56800 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:43am Subject: Solo Self-Deception ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Concept of 'Ego' is a mentally constructed Catastrophe! The blessed Buddha once pointed out: Bhikkhus, these ideas: 'I am...', 'I am this...', 'I will be...', 'I shall not be...', 'I shall be of such form', 'I shall be formless...', 'I will experience such...', 'I will not experience...', 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient...', are all self-deceptions, are all conceited fantasies, are all whimsy illusions, are all agitated excitations, are escalated proliferations and are all inflated, vain & narcissistic self-love, leading to egotism, puffed pride & arrogance... Such self-deceptions are all diseases, such ego-conceits are all tumours, such egocentric phantasms are all internal, agonizing and nailing hooks in the mind!!! Therefore, bhikkhus & friends, you should train yourselves in this very way: We will dwell with a mind unperturbed by any 'I exists...' conceiving... We will dwell with a mind purified of any 'I am this or that ...' self-deception... We will dwell with a mind uninvolved in any 'I will be this or that...' illusion... We will dwell with a mind without any 'I shall not be this/that...' agitation... We will dwell with a mind devoid of any 'I shall have such a form' fantasy... We will dwell with a mind cleaned of any 'I shall be formless...' escalation... We will dwell with a mind empty of 'I will experience such...' proliferation... We will dwell with a mind cleared of any 'I will not experience...' excitation... We will be freed of 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient...' dreams... Since these ideas are all self-deceptions, are all conceited fantasies, are all whimsy illusions, are all agitated excitations, are escalated proliferations and are all inflated, vain & narcissistic self-centred ego-love, leading to egotism, pride & arrogance... Self-deceptions are all mental diseases; ego-conceits are all expansions; egocentric phantasms are all internally agonizing & painful hooks nailing any mind to inestimable future suffering!!! The cure is understanding the fundamental selflessness of all things, whether they are internal or external... Thus should you train yourselves... Comment: This inherent and somewhat hidden 'ego-idea', which seems innocent, is the core cause of all egoism, asocial behaviour, crime, conflicts & even wars !!! Therefore is it advantageous to repeatedly try to understand this absolute truth: Sabbe Dhamma Anatta: All Phenomena are without any Self! However counter-intuitive, puzzling, paradoxical & strange it may seem initially... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV 202-3 The 6 senses section 35: Thread on The sheaf of barley. (248) http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56801 From: "icarofranca" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) icarofranca Hi Sarah! "The blessed Buddha once pointed out: Bhikkhus, these ideas: 'I am...', 'I am this...', 'I will be...', 'I shall not be...', 'I shall be of such form', 'I shall be formless...', 'I will experience such...', 'I will not experience...', 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient...', are all self-deceptions, are all conceited fantasies, are all whimsy illusions, are all agitated excitations, are escalated proliferations and are all inflated, vain & narcissistic self-love, leading to egotism, puffed pride & arrogance..." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A friend off-list also wrote: "Kom´s experiences as a Bhikkhu are being > precious for all of us! I won´t dare to butting in his posts...seriously!" --------------------------------------------------------------------- And now I will violate all the Anatta precepts... ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am loving Kom´s good posts about his experiences at Sangha!!! I have got also some questions about the Vinaya - mainly the Pattimokka and the observance of Uposattha days by Bhikkhus nowadays...but I prefer do it after some more posting, avoiding cut off his exposition sequence!!!! Real life experience! (Oh well... I had violated the anatta precepts and now I must random walk at the Akusala reigns of Kali Yuga for some more aeons!!! I will endure..ops! Violating anatta again!!!!!) Mettaya Ícaro 56802 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma robmoult Hi Nina and Gunasaro, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Rob M, and Gunasaro, > > It would be interesting for us all if you can post some more class notes > about the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ===== My class notes tend to be a summary. On more than one occassion, I have spent more than an hour expanding on a single paragraph of my class notes when teaching in front of the class. The best overview of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha that I have read would have to be Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to the "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". Fortunately, this introduction can be read (or downloaded) from the "Access to Insight" website. The seven Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries are immense in scope and depth. An ocean of information and wisdom. Just like an ocean is overwhelming and intimidating to a novice swimmer, the seven Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries are incredibly daunting to the newcomer. Just as the novice swimmer learns to swim in a pool before plunging into the ocean, the newcomer should immerse themselves in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha before tackling the seven Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries. This was the reason why the Abhidhammattha Sangaha was written. It was not written to replace or supplement the seven Abhidhamma texts or their