An error has two sides. One side is the reality of the error and the other side is the nonexistence of the error. Wrong view is an ultimate reality so I would say wrong perception is an ultimate reality. This doesn't address the specific question of the status of a nimitta but it adds weight to the argument that a nimitta is an ultimate reality. k: perception does not err because it is not the function of perception to err. Perception is just marking. It is the function of ditthi or the akusala dhammas to err. As I say dont confuse perceptions as our logicial human mind perception. Hence there is not such thing as wrong perception in Abhidhamma. Wrong preception is the result of akusala cittas :-). > Another issue is that reality isn't necessarily ultimate reality. > One rupa is an ultimate reality; two rupas is not an ultimate reality but it would be foolish to say two rupas is not real or is only a word. k: Can we say that human who is a collection of uncountable numbers of cittas is also an ultimate reality. Definitely not, we cannot just assume that two rupas are ultimate realities just because both rupas are ultimate reality. Cheers Ken O 55703 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:25am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - I have no specific comments to add to your post, Ken, but I do have some general comments about it: I was *delighted* by it! I was delighted by your humility, your flexibility, your reasonableness, your openness, and your kindness! There were several places in my post at which I was "less than gentle" and to which I expected you to reply defensively if not combatively, and you failed my expectation at each point! My hat's off to you, Ken! Just wonderful! :-) Sadhu x 3!!! I copy your post in its entirety at the end. (Bandwidth be damned! LOL!) With much metta, Howard In a message dated 2/13/06 1:38:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------- > <. . . .> > H: >He doesn't seem to discuss why we are able to conceptualize, > what it does for us, and what its relationship to reality is, and I > suspect that this issue lies in a pile of leaves somewhere in the > Simsapa Forest, and not in his hand. > I was giving my own opinion on this issue, that > conceptualization is our means of getting an experiential handle on > relations. > ----------- > > There have been times in our discussion where I haven't been sure of > the point you were making but I have argued against it anyway. I > can't defend that sort of behaviour: it annoys me when other people > do it. Possibly the only time I ever stop reading a DSG thread is > when I suspect someone is arguing just for the sake of argument. > > --------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> Therefore, knives, handles, blades and picking-up are all to > >be known as mere concepts, whereas hardness, feeling, and volition > >(for example) are to be known as conditioned paramattha dhammas. > ... > Howard: > Geez, Ken! I KNOW they are to be known as mere concepts! > They ARE mere concepts. But they DO provide us with information about > what we will experience. And, Ken, you KNOW that they do! It's really > just plain silly to act otherwise. > -------------------- > > I must admit this is an area where my theorising can go off the > rails. I tend to read too much into the non-reality of concepts. > Some of my conclusions are considered 'just plain silly' by > Abhidhammikas and non-Abhidhammikas alike. :-) > > ---------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: >Ken, when you say "Dhamma study" you mean "Abhidhamma Study," > and it seems to me that you are an Abhidhammist, an adherent of a new > religion that has grown out of Buddhism. > ----------------------------------- > > I believe that the non-Abhidhamma teaching is the new one. The Buddha > proclaimed a way that was unique, profound and difficult to see. No > offence intended, but it seems to me that modern-day Buddhists want > his Dhamma to be commonplace, banal and easy to see. > > ------------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > Howard: >Of course the workings of kamma and vipaka are incredibly > complex and impossible to unwind in detail. That does NOT imply, > however, that we never see the results of volition and other > conditions, and that we can never see what led to what. Of *course* > we can! We do all the time. And of course you know this! Ken, you're > being obstinately doctrinnaire, for what purpose I can't fathom. > ------------------------------------------------- > > You are right: I can be obstinately doctrinaire. Even Jon and Sarah, > when they visited Cooran, were a bit shocked at some of my over-the- > top extrapolations. And I don't always know when I'm doing it. In > this present discussion, I am not sure which of my arguments are over > the top and which are on the right track. > > -------------- > <. . .> > H: >I don't get what you are after here. Who was talking about > controlling vedana? But it is interesting that you bring that up. It > happens that when a knife blade is *not* pulled across my hand, a > painful sensation has been avoided. Do you say "no" to that? > --------------- > > I do say "no" to that. A painful physical sensation is the result of > unwholesome volition (a fleeting paramattha dhamma). I am not sure > what the Abhidhamma explanation would be for "an avoidance of painful > sensation." I am tempted to say that a knife being pulled - or not > being pulled - across the hand is just a story (a concept), but that > could be the wrong answer. > > You have got me all confused! :-) > > -------------------------------------- > H: >The bottom line is the following, Ken: Whenever we speak *truly* > about conventional objects, that is because what we are saying > reflects truths about the underlying realities. If that were not so, > then conventional truth would be groundless and wouldn't be truth at > all. > --------------------------------------- > > OK, I suppose I can agree with that without also saying, by necessary > implication, that there can be control over dhammas. > > I hope that doesn't make me a non-Abhidhammaist. :-) > > Ken H > /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) 55704 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:33am Subject: Typo Re: [dsg] Re: velocity and effect upasaka_howard Hi, Robert & all - In a message dated 2/12/06 11:00:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > About 4500 years ago, the Buddha put much emphasis on effort as well. > It isn't just a modern phenomenon. > =================== Please change that to 2500! ;-) 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) 55705 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:36am Subject: Re: Concepts and other irrealities (Was:Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/13/06 7:53:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > But what people accept as being true could well be, and often is, > >completely false, in which case it is not a truth in any sense. As I see > it, a > >conventional truth must first of all be true. It has long been a common > belief > >that being exposed to wetness and cold will make one catch a cold. But this > > >happens to be false, and it is thus *not* a conventional truth. > > > > > > Agreed, if a statement is false, it can't be a truth. But that aside, > 'true in the conventional sense' is just what is generally accepted as > true (much in the sense that words standing for things are generally > accepted speech). --------------------------------------- Howard: Then we are in agreement on this! :-) -------------------------------------- > > An example would be, 'the sun rises in the east and sets in the west', > even though in the conventinal sense there is no literal 'rising' and > 'setting', but only the appearance of such. --------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! This was the 1st example I thought of giving, instead of the catching cold example. -------------------------------------- > > As I said, what's important to know is what are and are not dhammas, > rather than to know more and more about concepts (useful, indeed > indispensable, though they may be). > > Jon > ======================= D'accord! 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) 55706 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:40am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 675 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, There are two separate forms of dhamma that reveal conditional relationship. They are paticca-samuppaada and patthaana. Paticca- samuppaada is known as Dependent Origination and patthaana is known as conditions. Dependent Origination is sometime called Dependent Co-arising by some Dhamma scholars and practitioners. The original terms 'paticca- samuppaada' means 'dependent origination or arising'. Whether it is just arising or co-arising is a bit complex as some dhamma in D.O do not coarise. Examples are jaati (birth) and mara.na (death) do not co-arise. As I said before D.O seems showing the linear relationship. But patthaana is not simply as linear but much much more complex in the relationship between different dhamma. Dependent Origination is happening in everyday life. Patthaana dhamma is also happening in everyday life. Dependent Origination and Four Noble Truths are also related. Currently there are certain scholars who have been doing research on 'the relationship between D.O and Four Noble Truths.' It is better to see these dhamma rather than just keeping them as theory and keep in books forever. Dhamma practitioners know their respective milestones when they are walking along the path. These milestones are there forever and they will have to be experienced by each traveller whoever is on foot or by bike or by motor-bike or by car or by plane or by space shuttle. There are certain people who seem to be happy to know sotapatti magga naana was attained while listening to Dhamma. First do a survey! How many beings are there in 31 planes of existence? How many beings are there in sugati bhuumi or in happy destination? How many of those in happy destination know dhamma? May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55707 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 676 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, When on the path there are milestones. Milestones are passed one after another. Dependent Origination is seen while on the Path and also true is Four Noble truths that they are seen when right on The Path which is exactly NEP and not of any of approaching way. D.O has 12 links. One is linked to two. Two is linked to three. Three is linked to four. Four is to five, five to six, six to seven, seven to eight, eight to nine, nine to ten, ten to eleven, eleven to twelve and the cycle continues in the linear fashion endlessly. These 12 links are 1. ignorance (avijjaa) 2. formation (sankhaara) 3. consciousness (vinnaana) 4. nama-rupa (mental-material) 5. 6-sense-base(salayatana) 6. contact (phasso) 7. feeling (vedanaa) 8. craving (tanhaa) 9. clinging(upadaana) 10.becoming(bhava) 11.birth (jaati) 12.death(ageing/death) (jaraa/marana) 'Samsara cakka' or 'the wheel of birth-death-birth-death' has 12 spokes. These 12 spokes are above 12 links. No one can break these spokes except arahats including paccekabuddhas and sammaasambuddhas. Only arahats will be able to break the spokes of the wheel of birth-death-birth-death cycle. Arahats break the spoke of ignorance. Arahats break the spoke of craving. Arahats break the spoke of birth. Arahats break the spoke of death. Arahats break the spoke of becoming. Arahats break the spoke of clinging. 8th to 12th spokes are broken by arahats. The spoke ignorance is broken. The spoke formation is also broken by arahats. So done the 3rd spoke consciousness. But this consciousness means unarising birth-consciousness after parinibbana. Arahats' original patisandhi citta passed away long long time ago and it does not need to be broken. Because of not arising of unarising rebirth-consciousness there do not arise other links of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th spoke namely naama- ruupa, salayatana, phassa, vedanaa. So there is no more spoke that rotate the D.O. That is why it is said that 'Samsara cakka' has been broken by arahats. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55708 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi KenO, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > k: Self is an illusion, just like trees, houses. What do you touch when you touch a tree? Is that an illusion? > > Being is anatta, what does it mean ? > > 1. it is empty of an eternal entity named atta > > 2. it is not real, because beings are composed of paramattha dhamas > > I take the definition of anatta as no.2 > > If I bring that 2nd definition to paramattha dhamma, to me it is > > denying the existence of paramattha dhamma. But if you take anatta > > as different thing, then we are really aliens trying to communicate > :D > > k: there is no enternal entity named atta as it is an illusion as I > said above. So your definiion of atta would be no.1. Like I said, I take no.2 as the definition of atta. > Let used your logic, atta is self which is an illusion > and hence anatta will mean without self which is real. This is not actually my logic, I only proposed two option. > A being is > not anatta, it is atta as told many times in the suttas. Then again > we used logic 2, would that mean that we should have been Buddha > since we are composed of paramattha dhammas. We cannot infer in such > a way because they are not compatible as beings are illusion while > paramatthas dhammas are real. As I said earlier, anatta is a > characteristics of a paramatha dhammas. Let's use your logic. Self is an illusion so non-self would be real. Paramattha dhammas are real so why are they anatta ? 55709 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities htootintnaing Dear Ken O and Charles, May I butt in here? Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles wrote: Hi KenO, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > k: Self is an illusion, just like trees, houses. What do you touch when you touch a tree? Is that an illusion? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo's butt in: Ken O said 'Self is an illusion, just like trees, houses.' Charles said 'What do you touch when you touch a tree? Is that an illusion?' Self is illusion, treesis illusion, houses is illusion according to Ken O. When I touch a tree I touch a tree and not other things. But paramatthically as there is no 'I' I am afraid that there is no one touching but touching-consciousness, touched-thing, only. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Being is anatta, what does it mean ? > > 1. it is empty of an eternal entity named atta > > 2. it is not real, because beings are composed of paramattha dhamas > > I take the definition of anatta as no.2 > > If I bring that 2nd definition to paramattha dhamma, to me it is > > denying the existence of paramattha dhamma. But if you take anatta > > as different thing, then we are really aliens trying to communicate > :D > > k: there is no enternal entity named atta as it is an illusion as I > said above. So your definiion of atta would be no.1. Like I said, I take no.2 as the definition of atta. > Let used your logic, atta is self which is an illusion > and hence anatta will mean without self which is real. This is not actually my logic, I only proposed two option. > A being is > not anatta, it is atta as told many times in the suttas. Then again > we used logic 2, would that mean that we should have been Buddha > since we are composed of paramattha dhammas. We cannot infer in such > a way because they are not compatible as beings are illusion while > paramatthas dhammas are real. As I said earlier, anatta is a > characteristics of a paramatha dhammas. Let's use your logic. Self is an illusion so non-self would be real. Paramattha dhammas are real so why are they anatta ? --------------------------------------- Htoo: because they are not atta. Anatta = ana + atta. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55710 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:15am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 678 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 12 links in D.O. The first 2 links are past causes. The middle 8 links (vinnana,namarupa,salayatana,phassa,vedana,tanha, upadana, bhava) are present dhamma. The first five links are present results of past causes and latter three links are present causes of future dhamma. The last 2 links are future results. ( 2 + 8 + 2 = 12 links) 2 (past causes) + 5 (present results) + 3 (present causes) + 2 (future results) = 12 links a) 2 past cause have 5 dhamma as constituents. They are 1. avijjaa 2. sankhaara 3. tanhaa 4. upadaana 5. kamma-bhava b) 5 present results are clear(vinn,namarupa,salayatana,phassa,vedana c) 3 present cause have 5 constituents. They are 1. tanhaa 2. upadaana 3. bhava 4. avijjaa 5. sankhaara d) 2 furture results are exactly the same with 5 present results. That is they are vinnaana, namarupa, salayatana, phassa, and vedana. So there are 20 constituents in total in which there are 4 layers of segment. Each segment has 5 constituents. These 4 segments are boundried by 3 fences. They are 1. between 'sankhaara and vinnaana' 2. between 'vedana and tanha' 3. between 'bhava and jaati' There are 2 roots. They are 1. avijjaa and 2. tanhaa May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55711 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:17am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 679 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, I think as I have been frequently repeating Paa.li and English now all words in Dependent Origination are used to the readers. There are 12 links in Dependent Origination. 1. 'avijjaa' or 'ignorance' 2. 'sa`nkhaara or 'formation' 3. 'vi~n~naana' or 'consciousness' 4. 'naama-ruupa' or 'mentality-materiality' 5. 'sa.laayatana' or '6-sense-bases' 6. 'phassa' or 'contact' 7. 'vedanaa' or 'feeling' 8. 'tanhaa' or 'craving' 9. 'upadaana' or 'clinging' 10.'bhava' or 'becoming' 11. 'jaati' or 'birth' 12. 'mara.na' or 'death' / 'jaraa/mara.na' or 'ageing/death' These 12 dhammas have a linear relationship. Ignorance leads to action (formation). Actions lead to 'results'. Vipaaka cittas are results or resultantconsciousness. Consciousness of rebirth leads to naama-rupa. Nama-rupa lead to 6-sense-bases. 6-sense-bases lead to contact. Contact leads to feeling. Feeling leads to craving. Craving leads to clinging. Clinging leads to becoming (kamma-formation or kamma-becoming). Becoming leads to birth. Birth leads to death. Before leading to death there are many results. Anyway these are linear. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55712 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 677 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Arahats already stop the rotating wheel of 'samsara cakka'. The cycle is no more rotating as it has been stopped by arahatta magga naana or eradicating path knowledge. There is no such thing that D.O continues to rotate in arahats with remaining links. Do we need any target to stop D.O? If yes, where in any of 12 links of D.O? I do not think we need to stop anything that are dhamma because dhamma are anatta and they cannot be controlled by anyone including The Buddha. Strangely, once I read a lady saying that 'The Buddha controlled rupa'. D.O is seen on the way. As the whole D.O has 12 links it is not possible to see all these at a moment that is less than a split second. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55713 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:39am Subject: Re: clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think you mean that rupa is taken as 'body' and this is viewed as > real. Rupa is one of the dhammas. The 5 khandhas are dhammas, they are > a classification of all the conditioned dhammas. The ayatanas and the > dhatus are again the same dhammas classified differently, to help us > understand more easily what dhammas are. Like the simile below, if you cut a cow into flesh and sell it, do you say you're selling a cow? Didn't you said cow and flash are the same thing? > However, as I said in an earlier post, that is not a correct statement. > While the wooden bowl in your earlier example can be analysed into > molecules, the body does not analyse into rupas (a body analyses into > the same molecules as the wooden bowl ;-)). I do not get on this. A wooden bowl is made of wood, so the wood is the atta of a wooden bowl. But by analyzing the wood into hardness, fluid, heat, movement, the wood do not exist anymore so it cannot be atta of the wooden bowl. A body that analyzed into paramattha dhammas do not count as body anymore. > Do you mean a sort of retraining of our view about the body? I don' t > think that can work. A samathayanika first attain jhana and after quitting from the jhana, analyze the factors of the jhana in order too see them as anicca, dukkha, and anatta. That's not direct experience either. > The problem is that wrong view has been > accumulated and is part of our 'makeup'. Even if we could go for the > rest of our life only thinking about the body in correct terms, that > would do nothing to eradicate the wrong view that lies latent in our > accumulated tendencies. Very agree. So why don't we talk on practice and not on things that do not get understood by only thinking or chatting. It is as useless as you said. > Yes, but the question is, how did the ariyan come to the correct view. > Was it by retraining his/her thinking? I don't think so. I think it > was by developing awareness and understanding of dhammas as and when > they appear. False view comes because of inappropriate attention (ayoniso manasikara). So by giving proper attention there is no false view. But to become ariyans I agree there is a lot more to do. > Thanks for this. But does the passage go on to say how the disciple > develops awareness of the body? Take the body. Cut it into hardness, fluidity, movement, and heat, and there when we have concentrated mind on this, the image of a body disappear and being replaced by the image of elements. Because the body is what is viewed as atta (in atta-ditthi) literally, so when the image of a body disapper, atta-ditthi disappear (not forever though). > An interesting analogy. I agree that *just speaking* about paramattha > dhammas is not the answer. But more understanding about paramattha > dhammas is certainly a very large part of the answer ;-)) And understanding do not come without practice. And practice is an act. So when we talk, we should talk about action, and not theory. 55714 From: "Charles" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < htootintnaing@...> wrote: > When I touch a tree I touch a tree and not other things. But > paramatthically as there is no 'I' I am afraid that there is no one > touching but touching-consciousness, touched-thing, only. I agree with that. So the name tree do not refer to the touched-thing otherwise it cannot be touched because there is no tree. > Htoo: because they are not atta. Anatta = ana + atta. But atta is meaningless in the real of paramattha dhammas so anatta would be meaningless too, in my opinion :D It would be other case if you did say, pathavi is not vayo. Anatta is said in the place where there is atta, that is where there is being and khandhas. 55715 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:54pm Subject: A question buddhatrue Dear Friends, Sorry I haven't been posting for a long while but I have been quite busy with personal and work issues. But even when I am not posting, this group and its members are frequently in my thoughts and good wishes. Anyway, I have a question to throw out at the members of this group. While I was reading the recent book by Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth, a question formed in my mind: I wondered about the ancient commentarial notes regarding how an householder who becomes an arahant must renounce the householder life and "go forth" as a monk/nun or otherwise die. Why is this? The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make any sense and I can't find any logical justification for this declaration. What is the deciding factor(s) in these two lifestyles which would mean life and death for an arahant??? As for myself, I have always been very strong "pro-monastic" in my approach to the buddhadhamma. Therefore, when I read about this commentary in the past I didn't really examine it critically; I guess I just considered it `ammunition' for my viewpoint. ;-)) However, now I don't accept this commentary so readily. What is the justification for saying this? I can understand how a monastic lifestyle can be helpful in leading one to the goal of nibbana, but once this goal has been reached why then is the lifestyle so necessary?? Additionally, I must consider pacceka buddhas (silent buddhas) when examining this question. Silent Buddhas became buddhas and yet I don't believe it is stated if they necessarily "went forth" afterwards. How could one "go forth" when there isn't a sangha to join? Or were all pacceka buddhas hermits of some sort? I guess I just have a lot of questions about this issue. If anyone would like to offer an educated viewpoint or even just a wild-eyed opinion, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Metta, James 55716 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 0:08pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Parallel Processing, rupas. dacostacharles Hi Jon, Yes, 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. And, thank for the infor: "... 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." Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- 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). > Jon 55717 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:11pm Subject: Re: eCard from Thailand philofillet Hi again Jon > I've made a note of your question and will see that it gets brought up. > Thanks for raising it. > > Jon > > > If there is time - and only if there is time - I thought I'd ask > >about something I came across in Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Again popping in with a question that might or might not lead to helpful discussion - related to the previous question about dispersion so if it's already been raised, not to worry... I found this: "Some people, when they hear about defilements, may not like to have them, but do they really know their defilements? Lobha is a defilement. Do people want to have lobha? They may not like the idea of having lobha, but actually people like lobha each and every moment. This shows that one does not understand the defilement of lobha." My question - I do feel that I have come to sense how very much lobha there is and understand intellectually that there is even lobha when there is nothing but hardness, nothing but a sound. And of course I know not to worry about all the low-level lobha. But when there is all this lobha, how can there be an opening, how can there be a hole in the roof of lobha? I know it happens due to conditions so it is best not to think about it too hard, but if Acharn Sujin would like to talk about it... Again, only if there is time... Phil 55718 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities htootintnaing Dear Charles, Good opinion. :D With respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < > htootintnaing@> wrote: > > > When I touch a tree I touch a tree and not other things. But > > paramatthically as there is no 'I' I am afraid that there is no one > > touching but touching-consciousness, touched-thing, only. > > I agree with that. So the name tree do not refer to the touched- thing > otherwise it cannot be touched because there is no tree. > > > Htoo: because they are not atta. Anatta = ana + atta. > > But atta is meaningless in the real of paramattha dhammas so anatta > would be meaningless too, in my opinion :D > > It would be other case if you did say, pathavi is not vayo. > > Anatta is said in the place where there is atta, that is where there > is being and khandhas. > 55719 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:31pm Subject: Re: A question htootintnaing Dear James, 1. Lay arahats 2. pacceka buddhas and sangha Lay people might become arahats if there are conditions. Say someone becomes an arahat he will soon go into sangha as monk. But if there is no more lifespan then that arahat will do parinibbana very soon say on the same day. Pacceka buddhas do not have teachers. Sangha are disciples of a single teacher, who is sammaasambuddha. Pacceka buddhas are buddhas and they are not hermits or disciples or sangha. They do not need to join sangha who are all the disciples of the Sammaasambuddha. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Sorry I haven't been posting for a long while but I have been quite > busy with personal and work issues. But even when I am not posting, > this group and its members are frequently in my thoughts and good > wishes. > > Anyway, I have a question to throw out at the members of this > group. While I was reading the recent book by Eckhart Tolle, A New > Earth, a question formed in my mind: I wondered about the ancient > commentarial notes regarding how an householder who becomes an > arahant must renounce the householder life and "go forth" as a > monk/nun or otherwise die. Why is this? The more I think about it, > the more it doesn't make any sense and I can't find any logical > justification for this declaration. What is the deciding factor (s) > in these two lifestyles which would mean life and death for an > arahant??? > > As for myself, I have always been very strong "pro-monastic" in my > approach to the buddhadhamma. Therefore, when I read about this > commentary in the past I didn't really examine it critically; I > guess I just considered it `ammunition' for my viewpoint. ;-)) > However, now I don't accept this commentary so readily. What is the > justification for saying this? I can understand how a monastic > lifestyle can be helpful in leading one to the goal of nibbana, but > once this goal has been reached why then is the lifestyle so > necessary?? Additionally, I must consider pacceka buddhas (silent > buddhas) when examining this question. Silent Buddhas became > buddhas and yet I don't believe it is stated if they > necessarily "went forth" afterwards. How could one "go forth" when > there isn't a sangha to join? Or were all pacceka buddhas hermits > of some sort? > > I guess I just have a lot of questions about this issue. If anyone > would like to offer an educated viewpoint or even just a wild-eyed > opinion, it would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Metta, > James > 55720 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:34pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 680 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dependent Origination is conditional relation between dhammas. Bodhisatta Siddattha Gotama when He was young He was brought to the peddy fields where His father was celebrating ploughing ceremony. The prince was put under the shade of a tree. There were several young girls or young ladies who looked after the prince and they were also under the shade of the tree. At the height of the ceremony the guarding girls and ladies forgot to look after the prince and instead they went to the fields where the King Suddhodana was ploughing the peddy fields. So the prince was left there alone. When the ladies remember to look back what they found was surprised for them to see the young prince who was staying in 1st ruupa-jhaana. After many years that is over 20 years after this even, the prince was revealed 4 great signs. The prince went for searching the truth. After 6 years He was almost perfect and just a click away to attain arahatta magga naana along with sabba~n~nuta ~naa.na. At that time the prince saw Dependent Origination. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55721 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:51pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 681 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, At the time when Bodhisatta contemplated on Dependent Origination He was still not an arahat and not a sammaasambuddha. There are three watches of night. On his 35th birthday Bodhisatta had a milky cereals and He sat at the foot of Bo tree and started meditation again. In the first watch of the night He got a power called 'pubbenivaasa ~naa.na'. That is recollection of past lives. In the second watch He got another power called 'dibba-cakkhu' or 'deva-cakkhu' or divine eyes. Because of this power He saw all beings in the whole universe. He saw arising of new beings, passing away of beings and because of these He realised Dhamma. He saw Dependent Origination. In the third watch of the night He became a Fully Enlightened One. The power dibba-cakkhu or divine eyes helped Him a lot to see the characteristics of dhamma and He in the third watch of the night saw every dhamma and became a Sammasambuddha. When The Buddha contemplated on Dependent Origination the order of dhamma that He contemplated was a bit different from what is in scripture. The scripture says avijjaa paccayaa sankhaara, sankhaara paccayaa vinnaana, and so on. But The Buddha contemplated on 'death'. This death arises because there is a birth. This birth arises because there is becoming (becoming-kamma). This becoming has to arise because there is clinging and so on. When He reached 'naama-ruupa' and 'vinnaana', He saw them as inseparable inner cycle in the greater cycle of Dependent Origination. That is naama-ruupa arises because of vinnaana and vinnaana is there because of naama-ruupa. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55722 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:15pm Subject: Re: A question buddhatrue Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear James, > > 1. Lay arahats > 2. pacceka buddhas and sangha > > Lay people might become arahats if there are conditions. Say someone > becomes an arahat he will soon go into sangha as monk. But if there > is no more lifespan then that arahat will do parinibbana very soon > say on the same day. Your description of the possibilities is very different from what I have read and my understanding. What I understand is that if a lay person who becomes an arahant doesn't go forth then he/she has no choice but to enter parinibbana; in other words, that it would be impossible to be a householder and an arahant at the same time for any substantial length of time. Is my understanding incorrect? If not, then why is being an arahant incompatible with being a householder? Thanks for your input. :-) Metta, James 55723 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:32pm Subject: Re: A question rjkjp1 Dear James, The laylife is bound up with desire but an arahant cannot work, cannot even ask for food or store it. Thus they are not compatible. Robert dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > > > Dear James, > > > > 1. Lay arahats > > 2. pacceka buddhas and sangha > > > > Lay people might become arahats if there are conditions. Say > someone > > becomes an arahat he will soon go into sangha as monk. But if > there > > is no more lifespan then that arahat will do parinibbana very soon > > say on the same day. > > > Your description of the possibilities is very different from what I > have read and my understanding. What I understand is that if a lay > person who becomes an arahant doesn't go forth then he/she has no > choice but to enter parinibbana; in other words, that it would be > impossible to be a householder and an arahant at the same time for > any substantial length of time. Is my understanding incorrect? If > not, then why is being an arahant incompatible with being a > householder? Thanks for your input. :-) > > Metta, > James > 55724 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles Thanks for another post full of challenging ideas ;-)). Charles wrote: >>However, as I said in an earlier post, that is not a correct >>statement. While the wooden bowl in your earlier example can be >>analysed into molecules, the body does not analyse into rupas >>(a body analyses into the same molecules as the wooden bowl ;-)). >> > >I do not get on this. A wooden bowl is made of wood, so the wood is >the atta of a wooden bowl. > Are you sure about this? I'm not aware of any such explanation of 'atta' in the teachings. To my reading of the teachings, the significance of atta is that dhammas are 'taken to be self', whereas in truth and reality dhammas are 'not-self'. As I mentioned in an earlier post to you, this is explained in the suttas by saying that it cannot be truly said of any dhamma: "This is mine, this I am, this is myself" 'Atta' is a concept, a wrong concept, which means that there *is no* atta. To say that something (wood) is the atta of an object (wooden bowl) that is itself a concept seems to miss the point. >But by analyzing the wood into hardness, >fluid, heat, movement, the wood do not exist anymore so it cannot be >atta of the wooden bowl. A body that analyzed into paramattha dhammas >do not count as body anymore. > This is a very important point, so I hope you don't mind if part of what I say repeats things I've said before ;-)). Neither wood nor body can be analysed into rupas (hardness, etc), because conventional objects are not 'made of' or composed of rupas. The relationship between conventional objects and rupas, as I see it, is this: because of wrong view and ignorance, rupas are *taken to be* objects having a substance that they do not possess. I hope the difference I am trying to explain here is clear. What it means that dhammas can never be seen as they truly are by starting with the conventional object (such as 'wooden bowl' or 'body') and doing something with/to it. As we discussed earlier, if wood and body are analysed, dissected or broken down the result is simply molecules. >>Do you mean a sort of retraining of our view about the body? I >>don't think that can work. >> > >A samathayanika first attain jhana and after quitting from the jhana, >analyze the factors of the jhana in order too see them as anicca, >dukkha, and anatta. That's not direct experience either. > To my understanding, the panna of the samatha-yanika directly experiences the characteristic of the (just fallen away) jhana factors. But in any event, there is no parallel here with someone starting out with the body and trying to 'see' it as rupas. >>The problem is that wrong view has been >>accumulated and is part of our 'makeup'. Even if we could go for >>the rest of our life only thinking about the body in correct >>terms, that would do nothing to eradicate the wrong view that >>lies latent in our accumulated tendencies. >> > >Very agree. So why don't we talk on practice and not on things that >do not get understood by only thinking or chatting. It is as useless >as you said. > > The practice is, to my understanding, the development of the panna that sees presently arising dhammas as they truly are. This panna is not developed by undertaking a practice, or technique, of 'seeing' the body as dhammas. >>Thanks for this. But does the passage go on to say how the >>disciple develops awareness of the body? >> > >Take the body. Cut it into