commentaries. It was written to be studied and learned by memory by those wishing to have a sense of the seven Abhidhamma texts and their commentaries. I imagine Acariya Anuruddha sitting down to start writing. The first question going through his head would be, "How do I structure the information to be able to properly capture the essence of the original texts in a succinct way?" In my opinion, the Abhidhammattha Sangaha is a work of genius. Not because it contains new ideas not found in the original seven Abhidhamma text and commentaries, but rather the way in which thousands of pages have been so well captured in such a concise way. Read by itself, the Abhidhammattha Sangaha can read like an arcane set of lists. Fortunately, Bhikkhu Bodhi has done an outstanding job of expanding on the details in his "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". My only caution is that some people equate the Abhidhamma Sangaha with the Abhidhamma. After having read the Abhidhammattha Sangaha a few times, one should proceed to the original seven texts and their commentaries. When one does this, one can clearly identify what parts of the Abhidhammattha Sangha are the essence of the seven texts and commentaries, and what parts of the Abhidhammattha Sangha are "structural devices" used to summarize vast amounts of information. With this appreciation, one's admiration of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha increases. ===== > As to the term paramattha dhammas, whatever is explained in the commentaries > has its roots in a much older tradition. The most ancient commentaries which > are lost now were rehearsed at the great Councils. > Moreover, the term paramattha dhammas stands for dhammas, realities, as > also explained in the Tipitaka. They are different from samutti sacca, > conventionsl truth, such as person, table, tree. ===== I agree with what you have written, Nina, except I really do not like the word "realities". "Truths" is fine, but "realities" leads one into ontological discussions which, in my opinion, are not beneficial. The term "paramattha" was definitely recited at the third council (as part of the Katthavatthu) but I am not aware of any evidence that the term was used when the first or second council were convened. But the difference between these three councils was only a couple of hundred years, so I don't see this as a very significant point. Metta, Rob M :-) 56803 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: >>J: In my experience, most people equate samatha with >>concentration, which is not a kusala quality at all. >> >> > >M: Its intersting that you say that. There must be something in that >about levels of concentration. I'm thinking that jhana has been said >to be one of the highest kusala? Can you clarify this a bit more? > > What I meant (but did not express very well, I'm afraid) is that concentration in not something that is kusala in and of itself. If we are talking about the mental factor of concentration (ekaggata), it is not one of the sobhana cetasikas (like metta or awareness or passaddhi (calm)); it is a 'universal' that takes its nature from the citta it accompanies. If we are talking about concentration in the sense of consciousness having the same object for a period of time, then again it will be kusala only if the consciousness is kusala by reason of factors other than the concentration itself. There would haave to have been the prior development of samatha to the (relatively high) degree such that panna knows whether the present consciousness is kusala (or whether it is accompanied by subtle lobha and therefore aksuala). So if a person begins to develop concentration in the belief that he is developing samatha, it is highly likely that he is developing aksuala concentration. This is so regardless of the fact that his chosen object of concentration is one of the 40 kammathana, since the object of a person's concentration does not determine the ethical nature of the consciousness. As I have said before, where's the kusala in focussing on an earth kasina (or 'watching' the breath, for that matter)? The reason why jhana is, as you rightly say, one of the highest levels of kusala is that it is samatha ('tranquillity') bhavana, and samatha is kusala because of the presence of the sobhana factor of passadhi (calm). It is only at higher levels of samatha that the factor of concentration becomes prominent. >>To summarise, I'm all for the development of samatha, but wary >>about the claims people make about their jhana experiences. >> >> > >M: Fair enough. Have you tried to do this yourself though? > > Samatha moments can occur in daily life, spontaneously, without any 'input' from us, so there is no need to do anything special for them to arise. The fact that most of the time there is lobha or dosa or moha does not in my view mean we should do anything in particular to try to make more kusala occur, as that would only lead to akusala of a more subtle kind. Do we know the moments of samatha that arise spontaneously in our daily life? >>I don't know of any sutta that links the development of samatha to >>saddha in the teachings, so I'd be interested to know which >>sutta(s) you have in mind here. >> >> > >M: Sorry, just tried to find it but it doesnt seem to be picked up by >google. But I distinctly remember reading it from a sutta, because it >was something which struck me at the time. > > Fair enough. But if you come across it any time I'd be interested to know. The reason I queried it was because I couldn't see any connection between the experience of jhana and saddha in the teachings. Any thoughts of your own? Jon PS Thanks for also bringing up the Jhana Sutta. I've not yet yet had a chance to look at it, so have snipped the rest of your post for the time being. Am hoping to get back to you on it shortly. 