hardness, fluidity, movement, and heat, >and there when we have concentrated mind on this, the image of a body >disappear and being replaced by the image of elements. Because the >body is what is viewed as atta (in atta-ditthi) literally, so when >the image of a body disapper, atta-ditthi disappear (not forever >though). > But the body does not dissect into rupas!! What is happening in the practice you describe here is, as you correctly say, that one image (image of body) is being replaced by another (image of elements). Is this really the development of panna that sees dhammas as they truly are, or is it just a kind of thinking? >>An interesting analogy. I agree that *just speaking* about >>paramattha dhammas is not the answer. But more understanding about paramattha >>dhammas is certainly a very large part of the answer ;-)) >> > >And understanding do not come without practice. And practice is an >act. So when we talk, we should talk about action, and not theory. > Agreed that direct understanding of paramattha dhammas is not just theory. But neither is it a kind of 'action' to be done. In order for understanding to grow/develop, there must first be the correct theoretical understanding. So talking about the theory is useful, as long as we don't take it for direct understanding ;-)) Jon PS I have snipped your post here and there. Please let me know if I've omitted anything you'd like to hear my comments on. 55725 From: "Charles" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts cherry_avium Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott Are you sure about this? I'm not aware of any such explanation of > 'atta' in the teachings. No I'm not sure. It's only a view anyway :P > To my reading of the teachings, the significance of atta is that dhammas > are 'taken to be self', whereas in truth and reality dhammas are > 'not-self'. As I mentioned in an earlier post to you, this is explained > in the suttas by saying that it cannot be truly said of any dhamma: > "This is mine, this I am, this is myself" If 'all' dhammas are taken to be self, then you can say that my body is you, that my mind is yours :D. Clearly only a specific formation of dhammas is taken to be self. And it is called khandhas, specifically 'your' khandhas :D > 'Atta' is a concept, a wrong concept, which means that there *is no * > atta. To say that something (wood) is the atta of an object (wooden > bowl) that is itself a concept seems to miss the point. Well that's not my own point. It's taken from sammaditthi dipani by Ven. Ledi Sayadaw. Maybe if you like you can see the full text :D I agree that atta is wrong. But a doctor do not solely talk about a healthy human being ^_^. The aim of Buddhism is to cure atta-ditthi so we need talk from both side :D. Surely you can ask yourself how do you feel about a doctor that only talk about the cure of a disease without taking the disease and the medication :D > I hope the difference I am trying to explain here is clear. What it > means that dhammas can never be seen as they truly are by starting with > the conventional object (such as 'wooden bowl' or 'body') and doing > something with/to it. As we discussed earlier, if wood and body are > analysed, dissected or broken down the result is simply molecules. I would be interested in knowing about how do you practice to experience the paramattha dhammas without taking the body and mental (nama) ? :D > To my understanding, the panna of the samatha-yanika directly > experiences the characteristic of the (just fallen away) jhana factors. > But in any event, there is no parallel here with someone starting out > with the body and trying to 'see' it as rupas. So where can we find rupas :D > The practice is, to my understanding, the development of the panna that > sees presently arising dhammas as they truly are. This panna is not > developed by undertaking a practice, or technique, of 'seeing' the body > as dhammas. What is the meaning of the word 'bhanava' then :D > But the body does not dissect into rupas!! What is happening in the > practice you describe here is, as you correctly say, that one image > (image of body) is being replaced by another (image of elements). Is > this really the development of panna that sees dhammas as they truly > are, or is it just a kind of thinking? I do not know, do we take consciousness that have paramattha dhammas as object as thinking ? > In order for understanding to grow/develop, there must first be the > correct theoretical understanding. So talking about the theory is > useful, as long as we don't take it for direct understanding ;-)) I agree with that. > PS I have snipped your post here and there. Please let me know if I 've > omitted anything you'd like to hear my comments on. No I do not think that you missed anything. Btw Jon, I am trying to work on my atta-ditthi. By only talking about paramattha dhammas, I cannot find any atta-ditthi to be understood not eliminated. Because we take it from different perspective, this dialogue in unending, so I think I would stop talking on this topic. But surely it does not mean and end :D I hope you will not feel disappointed. Analogically, if I would be a doctor that try to cure the disease of atta-ditthi, I would not look in a healthy being, but I would look into the places infected by the atta-ditthi, namely the khandhas. If I see it from the viewpoint of abhidhamma, I would not find any khandhas, and so I get no atta-ditthi to be eliminated. 55726 From: "Charles" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:39am Subject: Re: A question cherry_avium Hi Robert & James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear James, > The laylife is bound up with desire > but an arahant cannot work, cannot even ask for food or store it. > Thus they are not compatible. > Robert Doesn't Buddhism tradition take the body as being able to stand for seven days without food, but why is it said that the lay Arahat have to enter the Sangha at the very same day? 55727 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:59am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 682 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Bodhisatta saw four great signs in a matter of months. He saw one after another. Each time he saw a sign he was greatly shocked. This is called sa.mvega and it is not like aversion. Because of predictors the king (the father of Bodhisatta) arranged that no old people could be seen in Kapilavattu. But this could not be covered for a long time. Deva beings tried to reveal an image of old person. Bodhisatta was shocked. Second sign shown was diseased person and this again caused further shocked. The third sign was dead person and this caused great great shocked. Here the questions may arise that 'is it possible that such highly intelligent person could not know these?'. But this is different. As Bodhisatta was a riped one he felt sa.mvega or shocked. So the 'D.O' or Dependent Origination of Bodhisatta started with 'death'. I mean 'scripturally'. D.O is independent matter whatever being does anything and whoever beings are whether puthujana or sotapanna or sakadaagaami or anaagaami or arahats. The main focus is conditional relation. What I discussed above was about 12 links of D.O. So it is different from the last paragraph above. The link in contemplation by Bodhisatta was 'death'. Why death? Are there any state where there is no death? [yes, nibbana; but the answer was found only at the height of Bodhisatta's perfection]. Why death? This led to contemplation on birth. Why birth? and finally 12 links were completed. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55728 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:57am Subject: Re: A question htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: Hi Htoo, Your description of the possibilities is very different from what I have read and my understanding. What I understand is that if a lay person who becomes an arahant doesn't go forth then he/she has no choice but to enter parinibbana; in other words, that it would be impossible to be a householder and an arahant at the same time for any substantial length of time. Is my understanding incorrect? If not, then why is being an arahant incompatible with being a householder? Thanks for your input. :-) Metta, James ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear James, My interpretation is to be free from any flaw. It is incompatible. That is why they enter the Order. The same applies to paccekabuddhas. There were 500 princes who were playing. All these princes were children. During their playing they saw the change in water lilies and they all became paccekabuddhas. A few moments later their mother came and said children 'what are you doing here quietly.' They all replid 'we are paccekabuddhas'. The mother said 'you should not say such serious thing.' Immediately their dressing automatically became yellow robes. In the presence of their mother they all flew in the sky and went into the forest of Himalaya to stay in caves. If you happened to become a sotapanna straight away you would think to enter the Order. Likewise if you became a sakadagam or anagam you would think the same. In case of arahats it is not compatible to stay in worldly affairs. Monks are living in the world but this is different. But it is not true that 'arahats have to die because of not entering the Order'. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55729 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:08am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 683 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Why do being die? Because they were born. If there is no birth from the start there will not be any death. Here one might think that are there birth after death. Buddhists all sects perceive that there are many lives and endless. As soon as a life ends the next life immediately arises. But there is a little possibilities that one may have a wrong view on this matter. If one think life after life is self after self then there does have a wrong view. This is hard thing to deal with. Soon after we die, are all things stopped immediately? No. Examples: One did a lot of good things with a good intention there are things to arise as a result of these actions. Likewise if bad things have been done then there are things ready to give rise to results if there are conditions for these to arise. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55730 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:21am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 684 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, At every moment we can think there are cases of death. Dibbacakkhu of Bodhisatta saw this fact and deeply saw the impermanence. We can imagine that if billions of thing are passing away all the time the impermanance will be seen definitely. But we do not have the power of dibbacakkhu. Again there were hermits who did have power because of their kammatthaana or practice. But their power are not enough as in case of Bodhisatta to gain the knowledge of arahats. Why death? Because of birth. Why birth? Because of becoming (kamma-becoming). Why becoming? Because of clinging. Why clinging? Because of craving. Why craving? Because of feeling. Why feeling? Because of contact. Why contact? Because of 6-sense-bases or sense-base. Why sense-base? Because of nama-rupa. Why nama-rupa? Because of consciousness (vipaaka or resultant). Why consciousness? Because of formation. Why formation? Because of ignorance. Why ignorance? May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55731 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A question mr39515 An Arahant has a max. of 7 days to live. It is like a fan which you turn off the electricity. It will turn awhile before it finally stop. However if an Arahant is "asked" by the Buddha or his teacher to teach, the action of teaching which generate kusala will sustain until the rupa finally gave in. Technically, it would be difficult to be an Arahant householder to live more than 7 days max. The only reason they stay back more than 7 days is to fulfill their duty to their teachers by spreading the dhamma (if requested). The Vehicle of Pacceka Buddha do not exist at this time when the teaching of the buddha is available. Since we (both you and me) are here in the period where the teaching of the Buddha is available, I think we can all forget about the vehicle of Pacceka Buddha as we all don't have the seeds right now.... hahaha But for the info, I think they are most probably hermits meditating themselves thus found the truth by themselves. As you know, Pacceka Buddha can't teach to the world thus they are called the silence Buddha. Metta mr39515 --- buddhatrue wrote: <.....> > Your description of the possibilities is very > different from what I > have read and my understanding. What I understand > is that if a lay > person who becomes an arahant doesn't go forth then > he/she has no > choice but to enter parinibbana; in other words, > that it would be > impossible to be a householder and an arahant at the > same time for > any substantial length of time. Is my understanding > incorrect? If > not, then why is being an arahant incompatible with > being a > householder? Thanks for your input. :-) > > Metta, > James <...> 55732 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: A question htootintnaing Dear Ng Boon Huat, Paccekabuddhas are not silent. They do speak. And they can discuss dhamma. What they cannot is that they do not know the maturity of beings like sammaasambuddhas. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ng Boon Huat wrote: > > An Arahant has a max. of 7 days to live. It is like a > fan which you turn off the electricity. It will turn > awhile before it finally stop. However if an Arahant > is "asked" by the Buddha or his teacher to teach, the > action of teaching which generate kusala will sustain > until the rupa finally gave in. > > Technically, it would be difficult to be an Arahant > householder to live more than 7 days max. The only > reason they stay back more than 7 days is to fulfill > their duty to their teachers by spreading the dhamma > (if requested). > > The Vehicle of Pacceka Buddha do not exist at this > time when the teaching of the buddha is available. > Since we (both you and me) are here in the period > where the teaching of the Buddha is available, I think > we can all forget about the vehicle of Pacceka Buddha > as we all don't have the seeds right now.... hahaha > > But for the info, I think they are most probably > hermits meditating themselves thus found the truth by > themselves. As you know, Pacceka Buddha can't teach to > the world thus they are called the silence Buddha. > > Metta > mr39515 > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > <.....> > > Your description of the possibilities is very > > different from what I > > have read and my understanding. What I understand > > is that if a lay > > person who becomes an arahant doesn't go forth then > > he/she has no > > choice but to enter parinibbana; in other words, > > that it would be > > impossible to be a householder and an arahant at the > > same time for > > any substantial length of time. Is my understanding > > incorrect? If > > not, then why is being an arahant incompatible with > > being a > > householder? Thanks for your input. :-) > > > > Metta, > > James > <...> > 55733 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:50am Subject: The Nine Supreme Persons ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are only these Nine Superior and Noble Persons! The perfectly self-awakened Buddha... (Sammasambuddho) The solitary self-awakened Buddha... (Paccekasambuddho) The one released both ways... (Ubhatobhagavimutto) The one released by understanding... (Paññavimutto) The body-witness of direct experience... (Kayasakkhi) The view-winner of straight comprehension... (Ditthipattto) The one released by faith... (Saddhavimutto) The one guided by Dhamma... (Dhammanusari) The one guided by faith... (Saddhanusari) Source: The 4th Abhi-Dhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Paññatti. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <....> 55734 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A question upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and James) - In a message dated 2/14/06 1:34:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: > Dear James, > The laylife is bound up with desire > but an arahant cannot work, cannot even ask for food or store it. > Thus they are not compatible. > Robert > ======================== The Buddha was certainly an arahant. He was unbelievably competent at all things he would do. As you describe it, it *sounds* like an arahant is incompetent to function on his/her own, as if he were out of touch with "this world" and is almost a pitiable figure who must be cared for. This just makes no sense to me based on what I've read of the Buddha and other great arahants such as Sariputta. If the ancient commentators were so out of touch as to be unable even to work, why should any credence be given to their commentaries? Also, as for asking for food, what does going around with a begging bowl constitute if not asking for food? Does one have to recite the words "Please, sir/madam, give me some food"? Now, I do understand that there is this traditional belief that an arahant must join the Sangha. Perhaps that is meaningful and true, but in that case, I think we don't really understand the significance. One more thing: That the lay life is "bound up with desire" is a fact, but only for those who have desires. Even arahants can act volitionally, and with supreme competenece. They can and do will, though the volition is neutral, free of any sense of self, and has no kammic consequences. Arahants are quite capable of doing whatever is useful. 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) 55735 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:56am Subject: Re: A question buddhatrue Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > Dear James, > The laylife is bound up with desire James: Well, not necessarily. I guess it depends on who is living the laylife ;-)). > but an arahant cannot work, James: This is a new one to me. Why couldn't an arahant work? The Buddha taught Right Livelihood- he didn't preach against work. cannot even ask for food or store it. James: These are rules of the Vinaya and not necessarily specific characteristics of arahants. > Thus they are not compatible. > Robert Metta, James 55736 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:10am Subject: Re: A question buddhatrue Hi Htoo, Thanks for the feedback. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Htoo: > > Dear James, > > My interpretation is to be free from any flaw. James: It is to be free from flaw? When? (Answer: when you become an arahant! ;-)) > > It is incompatible. > > That is why they enter the Order. > > The same applies to paccekabuddhas. James: There isn't an "Order" for paccekabuddhas to enter. They arise at a time outside of the buddhashangha. > > There were 500 princes who were playing. All these princes were > children. During their playing they saw the change in water lilies and > they all became paccekabuddhas. > > A few moments later their mother came and said children 'what are you > doing here quietly.' > > They all replid 'we are paccekabuddhas'. > > The mother said 'you should not say such serious thing.' > > Immediately their dressing automatically became yellow robes. In the > presence of their mother they all flew in the sky and went into the > forest of Himalaya to stay in caves. James: This is a fantastic story! Never heard it before. Honestly, I seriously doubt this incident happened. Just think about it: 500 children playing together and they all notice AT THE SAME TIME a change in water lilies, and then they all AT THE SAME TIME became paccekabuddhas. Whoever came up with this story has never observed children playing. The only way that all 500 children playing would pay attention to water lilies is if they were paccekabuddhas already. Children have a very short attention span. > > If you happened to become a sotapanna straight away you would think to > enter the Order. Likewise if you became a sakadagam or anagam you > would think the same. James: I would definitely agree with that. However, the sureity of death adds a new dimension to this matter. > > In case of arahats it is not compatible to stay in worldly affairs. > Monks are living in the world but this is different. > > But it is not true that 'arahats have to die because of not entering > the Order'. James: Okay, now your position is really not clear to me. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > Metta, James 55737 From: "Charles" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:14am Subject: White light cherry_avium Thought I would like to share this simile A white light is actually composed of many colors. If the colors are seen, the white light is not seen anymore. It should be clear what the white light is and what the colors are :D 55738 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:19am Subject: Re: A question buddhatrue Hi Ng Boon Huat, Thanks for your input. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ng Boon Huat wrote: > > An Arahant has a max. of 7 days to live. It is like a > fan which you turn off the electricity. It will turn > awhile before it finally stop. However if an Arahant > is "asked" by the Buddha or his teacher to teach, the > action of teaching which generate kusala will sustain > until the rupa finally gave in. > > Technically, it would be difficult to be an Arahant > householder to live more than 7 days max. The only > reason they stay back more than 7 days is to fulfill > their duty to their teachers by spreading the dhamma > (if requested). James: This is a new concept to me. If this is true than a pacceka buddha would only live for seven days since he/she wouldn't have a teacher to ask him/her to teach the dhamma. That is, after all, why they are referred to as "silent" buddhas- they don't teach anyone the dhamma and they become enlightened on their own. Metta, James 55739 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:58am Subject: Re: A question htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: James: This is a fantastic story! Never heard it before. Honestly, I seriously doubt this incident happened. Just think about it: 500 children playing together and they all notice AT THE SAME TIME a change in water lilies, and then they all AT THE SAME TIME became paccekabuddhas. Whoever came up with this story has never observed children playing. The only way that all 500 children playing would pay attention to water lilies is if they were paccekabuddhas already. Children have a very short attention span. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Playing. That was what their mother knew before she found out them to be paccekabuddhas. They were playing. So their attention would have been scattering from child to child. Here child does not mean infants and young child. 16 years and 11 months are also children. The children, even though they might have been playing before, at the time the mother saw them they were all quiet and very calm. That is why the mother enquired. They said they were paccekabuddhas. At that time they were all in worldly dressings. When the mother said that they should not say like that then all paccekabuddhas became in the full forms with yellow robes. In the sight of the mother they all flew up and went straight to the forest of Himalaya. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55740 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:01am Subject: Re: White light htootintnaing Dear Charles, Thanks for your thought. Colour (vanna) include white. Any visible matters is ruupa (vanna). Because they can only be seen by eyes and not in other senses. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > Thought I would like to share this simile > > A white light is actually composed of many colors. If the colors are > seen, the white light is not seen anymore. > > It should be clear what the white light is and what the colors are :D > 55741 From: "Charles" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:51am Subject: Re: White light cherry_avium Hi Htoo, Thanks for your explanation in the color-element. I was actually thinking about physics color. This is actually a physics law or theory, that is when we pass a white light wave into a prism we get a spectrum ranging from red to violet; which shows that (white) light is actually a phenomena of combination of colors. But if would ask to what is its characteristic, in this case its wave length, we cannot do so instead we need to point out the wave lengths of the elementary colors that make the light. (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/ light/u12l2a.html) This is similar to the relationship of beings and dhammas, in my opinion. Only that this is not a dangerous view, i.e. I don't think anyone get caught in samsara because of not being able to see the spectrum of white light. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < htootintnaing@...> wrote: > > Dear Charles, > > Thanks for your thought. > > Colour (vanna) include white. Any visible matters is ruupa (vanna). > Because they can only be seen by eyes and not in other senses. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 55742 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:53am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 685 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Why formation? Because of ignorance. Why ignorance? Beings are in the middle of sorrow, lamentation, pain, aversion, despair and many other things that are not ariya's dhamma. So they all ignore ariya's dhamma. Ignorance cannot see ariya's dhamma. Ignorance cannot see suffering. When suffering cannot be seen then there is no way to see the cause of suffering. When suffering cannot be seen there is no way to see cessation of suffering. When cessation of suffering cannot be seen there is no way to see the way leading to cessation of suffering. When the way cannot be seen then beings are out of the way. When beings are out of the way they are off and they are led by ignorance. Ignorance hit them, ignorance kick them, ignorance crush them, ignorance torture them, ignorance crack them, ignorance defeat them. As ignorance is there then formation has to arise. As formation are there then consciousness have to arise and this again leads to endless phenomena and beings are then sunk in the ocean of suffering forever. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55743 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:02am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 686 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Ignorance leads us most of the time. Because of ignorance (avijjaa) we have to sink in the suffering in the samsaraa and the 12 links D.O will be rotating and will never stop. This cycle of suffering has to be broken away. There must be a way to escape from this cycle of birth-death-birth-death. The cycle is powerfully rotating and it is hard to depart from it. The cycle or the wheel has two roots. They are ignorance and craving or avijjaa and tanhaa. These two dhamma have to be looked and examined repeatedly and seen them repeatedly. If someone does not know what craving is or what ignorance is then there is no way that he would understand the way to escape from the cycle of birth-death-birth-death. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55744 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:13am Subject: Re: White light htootintnaing Dear Charles, Yes. In physics there are explanation on 'light'. They, that is light-rays do have wave-lengths and there are various wave-length. Actually there are many waves. In the electromagnetic spectrum the largest waves are radio-waves. The wave-lenths in radio-waves are very very long. In radio-waves there are many wave-lengths like short wave, median wave etc. Next come micro-waves. Then light waves. There are infra-red wave and ultra-violet waves. These two waves cannot be perceived by the human biological eyes as is true for other waves. After light waves there are X-rays, alfa-rays, beta-rays, gamma-rays etc. All these waves may be scientific realities. But 'only visible waves come into the eyes for perception as image'. Other will be the object of mind. Again when these are analyse these are just names even though they are scientific realities. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thanks for your explanation in the color-element. I was actually > thinking about physics color. > > This is actually a physics law or theory, that is when we pass a > white light wave into a prism we get a spectrum ranging from red to > violet; which shows that (white) light is actually a phenomena of > combination of colors. But if would ask to what is its > characteristic, in this case its wave length, we cannot do so instead > we need to point out the wave lengths of the elementary colors that > make the light. (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/ > light/u12l2a.html) > > This is similar to the relationship of beings and dhammas, in my > opinion. Only that this is not a dangerous view, i.e. I don't think > anyone get caught in samsara because of not being able to see the > spectrum of white light. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < > htootintnaing@> wrote: > > > > Dear Charles, > > > > Thanks for your thought. > > > > Colour (vanna) include white. Any visible matters is ruupa (vanna). > > Because they can only be seen by eyes and not in other senses. > > > > With Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > 55745 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:17am Subject: Re: White light htootintnaing Dear Charles, There are VIBGYOR rays. V = violet I = indigo B = blue G = green Y = yellow O = orange R = red Below red is another rays called 'infra-red'. We cannot see infra- red. Above violet is ultra-violet. We cannot see ultra-violet. VIBGYOR rays are only rays in the visible range. That is why The Buddha just called visible object as 'vanno' which means 'colour'. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thanks for your explanation in the color-element. I was actually > thinking about physics color. > > This is actually a physics law or theory, that is when we pass a > white light wave into a prism we get a spectrum ranging from red to > violet; which shows that (white) light is actually a phenomena of > combination of colors. But if would ask to what is its > characteristic, in this case its wave length, we cannot do so instead > we need to point out the wave lengths of the elementary colors that > make the light. (http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/ > light/u12l2a.html) > > This is similar to the relationship of beings and dhammas, in my > opinion. Only that this is not a dangerous view, i.e. I don't think > anyone get caught in samsara because of not being able to see the > spectrum of white light. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < > htootintnaing@> wrote: > > > > Dear Charles, > > > > Thanks for your thought. > > > > Colour (vanna) include white. Any visible matters is ruupa (vanna). > > Because they can only be seen by eyes and not in other senses. > > > > With Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > 55746 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:36am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 687 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Ignorance is subtle thing to know. Yet it always arises with each of akusala citta. There is no akusala citta that does not have ignorance. In ordinary time beings are having attachment or lobha or craving most of the time if not they are particularly wandering or in doubt condition that is if they are just in pure ignorance condition there is lobha almost all the time. Otherwise there are aversion and beings are not content with what they face and they are demanding things they want. When they cannot obtain what they want then aversion has to arise. Because of these three roots or hetus there have to arise many dhamma. All these three are akusala hetus. Because of these hetus akusala actions are done regularly. What about doing kusala? May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55747 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:29pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 688 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, What about doing kusala in D.O? Kusala actions are done with kusala cetana or volition. These actions do have kamma effect and when they are performed kamma is also formed. These kamma are formed because of ignorance to ariya's truths. Those who know ariya's noble truth fully do not have any more kamma that would have furture effect or simply kamma that would give rise to rebirth. Because they know truths fully and there is no ignorance. As there is no ignorance there is no formation. As there is no kamma formation there is no consciousness related to those kamma. Because of not arising of consciousness there do not arise nama-rupa. As there is no nama-rupa there is no sense-base. As there is no sense base there is no contact. As there is no contact there is no feeling. As there is no feeling there is no craving. As there is no craving then there is no clinging. As clinging is cleared there is no becoming of kamma. As there is no becoming of kamma there is no more rebirth and no more death at all for all arahats who are ariyas who fully realise the truths. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55748 From: "Charles" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:18am Subject: Re: White light cherry_avium Hi Htoo, Thanks again about you explanation on colors. But actually I was writing a simile. A simile explains relationship of things, but not literally the things theirselves. Here white light is the khandhas. Paramattha dhammas are the different color. When paramattha dhammas create formations, we perceive khandhas. It shows a real example on how our perception radically change on a formation. When the different colors are perceived at the same time, the perception of white color arise. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < htootintnaing@...> wrote: > > Dear Charles, > > There are VIBGYOR rays. > > V = violet > I = indigo > B = blue > G = green > Y = yellow > O = orange > R = red > > Below red is another rays called 'infra-red'. We cannot see infra- > red. > > Above violet is ultra-violet. We cannot see ultra-violet. > > VIBGYOR rays are only rays in the visible range. That is why The > Buddha just called visible object as 'vanno' which means 'colour'. 55749 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:14am Subject: The 9 Supreme Persons Explained... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: There are only these Nine Superior and Noble Persons! The perfectly self-awakened Buddha... (Sammasambuddho) The solitary self-awakened Buddha... (Paccekasambuddho) The one released both ways... (Ubhatobhagavimutto) The one released by understanding... (Pa��avimutto) The body-witness of direct experience... (Kayasakkhi) The view-winner of straight comprehension... (Ditthipattto) The one released by faith... (Saddhavimutto) The one guided by Dhamma... (Dhammanusari) The one guided by faith... (Saddhanusari) What sort of person is an perfectly self-awakened Buddha ? Here a certain person who, in regard to teachings he has not heard of before, himself thoroughly understands the 4 noble truths and attains the omniscience thereof as well as complete mastery over the fruitions! This sort of person is said to be a perfectly self-awakened Buddha... What sort of person is a solitary self-awakened Buddha ? Here a certain person who, in regard to teachings he has not heard of before, himself thoroughly understands the 4 noble truths, but attains neither the omniscience, nor the mastery over the fruitions thereof... This sort of person is said to be a solitary self-awakened Buddha... What sort of person is released in both ways ? Here a certain person himself experiencing directly & touches bodily the eight stages of liberation, and furthermore by comprehending them by understanding, his mental fermentations are completely eliminated. This sort of person is said to be one released in both ways... What sort of person is released by understanding ? Here a certain person without experiencing the eight stages of liberation, but having perceived them through understanding, his mental fermentations are completely eliminated. Such one is one released by understanding... What sort of person is a body-witness of direct experience ? Here a certain person himself experiences the eight stages of liberation, and yet having perceived them also through understanding, only some of his mental fermentations are completely eliminated. This sort of person is said to be a body-witness of direct experience... What sort of person is one who has won view ? Here a certain person truly understands, that this is suffering, that such is the cause of suffering, that such is the ceasing of suffering, and that such is the Way leading to the ceasing of suffering. The teachings explained by the Thus-come-thus-gone One, are comprehended by him and also practised! Yet having comprehended them, only some of his mental fermentations are eliminated. Such person is a noble view-winner of straight comprehension... What sort of person is released by faith ? Here a certain person truly understands that this is suffering, that such is the cause of suffering, that such is the ceasing of suffering, and that such is the Way leading to the ceasing of suffering. The teachings explained by the Thus-come-thus-gone One, are comprehended by him and also practised! Yet having comprehended them, only some of his mental fermentations are completely eliminated, though not in the same way, nor to the same degree as the view-winner. This sort of person is said to be one released by faith. What sort of person is one guided by Dhamma ? The ability of understanding of a person, who is about to realize the fruition stage of a stream-attainer develops quite much, when he cultivates the noble way, which brings with it understanding and is initiated by understanding... This sort of person is said to be one guided by Dhamma. Such a person striving after the fruition stage of stream-attaining is one guided by Dhamma, while the same person established in the fruition is one who has won view. What sort of person is one guided by faith ? The ability of faith of one about to realize the fruition stage of stream-attaining develops to a large extent. He cultivates the noble way, which brings with it faith and is initiated by faith. This sort of person is said to be one guided by faith. Such a person striving after the fruit of stream-attaining is one guided by faith, while the same person established in the fruition is released by faith. Source: The 4th Higher Science = Abhidhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Pa��atti. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! 55750 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A question mr39515 I know... Thanks --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Ng Boon Huat, > > Paccekabuddhas are not silent. > > They do speak. > > And they can discuss dhamma. > > What they cannot is that they do not know the > maturity of beings > like sammaasambuddhas. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing <...> 55751 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:07am Subject: e-card and update from Bangkok sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Just a quick update & note to say that I've been appreciating all the posts while we've been here in Thailand. I laughed a lot at the 3-way discussion between KenH, Howard and AndrewT - very funny and interesting indeed! KenH, I don't recall ever being in the slightest bit 'shocked' by any of your comments in Noosa or on the list.....:-/ AndrewT & KenO, good to see you around. KenO, hope you continue your discussions with CharlesG (Cherry) and Larry. Phil, I think all your questions have been raised...eventually, eventually, you'll get to hear the edited version of the discussions here. As Jon mentioned, last week, we had a few days of discussion with A.Sujin and also Nina, Lodvijk, RobK, Sukin, Matt (Ivan) and others. My mother, Kate, joined one discussion unintentionally for a while and met everyone for a lunch. Today, refreshed from a few days with her at the beach, we had a full day of discussion again. This time, Chris, Azita and friends Vince & Nancy joined too. V & N are on their way to Burma for 3 mths retreat and we had the usual discussions about quiet places, meditation, steps, this moment, self-view and so on. Earlier, more on nimitta, sanna and other more nitty-gritty points. Again, this time intentionally, my mother(Kate) joined us for about 40 minutes of discussion and for the usual delicious lunch next door to the foundation. Ah yes, more discussion on memories (conventional and dhammas), dreaming like now and life as a dream we'll soon forget too. Please keep up the good discussions on list and if anyone else would like us to raise any comments or questions with A.Sujin, post ahead. (Short ones are good as we cannot print them out). Joop and Phil, I'm sure Nina will also be getting back more with responses to your qus too. (Btw, James, good to see your questions and the various responses. Htoo, good to see all your activity on DO which I'll print out to read on our return after Sunday). Metta, Sarah =========== 55752 From: "Charles" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:23am Subject: Re: e-card and update from Bangkok cherry_avium --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott < sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote: > Please keep up the good discussions on list and if anyone else would like > us to raise any comments or questions with A.Sujin, post ahead. Hi Sarah, When people meet a successful person, standard question would be " what is your secret of success", so if applicable I would like to ask that too :D 55753 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:56am Subject: Re: White light htootintnaing Dear Charles, Now I perceive your simile. I agree. With Metta, Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles" wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thanks again about you explanation on colors. But actually I was > writing a simile. A simile explains relationship of things, but not > literally the things theirselves. > > Here white light is the khandhas. > Paramattha dhammas are the different color. > When paramattha dhammas create formations, we perceive khandhas. > > It shows a real example on how our perception radically change on a > formation. When the different colors are perceived at the same time, > the perception of white color arise. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" < > htootintnaing@> wrote: > > > > Dear Charles, > > > > There are VIBGYOR rays. > > > > V = violet > > I = indigo > > B = blue > > G = green > > Y = yellow > > O = orange > > R = red > > > > Below red is another rays called 'infra-red'. We cannot see infra- > > red. > > > > Above violet is ultra-violet. We cannot see ultra-violet. > > > > VIBGYOR rays are only rays in the visible range. That is why The > > Buddha just called visible object as 'vanno' which means 'colour'. > 55754 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:11am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 689 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, When we say committing kusala there are two types of kusala. They are kaama-kusala and ruupa-kusala. Kaama-kusalas are done with kaamaavacara mahaakusala cittas and ruupa-kusala are done with ruupa- kusala cittas. Ruupa-kusala cittas are ruupa-jhaanas. These are sa`nkhaara and they are pu~n~naabhisa`nkhaara. Still there are other kusala cittas. They are arupa kusala cittas and lokuttaraa kusala cittas. But with respect to formation or sankhaara these kusala are not in the realm of punnaabhisankhaara. Aruupa-kusala are aruupa-kusala cittas and they are aruupa-jhaanas. There is difference between ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana. Ruupa jhaanas are all based on ruupa while aruupa jhaanas are not based on ruupa. As this happens aruupa jhaana are not shaken by ruupa of any kind whatever strength they have. If one is absorbed in aruupa jhaana then thunder storm, lightening, explosive sounds etc will not be able to shake or end aruupa jhaana. So these aruupa jhaana are called unshakable or unperturbable kusala or sankhaara. It is aanenjaabhisankhaara. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55755 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:21am Subject: Dhama Thread ( 690 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Doing kusala of kaama and ruupa are also because of ignorance of ariya's truth. This does not mean that there is moha when kusala are done. But it is sure that when these kusala are done there is no way that beings know 4 ariya's noble truths. So they still have avijjaa. Ananjaabhisankhaara or doing aruupa-kusala are also committing sankhaara or formation. This is also because there is ignorance to 4 ariya's noble truths. Because ariya's truths are not known then aruupa- kusala are done. In kusala dhamma there left more kusala cittas. They are lokuttaraa kusala cittas. But these lokuttara cittas do know 4 ariya's noble truth and they do not have avijjaa or ignoarnce. So these 4 magga cittas or path consciousness are not included in 'apunnaabhisankhaara, punnaabhisankhaara, and anenjaabhisankhaara'. As magga cittas are not sankhaara they do not produce 'vinnaana in next life or next lives' Instead they immediately give rise to their effect. That effect is frution consciousness or phala cittas. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55756 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:33am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 691 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 4 kusala cittas. They are 1. kaama kusala cittas 2. ruupa kusala cittas 3. arupa kusala cittas 4. lokuttaraa kusala cittas But not all these are sankhaara of Dependent Origination. That is the last kusala citta which is magga cittas or path consciousness are not like other kusala cittas in that their results do not wait for next life or even later moments in this life. This means that magga cittas immediately give rise to their results. The results are phala cittas or fruition consciousness. This is why Dhamma is called 'akaaliko'. Dhamma have the attribute of 'giving rise to effect without delay'. In Dependent Origination the scripture says_ avijjaa paccayaa sankhaara, sankhaara paccayaa vinnaana, vinnaana paccaya namarupam,... . But magga cittas are not done because of ignorance. So when magga citta of lokuttaraa kusala cittas are arising there is no sankhaara (of D.O). Because there is no sankhaara (of D.O) there is no vinnaana (of D.O) that is vipaaka in next life. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55757 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:41am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 692 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Conventional kusala and kusala dhamma are different. Example; offering of flowers to The Buddha is kusala at least conventionally. No one will say that someone who is offering flowers to The Buddha is doing akusala. But are all offering to The Buddha kusala dhamma? In the case where arahats offer flowers to The Buddha the action will be seen as kusala conventionally. But arahats do not have any kusala or akusala. Arahats may be doing an action at any given time. But arahats are not committing any sankhaara. So in case of arahats their good actions are seen as kusala conventionally. In terms of Dhamma the actions of arahats who are doing offering to The Buddha are all kiriya cittas and not kusala cittas. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55758 From: Ken O Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities ashkenn2k Hi Charles > What do you touch when you touch a tree? Is that an illusion? k: Yes it is an illusion, the touch is hardness while the colour of the tree is visible objects. Illusion are acquired but paramatha dhammas dont need to acquire as they are not self and when conditions are right, they appear. If you ask somebody living all their life in north pole without seeing a tree before, I dont think he can tell you. But if you ask him what is anger, he can tell you and even tell you what make him angry :-) > Let's use your logic. Self is an illusion so non-self would be > real. Paramattha dhammas are real so why are they anatta ? k: First of all do you agree that paramattha dhammas are real, just like anger is real, greed is real and joy is real but self and trees are not. They are anatta because they dont belong to us, we dont own them and worst of all we cannot control them or tell them what to do. As I said earlier in the Anatta Sutta "If form is self, it will not lead to afflictions, one can say let my form be thus, let my form not be thus. Form is not self, thus it leads to afflictions, none can say, let my form be thus, let my form not be thus" simply meant if form is self, we control them, we wont have to suffer, we tell our mental cittas to be always happy, our body will always be young :-) But realisticsly, they are not self. Cheers Ken O 55759 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:12am Subject: Re: A question jwromeijn Dear James, Nice to hear again of you. Although I am in a Portugese internet cafe now and only wanted to lurk, still a reaction. I think your question is rather theoretical: If a layperson gets a arahant, he or she knows intuively what to do: going to a sangha or just keep calm where he or she is. Don"t you think a arahant has a perfect intuition? What can be the reason that commentaries stated this about seven days etc.? I think this monks did not like the idea that they as monks tried whole there life day and night to get a arahant and a (fucking) layperson will do it? But it is theoretically for another reason to: I think we can better work on our first steps on the buddhistic path; and when we get a streamenterer there is time enough to study what to do then. Monasticism (what have discussed about it before) is a cultural invention, a very good one but still something that belongs to the conventional realities and not to the ultimate realities. Metta Joop (Hoping to hear more of you)~ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > Sorry I haven't been posting for a long while but I have been quite > busy with personal and work issues. But even when I am not posting, > this group and its members are frequently in my thoughts and good > wishes. > > Anyway, I have a question to throw out at the members of this > group. While I was reading the recent book by Eckhart Tolle, A New > Earth, a question formed in my mind: I wondered about the ancient > commentarial notes regarding how an householder who becomes an > arahant must renounce the householder life and "go forth" as a > monk/nun or otherwise die. Why is this? The more I think about it, > the more it doesn't make any sense and I can't find any logical > justification for this declaration. What is the deciding factor (s) > in these two lifestyles which would mean life and death for an > arahant??? > > As for myself, I have always been very strong "pro-monastic" in my > approach to the buddhadhamma. Therefore, when I read about this > commentary in the past I didn't really examine it critically; I > guess I just considered it `ammunition' for my viewpoint. ;-)) > However, now I don't accept this commentary so readily. What is the > justification for saying this? I can understand how a monastic > lifestyle can be helpful in leading one to the goal of nibbana, but > once this goal has been reached why then is the lifestyle so > necessary?? Additionally, I must consider pacceka buddhas (silent > buddhas) when examining this question. Silent Buddhas became > buddhas and yet I don't believe it is stated if they > necessarily "went forth" afterwards. How could one "go forth" when > there isn't a sangha to join? Or were all pacceka buddhas hermits > of some sort? > > I guess I just have a lot of questions about this issue. If anyone > would like to offer an educated viewpoint or even just a wild-eyed > opinion, it would be appreciated. Thanks. > > Metta, > James > 55760 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/9/2006 4:20:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: So I go back to my original question: what is the basis for your assertion that the object of consciousness must be a reality and cannot be a concept? Hoping this reaches you before you go away. Jon Hi Jon Just got back. I'm exhausted with this topic as probably are you. If you believe the an object of consciousness can be a "non-reality" then so be it. In my view that's an error. It seem "obviously wrong" to me, but I think a mind has to resolve it on its own. I think I've offered all the examples and explanations that I can muster at this time. Best wishes, TG 55761 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/15/06 1:31:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Jon > > Just got back. I'm exhausted with this topic as probably are you. If you > believe the an object of consciousness can be a "non-reality" then so be > it. > In my view that's an error. It seem "obviously wrong" to me, but I think a > > mind has to resolve it on its own. I think I've offered all the examples > and > explanations that I can muster at this time. > > Best wishes, > > TG > ========================= As I see it, this is the situation: TG, based on an impression obtained from Abhidhamma as expressed on DSG, you are assuming that 'an object of thought' (or 'a concept') refers to an actual phenomenon, either experiential content or an thing/event independent of experience, for which a relationship of experiencing holds between consciousness and it - i.e., that it is a kind of literal object of consciousness. As I see it, being an object of consciousness and being an object of thought are not the same. The locution "an object of thought" is figurative, as I see it. When thinking is in effect, there is no doubt a long string of objects of consciousness in the literal sense. But none of them is the "object of thought". An "object of thought" isn't a reality. When we speak of an object of thought, that is just a way of describing a given thought process, distinguishing it from other thought processes. So, thinking about a vacation is different from thinking about going to work and different from thinking about the w armth of a bath. During such thinking, there is neither vacation-going or work-going or warmth that is present, and there is no isolable aspect of the thinking process that is "the thought" of this either. The entire thought process is a thinking of that "object of thought". As for objects of consciousness in the literal sense, the issue of whether they are merely experiential content (the radical phenomenalist perspective) or mind-independent phenomena ("objectivist perspective") is another matter entirely, of course. 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) 55762 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard I responded to your idea of what you think my standpoint is about 11 days ago but didn't get an answer to that post. At any rate, your idea of what my idea is... is not correct. Since I've explained it many times and its not coming across, I'll put it on hold for now. Take care, TG In a message dated 2/15/2006 12:40:45 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: As I see it, this is the situation: TG, based on an impression obtained from Abhidhamma as expressed on DSG, you are assuming that 'an object of thought' (or 'a concept') refers to an actual phenomenon, either experiential content or an thing/event independent of experience, for which a relationship of experiencing holds between consciousness and it - i.e., that it is a kind of literal object of consciousness. As I see it, being an object of consciousness and being an object of thought are not the same. The locution "an object of thought" is figurative, as I see it. When thinking is in effect, there is no doubt a long string of objects of consciousness in the literal sense. But none of them is the "object of thought". An "object of thought" isn't a reality. When we speak of an object of thought, that is just a way of describing a given thought process, distinguishing it from other thought processes. So, thinking about a vacation is different from thinking about going to work and different from thinking about the w armth of a bath. During such thinking, there is neither vacation-going or work-going or warmth that is present, and there is no isolable aspect of the thinking process that is "the thought" of this either. The entire thought process is a thinking of that "object of thought". As for objects of consciousness in the literal sense, the issue of whether they are merely experiential content (the radical phenomenalist perspective) or mind-independent phenomena ("objectivist perspective") is another matter entirely, of course. With metta, Howard 55763 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 4:59am Subject: RE: [dsg] A question dacostacharles Hi Buddhatrue, I think you would have to look at the culture of that day. You can not look at it based on today's standards. Best Regards, Charles A. DaCosta -----Original Message----- From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of buddhatrue Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 22:54 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] A question Dear Friends, Sorry I haven't been posting for a long while but I have been quite busy with personal and work issues. But even when I am not posting, this group and its members are frequently in my thoughts and good wishes. Anyway, I have a question to throw out at the members of this group. While I was reading the recent book by Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth, a question formed in my mind: I wondered about the ancient commentarial notes regarding how an householder who becomes an arahant must renounce the householder life and "go forth" as a monk/nun or otherwise die. Why is this? The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make any sense and I can't find any logical justification for this declaration. What is the deciding factor(s) in these two lifestyles which would mean life and death for an arahant??? <....> 55764 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/15/06 4:13:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I responded to your idea of what you think my standpoint is about 11 days > ago but didn't get an answer to that post. At any rate, your idea of what > my > idea is... is not correct. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I apologize for misunderstanding your perspective and for missing your post (or failing to send an anticipated reply). Well, half a loaf is better than none - at least you understand my perspective! :-) ---------------------------------------- Since I've explained it many times and its not > > coming across, I'll put it on hold for now. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Again - I'm sorry. The fault is surely mine. ----------------------------------------- > > > Take care, > > 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) 55765 From: "Larry" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and sabhava lbidd2 Ken O: "perception does not err because it is not the function of perception to err. Perception is just marking. It is the function of ditthi or the akusala dhammas to err. As I say dont confuse perceptions as our logicial human mind perception. Hence there is not such thing as wrong perception in Abhidhamma. Wrong preception is the result of akusala cittas :-)." Hi Ken, Here's my thinking: In SN95 (Lump of Foam Sutta) perception is compared to a mirage. In Vism. perception is like a young deer who sees a scarecrow and thinks it is a man. Only panna can penetrate the object and know it as it is. If perception cannot understand the object as it is, then perception errs. Most importantly, perception cannot understand impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. Even the Buddha's perception cannot understand impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. Consciousness can know impermanence, dukkha, and anatta, but only panna can penetrate the impermanence, etc., of paramattha dhammas. This knowing an object but not knowing impermanence, etc., is the basis of wrong belief (ditthi), imo. Ignorance ignores, but there is no basis for belief in this. As for "marking an object", what do you think this means? Is it something you have experienced? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Hi Larry > > > Its just my guess. As far as I know the texts don't say whether a > nimitta is a paramattha dhamma or not, nor do they say whether a > perception is a paramattha dhamma or not. > > k: A nimitta is sign and it can mean anything so it is not > paramattha dhamma as far as I am concern, because paramattha dhammas > have definite characteristics. Perception is a paramattha dhamma, > can we break down perceptions into many other parts, can we say that > preception is not real. Perception is not as what we think as > perception in our logic human mind, what we think as perception in > our logic mind is already an avalanche of perceptions in Abidhamma > contxt. > > > Mostly, the texts say perception tends to err. A scarecrow is taken > for a man because they have the same shape. Perception is like a > mirage; you see one thing and think it is something else. An error > has two sides. One side is the reality of the error and the other > side is the nonexistence of the error. Wrong view is an ultimate > reality so I would say wrong perception is an ultimate reality. This > doesn't address the specific question of the status of a nimitta but > it adds weight to the argument that a nimitta is an > ultimate reality. > > k: perception does not err because it is not the function of > perception to err. Perception is just marking. It is the function of > ditthi or the akusala dhammas to err. As I say dont confuse > perceptions as our logicial human mind perception. Hence there is > not such thing as wrong perception in Abhidhamma. Wrong preception > is the result of akusala cittas :-). > > > > Another issue is that reality isn't necessarily ultimate reality. > > One rupa is an ultimate reality; two rupas is not an ultimate > reality but it would be foolish to say two rupas is not real or is > only a word. > > k: Can we say that human who is a collection of uncountable numbers > of cittas is also an ultimate reality. Definitely not, we cannot > just assume that two rupas are ultimate realities just because both > rupas are ultimate reality. > > > > Cheers > Ken O > 55766 From: "Larry" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concept and sabhava lbidd2 Hi Jon, Let's start over. What is a concept? What is a sign? What is a mental image? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Larry > > LBIDD@... wrote: > > >Hi Jon, > > > >As far as I know, CMA doesn't say. Based on the definitions of sanna, > >nimitta, and vipallasa in the "Buddhist Dictionary" it seems that sanna > >(perception) is aware of signs (nimitta) and signs are distinctive > >"marks" of an object. Vism. has this in regard to the perception > >aggregate: > > > >Vism.XIV,130. But though classed in the same way as consciousness, > >nevertheless, as to characteristic, etc., it all has the characteristic > >of perceiving. Its function is to make a sign as a condition for > >perceiving again that 'this is the same'... > > > > We are not talking about how sanna functions, but about a mental (i.e., > visual) image created by the mind. Of course, sanna has a role to play, > but the mental image is not the same as the sign by which sanna marks > the present object of consciousness as a condition for perceiving that > object again at some future time. The question here is whether the > mental image is a dhamma or not. > > >L: A sign is usually perceived externally but can be remembered. I think > >this memory of a sign is a mental image. > > > > Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that all mental images are memories of a > sign made by sanna. But in any event, surely the memory of the sign > could not be a dhamma? > > >It functions in way very > >similar to words and often plays a part in lending meaning to words, as, > >for instance, the word 'elephant' conditions the recollection of the > >sign of an elephant. In 'guarding the senses' there is no awareness of > >'signs of defilement', just awareness of 'things as they are'. I think > >signs of defilement are closely associated with (or the same as) > >perversions of perception (sanna vipallasa). There are also perversions > >of consciousness and views, but I don't know what a perversion of > >consciousness would be. Any ideas? > > > > A whole different topic, I think ;-)) > > >What I'm trying to get at is that errors are often perceptual errors > >that arise through ignoring details and to dismiss all errors as > >concepts isn't saying much. Furthermore, concept or word or error is not > >the only phenomenon that is empty of own nature (sabhava). Any group or > >relationship is empty of own nature. To say that a group or relationship > >is nonexistent simply because it is empty of sabhava is an extreme view, > >imo. > > > > I don't think that existence/non-existence is much discussed in the > texts. Mainly just dhammas ;-)). > > Jon > 55767 From: "Larry" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:22pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 691 ) lbidd2 Hi Htoo, I'm still confused by namarupa. Beginning with sankhara it seems like kamma and kamma result alternate: sankhara (kamma) conditions vinnana (kamma result) which conditions namarupa (kamma???) which conditions 6 ayatanas (kamma result???). Is that right? Mostly I'm confused by the rupas in namarupa and the ayatanas. Are these kamma and kamma result or is this just the wrong way of looking at it. In spite of all this confusion I'm really appreciating this series on D.O. Very interesting. Larry 55768 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts TGrand458@... Hi Howard No fault at all. Certainly no apologies are called for. Your replies are always valuable to reflect off of. In the final analysis, most of the quibbling in here seems to deal with technical irrelevancies. I sometimes think its not Buddhism at all. But alas, the exchange tends to be valuable, if for no other reason, than to make one think more sharply...because this group has sharp thinkers in it! TG In a message dated 2/15/2006 4:21:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I apologize for misunderstanding your perspective and for missing your post (or failing to send an anticipated reply). Well, half a loaf is better than none - at least you understand my perspective! :-) ---------------------------------------- Since I've explained it many times and its not > > coming across, I'll put it on hold for now. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Again - I'm sorry. The fault is surely mine. 55769 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:58pm Subject: Re: e-card and update from Bangkok scottduncan2 > Please keep up the good discussions on list and if anyone else would like > us to raise any comments or questions with A.Sujin, post ahead. (Short > ones are good as we cannot print them out). Joop and Phil, I'm sure Nina > will also be getting back more with responses to your qus too. (Btw, > James, good to see your questions and the various responses. Htoo, good to > see all your activity on DO which I'll print out to read on our return > after Sunday). > > Metta, > > Sarah > =========== Dear Sarah, It seems as if there is a good thing going on over there. I have a short question for A. Sujin: How does one explain the experience of sustained emotional states when citta and cetasika arise and fall away again so rapidly? Is this accumulation? Does domanassa accumulate? Tried to keep a complex question short . . . Thanks for the opportunity. Please let A. Sujin know that I am greatly appreciating her book! Sincerely, Scott. 55770 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/15/06 8:42:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > I sometimes think its > not Buddhism at all. ======================= Sometimes I wonder 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) 55771 From: "Charles" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities cherry_avium Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > k: Yes it is an illusion, the touch is hardness while the colour of > the tree is visible objects. Illusion are acquired but paramatha > dhammas dont need to acquire as they are not self and when conditions > are right, they appear. If you ask somebody living all their life in > north pole without seeing a tree before, I dont think he can tell > you. But if you ask him what is anger, he can tell you and even tell > you what make him angry :-) Oh yes, I agree on this. > k: First of all do you agree that paramattha dhammas are real, just > like anger is real, greed is real and joy is real but self and trees > are not. I agree too that these are real. > They are anatta because they dont belong to us, we dont own > them and worst of all we cannot control them or tell them what to do. Oh, I see now your definition on anatta. I have a slightly different view on anatta. Because it is the formations, illusions, that are viewed as I, as being mine, by beings, so I think it is the formations (i.e., khandhas) that are to be viewed as anatta. But when we talk about paramattha dhammas, there is no more the concept of khandhas, no khandhas, no atta-ditthi. So to me it is like saying that space is not a table. It is true, space is not a table, but it is also strange. But if we do have something that we used to look at as a table, and by knowledge we know that it is actually not a table, we can say this thing that I used to think as a table is in reality not a table. > As I said earlier in the Anatta Sutta "If form is self, it will not > lead to afflictions, one can say let my form be thus, let my form not > be thus. Form is used to be taken as self, so by real truth, form is said to be not-self. But paramattha dhammas are not what beings take as self, there is no more real truth than the paramattha dhammas theirselves. It is why they are said the ultimate truth. We do not need to fix a well house, But a broken house will need a fix 55772 From: "Pablo" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice cerini_pablo > So I think the answer to your question is: have more understanding of > a presently arising dhamma (any dhamma). thank you, what you wrote is very interesting, but I' m still unclear about the practice. A part from the fact that , being the arising dhamma so many, sometime I miss the difference beetween meditating and daydreaming, what do you mean with "more understanding" ? I can't really understand how should I experience a dhamma as anicca/anatta ... the only thing I can do is to repeat in my mind that the arisen dhamma is subjected to dissolution and death, but I don't think this can be enough. 55773 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:59am Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread ( 691 ) htootintnaing Dear Larry, Thanks for your questions. To be honest I am a working through dhamma-student and not a dhamma professor. I just present as I understand. Your questions are interesting and I have never thought in the way you do; that is kamma and kamma-results. Please see the discussion below. With respect, Htoo Naing PS: I do respect you as a person who is trying to present visuddhimagga. --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry wrote: Hi Htoo, I'm still confused by namarupa. Beginning with sankhara it seems like kamma and kamma result alternate: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Interesting though, indeed. There are three rounds of dhamma. There are 3 va.t.ta. They are 1. kilesa va.t.ta (round of defilement) 2. kamma va.t.ta (round of kamma) 3. vipaaka va.t.ta(round of vipaaka or result) I hope this will explain your quesries. If I go in the way you are thinking a) avijjaa (kamma)/Ki --> sankhara(kamma)/Ka b) sankhara(kamma)/Ka --> vinnaana(kamma-result)/Vi c) vinnaana(KR)/Vi --> namarupa(KR)/Vi d) namarupa(KR)/Vi --> sa.layatana(KR)/Vi e) sa.layatana(KR)/Vi --> phassa (KR)/Vi f) phassa (KR) /Vi --> vedanaa(KR)/Vi h) vedanaa (KR)/Vi --> tanhaa (kamma)/Ki i) tanhaa (K) /Ki --> upadaana(K)/Ki j) upadana(K) /Ki --> bhavo (K)/Ka k) bhavo (K) /Ka --> jaati (KR)/Vi l) jaati(KR) /Vi --> jaraa/mara.na(KR)/Vi This is if you only think on K (Kamma) and KR (Kamma Result). But there are 3 rounds. Kamma result is vipaaka. So you are thinking kamma and vipaaka only. But there is a third round called kilesa. Avijjaa, tanhaa, upadaana are kilesa. Sankhaara, bhava are kamma. Others are vipaaka. Arahats are freed from the rounds of kilesa and kamma. But they not not freed from vipaka round and this round ends only at the time of cuti citta, which is definitely vipaaka citta. I said above avijja as kamma because when doing kamma (action) there is no knowledge of 4 noble truths. So akusala, kusala, anenjaa are done. But avijjaa is not kamma but kilesa. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry: sankhara (kamma) conditions vinnana (kamma result) which conditions > namarupa (kamma???) which conditions 6 ayatanas (kamma result???). Is that right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: See above. They are vipaaka. So they are kamma-result. Naamaruupa is not kamma but kamma results. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry: Mostly I'm confused by the rupas in namarupa and the ayatanas. Are these kamma and kamma result or is this just the wrong way of looking at it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand your query. There are many ruupas depending on the cause. They are cittaja or consciousness-born, kammaja or kamma-born, utuja or temperature-born, and aharaja or nutriment-born ruupa. When discussing D.O there is 'vinnaana paccayaa naama-ruupam'. Vinaana is vipaaka or results. So do naama-ruupa. That is they are kamma-results. So it sounds like it is saying only on kammaja ruupas. But ruupas arise together as nissaya paccaya. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Larry: In spite of all this confusion I'm really appreciating this series on D.O. Very interesting. Larry --------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your interest. With Metta, Htoo Naing > 55774 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:08am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 693 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, There are three rounds of dhamma in the wheel of samsaraa. They are called va.t.ta dhamma. Va.t.ta means 'rotating'. They are round of defilement, round of kamma, and round of vipaaka. In the previous post about the actions of arahats were discussed. Conventionally arahats seem doing kusala. But actualy dhamma is not kusala. Arahats never do akusala. The actions of arahats that seem like kusala is actually kiriya and kiriya are dhamma that are functional and do not have any kammic effect. That is why arahats are called pure or saint or ariyas. Avijjaa paccayaa sankhaara. Arahats do not have avijjaa. So they do not do sankhaara. Then why are they doing worshipping to the Buddha, offering to the Buddha, preaching Dhamma and many other good things. These are actions in our sense. This is true. But these actions are not of kammic action. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55775 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:18am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 694 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, There are three rounds of dhamma in the wheel of samsaraa. They are called va.t.ta dhamma. Va.t.ta means 'rotating'. They are round of defilement, round of kamma, and round of vipaaka. In abhidhamma there are three dhammas. They are 1. akusala dhamma 2. kusala dhamma 3. abyakata dhamma. Akusala dhammas are ugly things. Kusala dhammas are beautiful things. Abyakata is a Paa.li word and it seems arising from (a + byaa + kata). Kata means 'done'. Byaa, bya~n~na means both. Abyakata seems 'not both of akusala and kusala'. Abyakata dhamma are kiriya dhamma and vipaaka dhamma. Vipaaka dhamma are cooked-result. So cooked-result cannot give rise to further result. Kiriya are dhamma that are functional. They are inoperational. They are just done and they do not have any kamma effect. Dependent Origination can also be explained in the way of these 3 dhammas in terms of puggala whether they are puthujana or ariyas of different stages. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55776 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo" wrote: > > > So I think the answer to your question is: have more understanding of > a > presently arising dhamma (any dhamma). > > thank you, what you wrote is very interesting, but I' m still unclear about > the practice. > A part from the fact that , being the arising dhamma so many, sometime I > miss the difference beetween meditating and daydreaming, what do you mean > with "more understanding" ? I can't really understand how should I > experience a dhamma as anicca/anatta ... the only thing I can do is to > repeat in my mind that the arisen dhamma is subjected to dissolution and > death, but I don't think this can be enough. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Pablo, Are there any degree of understanding? With Metta, Htoo Naing 55777 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:31am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 695 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dependent Origination is no doubt working on all beings. We can understand when the examples are of those of puthujana or ordinary beings who are not yet ariyas or saints or pure beings. That is D.O goes straight forward as 12 links. avijja --> sankhara --> vinnana --> namarupa --> salayatana --> phassa --> vedana --> tanha --> upadana --> bhavo --> jati --> jara/marana. Avijjaa ir kilesa. Ignorance is defilement. Sankhara is kamma. Vinnaana is vipaaka. Namarupa is also vipaka (in connection with vinnaana). Salayatana are vipaaka(in connection with namarupa derived from vinnana). Phassa (here) may well be in vipaaka even though phassa can present in all form of citta. That is when D.O is discussing phassa in D.O sounds like vipaaka. Vedana is vipaka (here talking on vipaaka-vedanaa) Tanhaa is defilement or kilesa. Upadana is also defilement. Bhavo is kamma. Jaati, jara, marana are all vipaaka. All these are happening in ordinary beings. What about in arahats? May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55778 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:49am Subject: Re: A question htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: Dear James, Nice to hear again of you. Although I am in a Portugese internet cafe now and only wanted to lurk, still a reaction. I think your question is rather theoretical: If a layperson gets a arahant, he or she knows intuively what to do: going to a sangha or just keep calm where he or she is. Don"t you think a arahant has a perfect intuition? What can be the reason that commentaries stated this about seven days etc.? I think this monks did not like the idea that they as monks tried whole there life day and night to get a arahant and a (fucking) layperson will do it? But it is theoretically for another reason to: I think we can better work on our first steps on the buddhistic path; and when we get a streamenterer there is time enough to study what to do then. Monasticism (what have discussed about it before) is a cultural invention, a very good one but still something that belongs to the conventional realities and not to the ultimate realities. Metta Joop (Hoping to hear more of you)~ ===================================================================== Dear Joop, James and all, Sotapam (sotapanna) or stream-enterers are free of doubt (vicikicchaa) and free of wrong-view. But they are still not free of conceit. If they have pretty thick conceit there will be stagnation. Example is that 'I am a stream-enterer. I understand dhamma.' Then there is a very subtle conceit. Because of this there is stagnation. Regarding the matter of live-or-die situation it is not hard and fast rules. But in history there are just countable amount of lay arahats who di parinibbana soon. It is not that 'they have to die because of not entering Order of sangha'. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55779 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:51am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 696 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, All these rounds of defilement, round of kamma, round of vipaaka are happening in ordinary beings. What about in arahats? Are there D.O in arahats? Dependent Origination has 12 links. These 12 links can be grouped into three as rounds. They are 1. avijjaa, tanhaa, upadaana (defilement round/kilesa va.t.ta) 2. sa`nkhaara, bhava (kamma round/ kamma va.t.ta) 3. others (vipaaka round / vipaaka va.t.ta) Va.t.ta means 'rotating'. Arahats do not have defilements. So there is no round for defilement. Arahats do not have 'sankhaara-kamma'. So there is no kamma rounds. But arahats cannot avoid vipaaka round. If D.O in arahats has to be contemplated then only vipaaka va.t.ta will be invloved. That is why it is said that the wheel stop to rotate in arahats. Arahats break the spokes of the wheel of D.O at avijjaa, tanhaa, upadaana and also broken are sankhara and bhava. If so why is their current bhava exist? This is the matter of definition. Current bhava or life is just vipaaka and it is not the arahats' upadana causing bhava. But it is because of upadaana in their past lives. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55780 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice upasaka_howard Hi, Pablo (I'm assuming that is your given name) - In a message dated 2/16/06 5:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, cerini_pablo@... writes: > >So I think the answer to your question is: have more understanding of >a > presently arising dhamma (any dhamma). > > thank you, what you wrote is very interesting, but I' m still unclear about > the practice. > A part from the fact that , being the arising dhamma so many, sometime I > miss the difference beetween meditating and daydreaming, what do you mean > with "more understanding" ? I can't really understand how should I > experience a dhamma as anicca/anatta ... the only thing I can do is to > repeat in my mind that the arisen dhamma is subjected to dissolution and > death, but I don't think this can be enough. > ====================== In my opinion, making such affirmations does not constitute a practice of "understanding presently arising dhamma(s)". Dhamma practice consists of a pariyatti-based, i.e. study-based/knowledge-based, execution of the cultivation of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na (morality, concentration/calm, and wisdom/understanding). Each of these three aspects of Buddhist practice impacts and supports the other two, but most basically dependable morality creates a foundation of ease that serves as support for the concentrative and calming functions of meditation, and that strengthened focus and calm serves as foundation for a growing clarity and mindfulness that leads to clear understanding of what actually occurs on any occasion. A mind that has been trained to be calm, clear, focused, and attentive is a cultivated field that is well prepared for the flowering of wisdom. Again, each of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na supports the others. A part of sila bhavana (cultivation of morality) that is also a cultivation of attentiveness, focus, and clarity is called "guarding the senses". This is an ongoing mindfulness practice that is a basic aspect of right effort. It consists of attending to one's possible and actual mental reactions to contacts through the six sense doors, as vigilant sentries would stand guard at six gateways to a city, avoiding unwholesome reactions not yet arisen, cutting short unwholesome reactions already arisen, inviting in wholesome reactions not yet arisen, and maintaining and furthering wholesome reactions already arisen. As with all practice, regularity improves the practice, and the very fruits of that practice make the practice more and more effective. Combining this with such special meditative practices as mindfulness of the body and other foundations of mindfulness as outlined in the Kayagatasati Sutta, which is available at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-119-tb0.html, in the Satipatthana Sutta at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-010-tb0.html, and in the Anapanasati Sutta which is available at the address http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-118-tb0.html, provides a complete Dhamma practice. 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) 55781 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice htootintnaing Dear Pablo, Howard and all, Sila, samaadhi, and panna support each other. Each is practice. Sila practice, samaadhi practice, panna practice support each other. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Pablo (I'm assuming that is your given name) - > > In a message dated 2/16/06 5:53:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, > cerini_pablo@... writes: > > > >So I think the answer to your question is: have more understanding of >a > > presently arising dhamma (any dhamma). > > > > thank you, what you wrote is very interesting, but I' m still unclear about > > the practice. > > A part from the fact that , being the arising dhamma so many, sometime I > > miss the difference beetween meditating and daydreaming, what do you mean > > with "more understanding" ? I can't really understand how should I > > experience a dhamma as anicca/anatta ... the only thing I can do is to > > repeat in my mind that the arisen dhamma is subjected to dissolution and > > death, but I 55782 From: Ken O Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and sabhava ashkenn2k Hi Larry > Here's my thinking: In SN95 (Lump of Foam Sutta) perception is > compared to a mirage. k: Preception is compared to a mirage because it is empty of a self, the idea of a self possessing a perception is an illusion, so it is <><> >Even the Buddha's perception cannot understand impermanence, dukkha, and anatta. k: Yes even Buddha perception cannot understand impermance, dukkha and anatta because perception only mark or note or recognize them as impermance, dukkha and anatta. It is only the kusala or akusala cetasikas that make the difference whether it is recognise as wholesome or unwholesome. Only Buddha's panna can understand the dukkha, anatta and anicca. Preception just simply recognise and recogntion has no good or bad. Just like noting a person face does not tell us what kind of person this person is. Another example, somebody putting a pair of shoes on top of the a Buddha Statue. The person who put it feel that he should do that because this statue is on the outdoors and it is raining heavily, he put the shoe to act as a shelter whereas a person after a nice and shady day think it as disrespect. The statue is mark, the shoe is noted, previous preceptions are also recognize, so what makes the change in preception. > As for "marking an object", what do you think this means? Is it something you have experienced? k: Marking an object is described in the Abhidhamma books but sorry my panna is very very low so does not experience it yet. But a person like Ven Sariputta can know what is perception and experience the perception and even tell it to others :-) Cheers Ken O 55783 From: "Pablo" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice cerini_pablo > Dear Pablo, > Are there any degree of understanding? I'm sorry if what I wrote didn't sound polite. I didn't want to make bad or offensive speech. I just have some troubles with my english,most of all when the subject of the discussion is so difficult. I ask for pardon. 55784 From: Ken O Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities ashkenn2k Hi Charles > > Oh, I see now your definition on anatta. > > I have a slightly different view on anatta. Because it is the > formations, illusions, that are viewed as I, as being mine, by > beings, so I think it is the formations (i.e., khandhas) that are > to be viewed as anatta. But when we talk about paramattha dhammas, > there is no more the concept of khandhas, no khandhas, no atta-ditthi. So to me it is like saying that space is not a table. It is true, space is not a table, but it is also strange. But if we do have something that we used to look at as a table, and by knowledge we know that it is actually not a table, we can say this thing that I used to think as a table is in reality not a table. k: Paramattha dhammas except for Nibbana are khandhas. for eg, feeling which is a paramattha dhamma is khandhas. The meaning of khandhas is just meant heap or mass - thats all :-) > Form is used to be taken as self, so by real truth, form is said to > be not-self. But paramattha dhammas are not what beings take as self, there is no more real truth than the paramattha dhammas theirselves. It is why they are said the ultimate truth. We do not need to fix a well house, > But a broken house will need a fix k: When we talk about paramattha dhammas, my definition is that it is the most emphircal defintion of dhammas. When you understand paramattha dhammas, it helps you to understand the reading of sutta. from my experience you can know the meaning of the sutta through Abhidhamma paramattha dhammas even without looking at the commentary (but commentary double the help in reading the sutta), there is no guessing work or confusion because sometimes preception this word can be used as panna or used as just recognisation in the sutta. So good understanding of paramatthas helps a lot and commentary make it even one hundred times better. cheers :-) Even though it is translate as ultimate dhammas, it just simply meant undistorted. Ken O 55785 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some questions on meditation practice htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Pablo" wrote: > > > Dear Pablo, > > Are there any degree of understanding? > > I'm sorry if what I wrote didn't sound polite. I didn't want to make bad or > offensive speech. > I just have some troubles with my english,most of all when the subject of > the discussion is so difficult. > I ask for pardon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Pablo, That is fine. Discussion is matter and language is not that matter even though it speaks a little when we are discussing. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55786 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:54pm Subject: The 4 Persons similar to Trees !!! ??? bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How are these four persons who are quite comparable to Trees ?! There are these four kinds of trees: One itself rotten & weak, but surrounded by strong hardwood ones... One itself of strong hardwood, but surrounded by rotten & weak ones... One itself rotten & weak, and also surrounded by rotten & weak ones... One itself of strong hardwood, and also surrounded by strong hardwood ones... There are four types of persons similar to these four classes of trees: A person himself rotten & weak, but yet surrounded by the strong & good! A person himself strong & good, but yet surrounded by the rotten & weak! A person himself rotten & weak, and also surrounded by the rotten & weak! A person himself strong & good, and also surrounded by the strong & good! How is the one himself is rotten & weak, but yet surrounded by the strong & good ? Here one is immoral, and wicked, while his friends are moral men of lovely nature... Thus is a person who himself is rotten & weak, surrounded by the strong & good, just in the same way as a rotten & weak tree is surrounded by strong & good ones... How is a person who himself is strong & good, yet surrounded by the rotten & weak ? Here one is moral, of lovely nature, but he has friends, who are immoral, & wicked... Thus is a person, who is strong & good surrounded by the rotten & weak, just in the same way as a strong & good tree, is surrounded by many rotten & weak ones... How is a person who is rotten & weak, and also surrounded by the rotten & weak ? Here one is immoral, wicked & evil, who has friends who are immoral, wicked & evil! Thus is a person who is rotten & weak, and also surrounded by those rotten & weak, just in the same way as a rotten & weak tree, is surrounded by rotten & weak ones... Finally: How is a person who is strong & good surrounded by the strong & good ? Here one is moral of lovely nature, who has similar moral friends of lovely nature... Thus is a person, who is strong & good surrounded by the strong & good, just in the same way as a strong & good tree, is surrounded by strong & good hardcore ones... These are the four persons comparable to trees existing in this world... Comment: Please note how this perfect permutation prevents faulty discrimination of groups! Source: The 4th Higher Science, Abhi-Dhamma Book: The Personality Concept: Puggala-Pa��atti. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130096 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <.....> View: Simple | Summary | Expanded As: Msg List | Thread 55781 - 55786 of 55786 First | < Previous | Next > | Last Message # Search: Post Message What's This? YAHOO! SPONSOR RESULTS Theravada Buddhism - Dating - Meeting and dating for people interested in Theravada Buddhism and insight meditation. Search photo personals and post your own free. www.dharmadate.net Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Copyright/IP Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail Make Yahoo! your home page Welcome, nichiconn [Sign Out, My Account] Groups Home - Help nichiconn · connieparker@intergate.com | Group Member - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups dhammastudygroup · Dhamma Study Group (DSG) Home Messages Post Files Photos Links Calendar Yahoo! Groups Tips Did you know... You can create an FAQ for your group? Yahoo! 360° Keep connected to your friends and family through blogs, photos and more. Create your own 360° page now. Messages Message # Search: Messages Help Post Message View: Simple | Summary | Expanded As: Msg List | Thread 55787 - 55788 of 55788 First | < Previous | Next > | Last Sort by Date 55787 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread ( 691 ) lbidd2 Hi Htoo, Thanks for your reply re. the three rounds: kamma, vipaka, and kilesa. I've never seen this kind of classification before. Could you explain further. Why isn't kilesa included in kamma? Also, I'm a little surprised that namarupa is vipaka. Isn't cetana and the root cetasikas (lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha) included in namarupa? Larry 55788 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and sabhava lbidd2 H Ken O, Thanks for your remarks on perception. One question, did you notice in the Lump of Foam Sutta (SN 95) that perception is compared to a mirage and consciousness is compared to a magic trick. They are both empty of self but why this difference? Why not say they both are a mirage or they both are a magic trick? What are these two similes pointing at? Also, I disagree that you have not experienced perception. I am certain you have experienced all 5 khandhas countless times and are able to recognize each one in your experience. This expression, "marking an object", shouldn't be taken literally. A mark is a sign (nimitta). When you are walking in the forest you see many signs of various animals. "Marking an object" means noticing a sign of an object. Maybe your friend wears a big hat. When you are shopping in the market you might see someone with the same kind of hat and think that is your friend. It is how we recognize very complex phenomena. "Strong perception" is the proximate cause of sati. This is when we really notice the sign. Sati notices what the sign is made of. Maybe your friend wears a big red hat. Perception notices the SIGNificance of the hat, but sati notices the colour. Sati may also notice that the hat is empty of sabhava (own nature). Is there a sign of asabhava? Larry 55789 From: mlnease@... Date: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and realities mlnease Hi Charles (and Ken), > Form is used to be taken as self, so by real truth, form is said to > be not-self. Isn't form (ruupa) a paramattha dhamma? > But paramattha dhammas are not what beings take as self, there is no > more real truth than the paramattha dhammas theirselves. It is why > they are said the ultimate truth. Certainly beings take concepts for self. But don't we all also take paramattha dhammas as me, mine or myself? My form, my feelings, my perceptions, my formations, my consciousnesses? I think that these are referred to as ultimate truths (or realities) because it is only from insight into these that insight can bear the fruits of insight, the gradual eradication of the defilements. We can go on endlessly 'seeing' concepts as unsatisfactoy, impermanent and empty. But insight into concepts is, I think, always only conceptual and never transformative. It seems to me that this is the major reason that the fruits of insight are so elusive for most of us most of the time--because we take the unreal for the real. > We do not need to fix a well house, > But a broken house will need a fix. Whether a fixed or broken house, "House-builder, you're seen! You will not build a house again. All your rafters broken, the ridge pole destroyed, gone to the Unformed, the mind has come to the end of craving." Hope you'll pardon my