56804 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:58am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >... > >Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will >occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" >;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it >a matter of there "doing nothing". > >Jon > > > >Hi Jon > >This was super!!! Sounds like something I would have written. LOL > >TG > > Come on, it wasn't in *that* class ;-)) Jon 56805 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > .... > S: See this extract from the Theravada commentaries which Christine posted > before. It's not quite the same as in the quote you give because the > physical eye is not here included in the fivefold eye of knowledge > (~naanacakkhu). Note that ~naana means panna (wisdom), so all the 5 > ~naanacakkhu refer to kinds of panna (wisdom). > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29250 > >p. 1397 of the Samyutta Nikaya Vol. II (B.Bodhi), 35 > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > (Perhaps send the second time) Hallo Sarah Thanks for the information. Regarding the discussion with Howard the question is: With which of these "eyes" is anicca detectable and how does this work? Is it with the mind door, one of the five sense door or with a seventh door, called by me intuition? And if Herman is lurking: hoe gaat het er mee? Metta Joop 56806 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: >I really do not like > the word "realities". "Truths" is fine, but "realities" leads one > into ontological discussions which, in my opinion, are not beneficial. ++++++ Dear Robm, Paramattha dhammas are the khandhas, dhatus and ayatanas (and Nibban). Do you also think dhatu should be translated as truth rather than element? RobertK 56807 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 3/16/06 12:03:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > > > Dear Howard > > How are you? Thank you for your attempt to answer my questions. > > You wrote: > > "Samsara is not what there is - it is what thre is *misperceived* > under the sway of avijja." > > Avijjaa is one of the mental associates (cetaikas) called "moho". > > We can regard the Forward Process (Anuloma) of Dependent Origination > (Pa.ticcasammuppaada) as the Buddha's technical description of > Samsaara where avijjaa heads the anuloma process. > > Now, I would like to ask you the following. > > Is avijjaa real or unreal? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: And I would like to ask you what you mean, precisely, without fuzziness, what you mean by 'real'. But to answer your question as best I can: Avijja, as I understand it, is the inclination towards fundamental misunderstanding. It is basic cognitive corruption, that arises and re-arises repeatedly, disabling the ability to see and understand clearly. It is real in the sense analogous to cataracts over the eyes being real. It blots out "seeing" things as they are. If there were no avijja, all would be seen clearly, and so avijja is real. It is, however, conditioned, extrinsic, and uprootable. When gaps in avijja occur, that opening provides a glimpse of the possibility for enlightenment. (I usually prefer to use the term 'awakening' to 'enlightenment', but I use the latter in this case of discussing removing the darkness of ignorance.) I have another question, Suan: Why are you questioning me in this fashion? The manner of your questioning me strikes me as having the flavor of a Zen master who "has the answers" and is looking to enlighten a student, which I think, if true, would be a bit presumptuous. Hopefully I am misreading your intent. Worse, of course, would be if you were trying to catch me in some sort of "heresy" in order to banish me to a kind of hell reserved for Mahayanist "fellow travelers". But I presume that this is not so. ------------------------------------------ > > Thanking you in advance. > > Suan > ====================== 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) 56808 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:06am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62 Text Vis. : Herein, it might be [asked]: How can it be known that these formations have ignorance as their condition? By the fact that they exist when ignorance exists. ------- N: So long as ignorance has not been eradicated, kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma are committed through body, speech and mind. -------- Text Vis.: For when unknowing--in other words, ignorance--of suffering, etc., is unabandoned in a man, --------- N: The Tiika comments on Œunknowing, aññaanaa, in other words ignorance, avijjaa¹. This prevents understanding, ñaa.naa. The Tiika deals with many examples of the negation Œa¹. The opposite of kusala dhamma is akusala dhamma. The opposite of understanding, vijjaa, is avijjaa. Evenso is the opposite of ñaa.naa aññaa.na. ------- Text Vis.: owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant ------ N: The Tiika explains that he, because of wrong perception of happiness (sukhasaññaa) takes for happiness what is understood by the wise as just dukkha, namely, the three kinds of dukkha: intrinsic dukkha (dukkha-dukkha, painful feeling and unhappy feeling), dukkha in change (vipari.naama dukkha)and sa²nkhaaradukkha (dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas). He wrongly perceives the dukkha of sa.msaara (the cycle of birth and death) as happiness and clings to it. In this way the occurring of clinging, tanhaa, is taught. ------- Text Vis.: and he embarks upon the three kinds of formations which are the cause of that very suffering. Owing to his unknowing about suffering's origin he embarks upon formations that, being subordinated to craving, are actually the cause of suffering, imagining them to be the cause of pleasure. And owing to his unknowing about cessation and the path, he misperceives the cessation of suffering to be in some particular destiny [such as the Brahmaa-world] that