butting in. mike 55790 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 0:34am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 697 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Dependent Origination is origination of dhamma depending on another dhamma. One dhamma originates from yet another dhamma and that new dhamma again support another dhamma. Ignorance is the chief of dhamma that lead us to go round in the endless samsaraa. Ignorance has many different and various forms. Sometimes it is visible and sometimes it is invisible. It is so powerful that we do not know much about ignorance. This is true for almost all beings especially human beings on this earth believing in Buddhism are included. Some people may have learnt a lot by listening to dhamma. They may learned through personal teachers. Or they may also learned from scriptures, texts and references. But do they really know ignorance? May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55791 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 0:36am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 698 ) htootintnaing Htoo Naing (htoo.naing-at-gmail.com) wrote: Dear Dhamma Friends, Ignorance or avijjaa is easy to discuss but quite hard to really see. Because of our inability to see ignorance it attacks us very frequently. If we have to fight against it we will need a good store of weponry. Ignorance rarely comes alone. Most of the time it comes with its companion called attachment. If ignorance is designated as the king of akusala then the attachment can be called the queen of akusala. Please check everyday dhamma that we can think of. We have eyes. Because of eyes we can see. As soon as we lose our sight say temporarily for any reason there arise visible akusala. When the eyes are working we most of the time are happy to see things around us. This is lobha or attachment. This attachment comes together with ignorance. These king and queen of defilements are the round of defilement in Dependent Origination. Attachment covers clinging. So clinging is also akusala and say it is another queen. Dependent Origination has been extensively discussed. After Dhamma Thread (700) a new section to discuss is patthaana dhamma or conditions. These dhamma called conditions are much much more complex and complicated than Dependent Origination. There will not appear as separate Dhamma Thread numbers. There is a web site that I created. It can be called e-book. It is about patthaana dhamma. If you search with Google there will appear the page 1 of patthaana dhamma. But the e-book starts one page before. The site is 'www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana.html'. It is e- book. So Dhamma Thread (701) will be 'www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana1.html' and 702 will be patthana2.html and patthana ends at 107. So Dhamma Thread will be (807). May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htoo.naing-at-gmail.com / htootintnaing-at-yahoo.com 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. 55792 From: "htootintnaing" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread ( 691 ) htootintnaing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Htoo, > > Thanks for your reply re. the three rounds: kamma, vipaka, and kilesa. > I've never seen this kind of classification before. Could you explain > further. Why isn't kilesa included in kamma? > > Also, I'm a little surprised that namarupa is vipaka. Isn't cetana and > the root cetasikas (lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha) included in > namarupa? > > Larry ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Larry, Lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha are naama. This is true. When we talk on D.O and round the first threes are kilesa round and the last three are kamma round. They are not vipaaka. Kilesa and kamma. Kilesa or defile is the root cause. Kamma is action. Example, avijja can invlove in both kilesa round and kamma round. But round and paramattha dhamma are not exactly fit. I mean 'avijja' can be kilesa round. Avijja can also be kamma round when we talk about action and not the cause. But avijjaa or moha is never vipaaka. With Metta, Htoo Naing 55793 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi TG Good to see you back! TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >Just got back. I'm exhausted with this topic as probably are you. > ;-)), ;-)) >If you >believe the an object of consciousness can be a "non-reality" then so be it. >In my view that's an error. It seem "obviously wrong" to me, but I think a >mind has to resolve it on its own. I think I've offered all the examples and >explanations that I can muster at this time. > > It's not so much a question of my belief as of my reading of the texts and, as far as I know, of the generally accepted interpretation of the texts. I personally am wary of reliance on my own intuition for what is "right" and what is "wrong". Happy to leave it for now. There's probably plenty more we can find to disagree on ;-)) Jon 55794 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to concepts jonoabb Hi Charles At the end of your post you say: Btw Jon, I am trying to work on my atta-ditthi. By only talking about paramattha dhammas, I cannot find any atta-ditthi to be understood not eliminated. Because we take it from different perspective, this dialogue in unending, so I think I would stop talking on this topic. But surely it does not mean and end :D I hope you will not feel disappointed. No problem, Charles. I too was beginning to feel a sense of 'unending' about our discussion ;-)) However, since a number of points you raise are important ones, I may come back on them if I have time (life has become a lot busier since we returned to Bangkok). But if I do, please do not feel you need to respond. Jon Charles wrote: >Hi Jon, > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott .. > > >>Are you sure about this? I'm not aware of any such explanation of >>'atta' in the teachings. >> >> > >No I'm not sure. It's only a view anyway :P > > >... ... ... > > > > >>PS I have snipped your post here and there. Please let me know if >>I've omitted anything you'd like to hear my comments on. >> >> >No I do not think that you missed anything. > >Btw Jon, I am trying to work on my atta-ditthi. By only talking about >paramattha dhammas, I cannot find any atta-ditthi to be understood >not eliminated. Because we take it from different perspective, this >dialogue in unending, so I think I would stop talking on this topic. >But surely it does not mean and end :D I hope you will not feel >disappointed. > >Analogically, if I would be a doctor that try to cure the disease of >atta-ditthi, I would not look in a healthy being, but I would look >into the places infected by the atta-ditthi, namely the khandhas. If >I see it from the viewpoint of abhidhamma, I would not find any >khandhas, and so I get no atta-ditthi to be eliminated. > > 55795 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: e-card and update from Bangkok sarahprocter... Hi Charles G & all, We had a very lively discussion this morning - a small room packed with many of our Dhamma friends - quite a few that we've known for around 30 years....still listening to A.Sujin talking about present realities (dhammas)with no change in the message:D. Can we hear or consider enough? I don't think so. --- Charles wrote: > When people meet a successful person, standard question would be " > what is your secret of success", so if applicable I would like to ask > that too :D ..... S: She smiled at your question and promptly answered 'Understanding'. She then suggested that the next question is 'Understanding of What?'. Look forward to your response:D I forget if you asked for a copy of her book 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas'? If not (and if you'd like a copy), pls send me or Sukin your address - I think you'd appreciate it. Glad to see your continued dialogue with Ken O - you ask lots of good questions like he used and share his good humour:D. Metta, Sarah p.s Scott & Joop, your questions have been raised - I think Azita may be reporting back on Scott's sometime and Nina on Joop's as they raised them... ========== 55796 From: Ken O Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and sabhava ashkenn2k Hi Larry > Thanks for your remarks on perception. One question, did you notice > in the Lump of Foam Sutta (SN 95) that perception is compared to a > mirage and consciousness is compared to a magic trick. They are both empty of self but why this difference? Why not say they both are a mirage or they both are a magic trick? What are these two similes pointing at? k: Whether it is mirage or magic trick, the meaning is the same, they are all illusions. It is just synonyms. If you like it, then it is both mirage as well as magic trick and also a dream and a foam. There is no difference. > > Also, I disagree that you have not experienced perception. I am > certain you have experienced all 5 khandhas countless times and are able to recognize each one in your experience. This expression, "marking an object", shouldn't be taken literally. A mark is a sign (nimitta). When you are walking in the forest you see many signs of various animals. "Marking an object" means noticing a sign of an object. Maybe your friend wears a big hat. When you are shopping in the market you might see someone with the same kind of hat and think that is your friend. It is how we recognize very complex phenomena. k: You are right that I do experience preceptions but I do not able to pinpoint it. Too fast for me :-). > "Strong perception" is the proximate cause of sati. This is when we > really notice the sign. Sati notices what the sign is made of. > Maybe your friend wears a big red hat. Perception notices the > SIGNificance of the hat, but sati notices the colour. Sati may also notice that the hat is empty of sabhava (own nature). Is there a sign of asabhava? k: Even though firm sanna can be a proximate cause of sati, the functions are totally different. The function of sati is unforgetfullness whereas for sanna it is marking. Sati is unforgetfullness of what is kusala and keep us away from aksuala. Sati dont notice the colour. Colour is a visible object so it is the areana of eye sense process, but the rememberence of "red" in red colour is the function of sanna, likewise for the other type of colours. Only panna can know dhamma is empy of self and not empty of sabhava. Because if dhammas are all empty even without sabhava, it will nihilistics point of view. Furthermore the meaning of sabhava is not to me own nature, this is a very bad defintion. It should be define as unique characteristics of a dhamma, just like temperature can be hot or cold :-) but temperature is not self. Cheers Ken O 55797 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:19am Subject: Re: How can we say "there are few, if any, like that today" etc? philofillet Hi Jon and all jon>>> I do not believe > >>there are many, if any, people who fall within this description today. (snip) phil > > But what is the scriptural support for saying this? (I think > >Rob K posted a sutta that gets at it somehow, but I can't remember.) > > > jon : is all to do with the decline of the sasana over the years, beginning > from the death of the Buddha; but I don't have the sutta references to hand. phil: Perhaps we can pick this up again when I get back from Canada - leaving the day after tomorrow. It's not a major point but it would be better for me to have some textual references instead of just assuming and obnoxiously stating, as I do, that we today are culturally conditioned to have far too much desire for fast results (ie in the space of one lifetime.) Of course it doesn't help when we read suttas without sufficient understanding of the momentary, utterly conditioned nature of paramattha dhammas. Developing understanding of Abhidhamma provides us with protection against wanting too much too soon because we better understand anatta and gradually come to understand that wanting cittas to be this way or that way can only lead to more delusion. Ah, come to think of it, I remember that you once said something to the effect that a moment of awareness is of such import that it does away with the desire to have more and more...something like that. I really do see that these days, in theory - the opening in the roof of lobha, the moment of sati that can arise -instead of thinking - following a moment of seeing, a moment of hearing...Of course all theory at this stage, but I understand how important it would be, how the Venerable Dhammadaro (?) could say "one moment of sati in a lifetime! Wealthy man!" or words to that effect. Phil 55798 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samvega/Urgency philofillet Hi Howard Phil > > However, I think it's good to remember that urgency arises due to > > conditions and can't be whipped up by thinking about it. For > > example, when you wrote your post, you were motivated by samvega - > > we can assume you were. But for someone who was reading it and > > perhaps bothered by something, or sad about something, there might > > be thinking "yes, Howard is right, there should be a sense of > > urgency" and thinking about urgency, but it wouldn't be urgency, it > > would be lobha, wanting to have urgency. Then again, your post might > > happen to fall at the right time to condition true urgency for > > someone! > > > ======================== > Yes, urgency, as all conditioned dhammas, arises due to conditions. > Otherwise the world would operate randomly or by magic. But among conditions are > thinking processes and volitions. They are actual events, not fictions, and > they do serve as conditions. It should be so clear to us that negative papa~nca > "does us in" much of the time. To give an explicit example, when we fall prey > to various desires (sexual, for example), thinking over scenarios (i.e., > sexually fantasizing, for example) aggravates matters, increasing desire and > compulsion. That is negative papa~nca and its fruit. Don't you think positive > papa~nca operates as well? Phil: It seems to me, from very shallowing reading, that there are many more references into the suttas (Samyutta Nikaya) of falling away from wholesome states because of akusala proliferation rather than building kusala due to papanca. The stamping out the fire simile, the "falling away from wholesome states" line in another sutta - from my reading of SN I can't think of any suttas off hand that point at the wholesome operation of papanca! I don't have my book with me now. It just seems to me that in the light of the Buddha second discourse (there is no self that can have cittas the way it wants - the anatta sutta) and the third discourse (the "all", which are the ayatanas, are burning with greed, ignorance and hatred, and only the noble disciples (ariyans) develop the "revulsion" (unfortunate translation of nibidda in my opinion) that leads to liberation there is not much ground for optimism about the mind producing positive papanca. Just writing that off the top of my head. Oh, wait, I *was* producing postive papanca. I take it back! haha Sometimes "Right Intention" is rendered by "Right > Thought". In this regard, please see the following: Surely "right intention" of the eightfold path, if there is such a factor (I don't think there is) is NOT intention in the conventional sense. I simply can't imagine the point of Dhamma is to intend to do things. That just seems so quirky to me in the light of anatta, the Buddha's trademark teaching! But of course it isn't quirky in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of Buddhists today. In their (your, I guess)I am the one with the quirky approach! So be it. May we all be well, as you wished me in the last post. > _______________________ > "Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This > bodily act I want to perform â€?Ewould it lead to self-affliction, to the > affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful > consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an > unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily act > of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. Phil: Yes, thanks for this. This one has helped me steer clear of some bad bad doing in the not so recent past. >But if on reflection you know > that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action > with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is fit > for you to do. This morning Naomi was playing Cheryl Crow and the song "if it makes you happy, it can't be wrong" came on. It doesn't apply in Dhamma. Remember, the Buddha said that the happiness of the noble disciples would be seen as sadness for worldlings, and the happiness of worldlings is akin to sadness for the disciples. Your happiness is suffering to us, kind of thing. So when lobha-sated worldlings think about what constitutes happiness, we should remember that in the strictest Dhamma terms, it is not what we have been conditioned to understand happiness to be. You know that, I know. But I don't think that message gets out in the Buddhist world today. As I've said before, if Dhamma helps people be happy in the worldly sense, that's not a bad thing at all for them. But it may be taking them away from the path. I'm not saying the point is to be miserable. I'm not a sourpuss. But if bad moods, periods of being cranky, tempermental outburst come about, they come about and can be understood. It is only by understanding our defilements that we can begin to eradicate them. Intentionally seeking one's happiness and the happiness of others is most definitely NOT the way to go, no doubt about that. Worldly happiness can be increased by intentional Dhamma-ish activites. I know that from personal experience. But worldly happiness is not the goal. Understanding is the true happiness. OK, enough of that. What a load of rubbish, most of it. I don't even know if I've address the sutta properly. I was going to write you in a more leisurely way tomorrow but I've got caught up in prep for our trip. You can have the last word if there's anything you'd like to add. We're off the Canada for a couple of weeks. I hope when we get back I can discuss and post in a more focussed less frantic way, but probably won't have time. Getting caught up in other things, in a good way. Fortunately, there is always material for investigating arising through the six doors, wherever we are and whatever we are doing. That's what is really important. It is for the understanding of the eye, form, seeing (and so on for the other ayatanas) that the holy life is to be lived, as the Buddha put it in another sutta that I can't properly reference at the moment! Sorry. Phil 55799 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Feb 17, 2006 3:31pm Subject: Re: Some questions on meditation practice matheesha333 Hi Evan, You need to read this (please paste the link together): http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima1/020-vitakkasanthana-sutta-e2.htm and this: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima1/002-sabbasava-sutta-e2.htm The technique you are already using will lead you to calm, as mentioned in the vitakkasantana sutta/MN (the first link). It is interesting you are using it quite naturally. Maybe you have some past experience with it. Reducing defilements alone is not enough. This is one major arm of the practice. The other is insight. Final nibbana is only possible through the development of both. The Buddha experimented with only one and knew that it alone could not work. Please read Mindfulness in plain english by Bhanthe Gunarathana which will guide you in that. good luck metta Matheesha