is not in fact cessation; ------ N: The Tiika elaborates on this. Not knowing the cause of dukkha, he, being a fool, aspires that after dying he will be reborn in the Great Hall of the Khattiya clan (the highets social rank) as the companion of the Khattiyas. As to the expression, the formations being Œsubordinated to craving¹ (ta.nhaaparikkhaara), this is explained as being equipped with craving. The kamma formations are the condition for the basis of craving (ta.nhaavatthu) such as eyesense and visible object, and, conducing to craving, they are as it were the accompaniment or retinue (parivaara) of craving. -------- Text Vis.: he misperceives the path to cessation, believing it to consist in sacrifices, mortification for immortality, etc., which are not in fact the path to cessation; and so while aspiring to the cessation of suffering, he embarks upon the three kinds of formations in the form of sacrifices, mortification for immortality, and so on. ------- N: The Tiika explains that he performs several kinds of auspicious sacrifices and undertakes difficult ascetical observances because he wants immortality or birth as a deva. Conclusion: As we read in the Vis. text: We should apply this to the present moment, to daily life. On account of what is seen, heard or experienced through the other senses, kusala citta or akusala citta arises and these can motivate kamma through body, speech or mind. Kamma, sankhaara, is conditioned by avijjaa, ignorance. Because of our wrong perception of what happines is, we take the cycle of birth and death for happiness, we cling to life. As we read, eyesense, the other senses and the objects experienced through these are the basis of clinging. The Dependent Origination deals with our daily life. We can notice that we cling to seeing, hearing, the experience of sense objects. We lost our way for such a long time because of ignorance, also in past lives. Therefore it is difficult to understand that the cycle of birth and death is dukkha. This text reminds us that we are misleading ourselves all the time. taking for happiness what is dukkha. Only paññaa that sees realities as they are can put an end to our wrong interpretation of the cycle of birth and death. ***** Nina. 56809 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Suan) - In a message dated 3/16/06 1:17:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > Hi Suan, Howard, All > > A few comments. First of all is the term "reality." I know I'm > uncomfortable using that term for a couple of reasons (although it > occasionally slips > in). > > So I looked it up in the dictionary to see if maybe I could find a problem > there. Most definitions were very acceptable until I got to the last which > > was completely unacceptable. This last definition defined 'reality' as -- > "Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all > other > things derive." > > This definition may be true regarding Nibbana; but it is diametrically > opposed to what is true regarding conditions/conditionality. Eureka! > Evidence > that supports my innate discomfort with the term 'reality.' > > The definition of 'reality' above is actually a perfect definition of > 'self.' I think the term 'reality,' at least subliminally, is very likely > to > imposes a sense of self onto that which is called a 'reality.' > > This continues to support what I believe is a unwitting effort by some > folks > to see states as "having self." I.E., "own characteristics," "ultimate > realities," etc. These terms and the outlooks they imbue do not correspond > to > the Buddha's teachings as I understand them...as impermanent, > unsatisfactory, > not-self. As I see it, these terms impose, subliminally, a view of little > 'effervescent selves.' > > Why don't we just call conditions -- 'conditions'? ... and leave it at > that. > > TG > ========================= I'm glad that you found that definition of 'reality' as "something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive." It happens that the first half of this, at least, is one sense of the term. It is, as you say, a sense inapplicable to any and all things other than nibbana, but most people do not realize that inapplicability. Now, it happens that the Mahayanists use the term 'reality' in EXACTLY the sense of "something that exists independently of all other things," and that is why they consider all conditioned dhammas to be unreal. Actually, there is a usage even in some Pali suttas along these lines, not with explicit regard to the word 'real' but with regard to the word 'exist'. In the Kaccayangotta Sutta, the Buddha says "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." In this, 'existence' means real existence, self-existence, and 'nonexistence' means nothingness! The Buddha then goes on to point to the actual mode of "existence" of dhammas, which is by way of the middle, an "existence" that is neither nothingness nor substantial self-existence. 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) 56810 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and TG, Nina, and all) - In a message dated 3/16/06 2:51:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Hallo TG, Howard, Nina, all > > Two reactions and a remark > > TG. We agreed about most; only you asked me what (in my opinion) is > the difference between "wisdom eye" and "dhamma eye"? > As far as I understand the quotes I used the main idea behind it is > that step by step one can penatrate more in the truth: from > superficial to deepest (so not especially "two truths" according > Abhidhamma-orthodoxy). And "dhamma eye" is a level that only noble > persons (streamenterer of higher in Theravada, a bodhisattva in > Mahayana) get and than have. Because I'm a wordling I can not exact > understand what that "dhamma eye" is. > > > Howard. My message had too much topic, now one question to you about > SN LVI.11 > Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion): > > "… That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five > monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being > given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma > eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." > > If you agree with with that the last sentence "Whatever is subject to > origination is all subject to cessation." is about anicca, than my > question is: > Do you think that "dhamma eye" is this quote (in his translation > Bhikkhu Bodhi uses "dhamma vision") is the same as "pa~n~na/wisdom"? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I just don't know. If 'dhamma eye' isn't synonymous with vijja, then I suspect that it at least refers to an instance of it. I do *not* think it refers to something *other* than wisdom. --------------------------------------- > (I think not, but I'm not sure, perhaps Nina has more 'grounds under > her feets' ?) > > > BTW It always surprises me that this first and (thus) one of the most > important sermons of the Budhha is so "hidden" in the Tipitaka: > somewhere in the Vinaya and somewhere in the middle of the last part > of the Samyutta Nikaya. > > Metta > > Joop > > ==================== 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) 56812 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - Benefits of being a monk tikmok Here are some of the benefits that I gained personally. 1) Besides the ariyan Sangha, I gained a deeper respect for the Bikkhu communities for many reasons. There are so many different reasons why people join the monkhood. The ones I run into the most in the Thai communities are traditions (as a gift towards ones' parents), economics (as a way to get an education), and just simply a continuation to the monkhood from being a samanera (novice). Regardless of the original reasons they join, some develop the deepest confidence in the teaching and the Buddhas. Some continue on being a monk long after their original intention, and accomplish many things if not for themselves but for others. My two most knowledgeable vinaya teachers, the ones that seem to have close-to- photographic memories of the passages from the Pali, commentaries, and tikas both became monks for traditions, but have since committed themselves for life in the sasana. My most amazing Abhidhamma teacher, although not the strictest keeper of Patimokhas, strives unbelievably hard to make sure what was transmitted through his teacher continues forward, and has produced, from his students, the most prolific transmitters of the Buddha dhamma. I think even with all the texts and commentaries that survive the centuries, it is still very hard sometimes to decipher the details of some of the Buddha teachings, especially in the Abhidhamma pitaka where many are not inclined to study. Without the monks, whether or not joining and staying for the right reasons and with the perfect conducts, there would be fewer materials that survive to our time today. Take the Burmese for example. The Burmese sangha communities get people with the most incredible calibers, all because there are not as many economic opportunities as a lay person, and these produced prolific amount of Abhidhamma studies that allow the transmission of the knotty points that are not only oral (or just keeping it to oneself), but in texts that arguably would guarantee transmission even if there is a skip in a generation. I also ran into a very ill-tempered monk. For him, the clear benefits of being a monk are the vinaya virtually keep him in check not possible in a layperson's life. I ran into another British-educated monk, who before the monkhood, had NO clue whatsoever about what Buddhism is all about, but I think will leave the monkhood understanding many things that he wouldn't have learned without becoming a monk, and will be a layperson that is a good supporter of the teachings in the future. These people clearly are building accumulations that may benefit them in the time to come. I think if you are looking for the justifications for becoming/being a monk, there are lots of materials to choose from. The one that is repeated so many times is: it's not easy living at home to practice the celibate life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. There are many others, the ones most remarkable and probably surprising to some (including myself) are probably in the Questions of Milinda. The one I found online is this: http://www.as.miami.edu/phi/bio/Buddha/Milinda.htm#Lay%20People%20and%20Monks, with this partial quote: "...is the homeless wanderer who is the lord and master of the ascetic life, and to be a homeless wanderer has many, has numerous, has infinite virtues. To measure the virtues of being a homeless wanderer is not at all possible. It is as with a jewel that fulfils all one's wishes; one cannot measure its value in terms of money, and say that it is worth so much. Or it is as with the waves in the great ocean, which one cannot measure and say that there are so many. All that the homeless wanderer still has to do, he succeeds in doing rapidly and without taking a long time over it. And why is that so? Because the homeless wanderer, your majesty, is content with little, easily pleased, secluded from the world, not addicted to society, energetic, independent, solitary, perfect in his conduct, austere in his practice, skilled in all that concerns purification and spiritual progress. He is like your javelin, your majesty. Because that is smooth, even, well polished, straight and shining dean, therefore, when well thrown, it will fly exactly as you want it to. In the same way, whatever the homeless wanderer still has to do, he succeeds in doing it all rapidly and without taking a long time over it" Others questions/answers that I believe are raised in Milinda questions include (from memory): a) why monkhood is fruitful even for people who cannot hope to gain enlightenment in this life b) why being a misconducted monk may still be better than a misconducted layperson (next, the other benefits to me :-) ) -- Kom Tukovinit kom@... 56813 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:34pm Subject: Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) tikmok Dear Nina, > I like what you explain about the rules, and in how far the monk can and > should follow them. In how far can he ask for plain water? I think, by > developing satipatthana he would know whether he is led by lobha and thus > going against the principle of fewness of wishes, contentment with little. > Not drinking can be hazardous for one's health. Food and drink are a > medicin, necessary for continuing the brahma cariya. This doesn't work for all the rules, as some rules can be infracted with Kusala or even Kiriya javana. kom 56814 From: han tun Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 0:40pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 878 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 878 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: 4 general citations are 1. sabbe sattaa averaa hontu 2. sabbe sattaa abyapajjaa hontu 3. sabbe sattaa aniighaa hontu 4. sabbe satta sukhi-attaanam pariharantu Sabbe means 'all' 'each and every'. Satta means 'sentient being'. Vera means 'enemy' and avera means 'free from enemies'. Hontu means 'be that'. So 1. sabbe satta avera hontu means 'may all beings be free from enemies'. May all beings be free from enemies (inside & outside) Byapajjati means 'trouble'. Abyapajja means 'untroubled'. So 2. Sabbe satta abyapajjaa hontu means 'May all beings be untroubled'. Anigha means 'niddukkha'. Niddukkha means 'free of sufferings, pains'. So 3. Sabbe satta anighaa hontu means 'May all beings be free from sufferings'. Sukha means 'pleasure'. Sukhi-atta means 'physical pleasure'. So 4. Sabbe satta sukhi-attaanam pariharantu means 'May all beings be healthy and wealthy'. 5 general objects are satta-pannatti and they are 1. sabbe sattaa or 'all beings' 2. sabbe paanaa or 'all creatures' 3. sabbe bhuutaa or 'all grown beings' 4. sabbe puggalaa or 'all individuals' 5. sabbe attabhaava-pariyapannaa or 'all life-inclusive beings' 7 less general objects are satta-pannatti and they are 1. sabbe ariyaa or 'all arahats' 2. sabbe anariyaa or 'all non-arahats' 3. sabbe purisaa or 'all male beings' 4. sabba itthiyo or 'all female beings' 5. sabbe manussaa or 'all human beings' 6. sabbe devaa or 'all devas that is deva-devas and brahma-devas' 7. sabbe vinipatika asuraa or all non-human beings There are 12 objects as general. They are 'the idea or pannatti of mentioned 5 and 7, altogether 12 ideas or 12 pannatti. And there are 4 alternative wishing or citations. So there will be 48 general wishing or citation or mental exertion on these 48 things. After general mental exertion, one who is practising metta may does so to the 10 directions of east, south-east, south, south-west, west, north-west, north, north-east, up and down. When doing mental exertion to up and down, these have to include all beings that are above hios or her level even though the beings above may be in 8 directions. In this way, all directions are included and all beings in X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis of both right and left or up and down or faced and backed. So there will be 528 mental exertion of metta. Again initially one has to cite or mentally cultivate that he or she starts with 4 citations to himself or herself. 1. Aham avero homi. 2. Aham abyapajjo homi. 3. Aham anigho homi. 4. Aham sukhi-attaanam pariharaami. 1. May I be free from enemies. 2. May I be untroubled. 3. May I be free from sufferings. 4. May I be healthy and wealthy both physically and mentally. 1 is equal to 1. 2 is equal to 2. When we put 1 pound in one side of a scale and another 1 pound to other side of the scale, the scale's indicator will show equal. As soon as one side is heavier than the other the indicator will indicate that heavier side is heavier. Metta has to be equal to all if it is to be universal. That is what universal friendliness means. There must not be any boundries. There are 4 different beings that we may put a boundry. 1. being who is our self 2. beings who are deared by our self 3. beings who are hated by our self 4. beings who are not deared or hated by our self If it is true metta, then there must not be any boundry between these 4 beings. If this happen then this metta is unlimited metta and it is appamanna metta. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56815 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 1:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma robmoult Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > >I really do not like > > the word "realities". "Truths" is fine, but "realities" leads one > > into ontological discussions which, in my opinion, are not > beneficial. > ++++++ > Dear Robm, > Paramattha dhammas are the khandhas, dhatus and ayatanas (and Nibban). > Do you also think dhatu should be translated as truth rather than > element? ===== Any English word that is used for translation carries with it certain baggage and this baggage can lead to misinterpetation of the intended meaning. I suspect that this is the reason that the commentaries give lists of synonyms for key terms. Few terms are as difficult to nail down as "dhamma". When contrasting "paramattha dhammas" with "samutti sacca", translating "paramattha dhammas" as "ultimate truths" seems to work as the common translation of "samutti sacca" is "conventional truths". I am okay with the translation of dhatu as element, but as you have pointed out, dhatu is part of a larger family called "dhammas". In this context, translating dhamma as "phenomena" seems to make sense to me. The opening sentence of the Dhammasangani asks, "What are the *dhammas* that are good?". This is followed by a list of what the Abhidhammattha Sangaha calls "cetasikas". In this context, the PTS translation of the Dhammasangani translates "dhammas" as "states". This further illustrates the multiple character of the term "dhamma". So, I would say that khandhas, dhatus and ayatanas (and Nibbana) are "phenomena" or "states". Both terms carry certain baggage. Another more awkward translation of dhamma in this context might be "things which are experienced". I intentionally avoid translating dhammas as "realities" so that I do not slip into ontological arguments. Metta, Rob M :-) 56816 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles TGrand458@... Hi Joop In a message dated 3/16/2006 12:51:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: Hallo TG, Howard, Nina, all Two reactions and a remark TG. We agreed about most; only you asked me what (in my opinion) is the difference between "wisdom eye" and "dhamma eye"? As far as I understand the quotes I used the main idea behind it is that step by step one can penatrate more in the truth: from superficial to deepest (so not especially "two truths" according Abhidhamma-orthodoxy). And "dhamma eye" is a level that only noble persons (streamenterer of higher in Theravada, a bodhisattva in Mahayana) get and than have. Because I'm a wordling I can not exact understand what that "dhamma eye" is. BTW It always surprises me that this first and (thus) one of the most important sermons of the Budhha is so "hidden" in the Tipitaka: somewhere in the Vinaya and somewhere in the middle of the last part of the Samyutta Nikaya. Metta Joop Thanks for the explanation Joop. Also interesting note on the first sermon issue. TG 56817 From: "robmoult" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology robmoult Hi Rob K (Sarah & Jon), I think that the moderators have made a wise choice in wording the description of DSG, "The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas (the `realities' of the present moment)." By using the term "dhammas" they have kept true to the texts. By including the term "realities", they have recognized the most common translation of the term "dhammas" in this context. By putting the term "realities" in quotation marks, they have suggested a separation of the Buddha's teaching from ontology. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the implication of the quotation marks around the term "realties". The moderators may have something else in mind entirely when they added the quotation marks :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 56818 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/16/2006 3:12:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rob.moult@... writes: By putting the term "realities" in quotation marks, they have suggested a separation of the Buddha's teaching from ontology. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the implication of the quotation marks around the term "realties". The moderators may have something else in mind entirely when they added the quotation marks :-) Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob M Yes, perhaps they were highlighting the term/notion. Then again, you may be right. TG 56819 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. lbidd2 Text Vis.: owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant Hi Nina, Does an arahat experience dependent arising as dukkha? Occasionally I think that a true understanding of anatta will render experience (dependent arising) blissfully pleasant or at least not unpleasant, but the above quote seems to suggest that the end of dukkha is a greater awareness of dukkha. Can you sort this out? Larry 56820 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 3/16/06 7:34:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Nina, > > Does an arahat experience dependent arising as dukkha? Occasionally I > think that a true understanding of anatta will render experience > (dependent arising) blissfully pleasant or at least not unpleasant, but > the above quote seems to suggest that the end of dukkha is a greater > awareness of dukkha. Can you sort this out? > > Larry > ======================== I have to wonder what it would mean for an arahant [one already an arahant] to experience dependent arising. Having become an arahant, s/he uprooted avijja, tanha, upadana, bhava, jati, dukkha, etc once and forever. The only experiencing of D.O. by an arahant I would imagine would have to be a telepathic, vicarious, experiencing of it in other mindstreams. In any case, I don't understand your question about that quoted material. Can you explain? 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) 56821 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. lbidd2 Howard: "I have to wonder what it would mean for an arahant [one already an arahant] to experience dependent arising. Having become an arahant, s/he uprooted avijja, tanha, upadana, bhava, jati, dukkha, etc once and forever. The only experiencing of D.O. by an arahant I would imagine would have to be a telepathic, vicarious, experiencing of it in other mindstreams. In any case, I don't understand your question about that quoted material. Can you explain?" Hi Howard, I don't understand your understading of dependent arising. Isn't an arahant's ordinary, every day experience dependently arisen? What is the truth of that experience, dukkha or not? If not, why is that not a case of seeing the painful as pleasant? Does seeing the emptiness of bodily pain make that pain less painful or even pleasurable? If not, what does the end of suffering mean? Larry 56822 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry In a message dated 3/16/06 8:25:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Howard: "I have to wonder what it would mean for an arahant [one already > an arahant] to experience dependent arising. Having become an arahant, > s/he uprooted avijja, tanha, upadana, bhava, jati, dukkha, etc once and > forever. The only experiencing of D.O. by an arahant I would imagine > would have to be a telepathic, vicarious, experiencing of it in other > mindstreams. In any case, I don't understand your question about that > quoted material. Can you explain?" > > Hi Howard, > > I don't understand your understading of dependent arising. Isn't an > arahant's ordinary, every day experience dependently arisen? What is the > truth of that experience, dukkha or not? If not, why is that not a case > of seeing the painful as pleasant? Does seeing the emptiness of bodily > pain make that pain less painful or even pleasurable? If not, what does > the end of suffering mean? ------------------------------------- Howard: When you spoke of an arahant experiencing dependent arising, I thought you explicity meant the 12-link chain that explains the origination and cessation of dukkha. Obviously I misunderstood your meaning. Of course an arahant's ordinary, every day experience is dependently arisen. All conditioned dhammas are dependently arisen. As to your next question, no doubt some of what an arahant experiences is pleasant and some unpleasant. That has nothing to do with suffering. What is pleasant is observed as "merely pleasant." What is unpleasant is observed as "merely unpleasant". It is all, however, "just fine". It is all impersonal, insubstantial, not self, and such. There simply is no problem for an arahant, because an arahant sees what is just as it is. -------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56823 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:43pm Subject: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana upasaka_howard Dear Suan - I apologize for the following! I had no right to question your motives, and no basis, either. What I wrote says much more about myself than you. I'm very sorry. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/16/06 12:38:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > I have another question, Suan: Why are you questioning me in this > fashion? The manner of your questioning me strikes me as having the flavor > of a > Zen master who "has the answers" and is looking to enlighten a student, > which I > think, if true, would be a bit presumptuous. Hopefully I am misreading your > intent. Worse, of course, would be if you were trying to catch me in some > sort > of "heresy" in order to banish me to a kind of hell reserved for Mahayanist > "fellow travelers". But I presume that this is not so. > /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) 56824 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Howard, Consider this: Nina: "The Tiika explains that he, because of wrong perception of happiness (sukhasaññaa) takes for happiness what is understood by the wise as just dukkha, namely, the three kinds of dukkha: intrinsic dukkha (dukkha-dukkha, painful feeling and unhappy feeling), dukkha in change (vipari.naama dukkha)and sa²nkhaaradukkha (dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas). He wrongly perceives the dukkha of sa.msaara (the cycle of birth and death) as happiness and clings to it. In this way the occurring of clinging, tanhaa, is taught." L: It looks like it is saying painful feeling, change, and formations are dukkha. I would think an arahant would be painfully aware of this whereas an ordinary person is not. Therefore an arahant experiences more dukkha than an ordinary person. Perhaps we could say the end of the latent tendency to desire is the cessation of future dukkha (no rebirth), but the only cessation of present dukkha is the consciousness of nibbana. Larry 56825 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, I am just going away for the long wekend, but I will think over it. Nina. op 17-03-2006 01:31 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > Text Vis.: owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the > past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to > be pleasant > > Does an arahat experience dependent arising as dukkha? Occasionally I > think that a true understanding of anatta will render experience > (dependent arising) blissfully pleasant or at least not unpleasant, but > the above quote seems to suggest that the end of dukkha is a greater > awareness of dukkha. Can you sort this out? 56826 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:30pm Subject: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, no - that's not it. My impression on DSG has been that Abhidhamma > as understood by the Abhidhammikas here says that wisdom knows nothing but > paramattha dhammas, which then would make final realization of the tilakkhana > problematical. But I understand Jon to have said, to paraphrase him, that wisdom > is wide ranging, and that to know a paramattha dhamma with wisdom includes > knowing *about* that dhamma with wisdom as as well, and so, it would include a > deep and direct understanding of the tilakkhana with respect to it, and it would > include relational knowledge pertaining to it including interdependencies of > various sorts between it and other dhammas. If I have misunderstood Jon, then > I await correction. > ---------------------------------------------------- Well, I guess I will give this subject one more post and then go back to being quiet. It's starting to turn into an endless argument. Your description (and Jon's) of panna sounds more like omniscience than panna. According to "The Questions of King Milanda", panna (wisdom) is described as being like the "light" which comes on in a dark room. Therefore, I don't think it is proper to see panna as something different than normal mental processing of phenomena; it is just something that allows one to see that same mental processing in a new light. To say that panna can see a dhamma (phenomena) and then instantly know the three characteristics of that dhamma, in that very instant, smacks to me of omniscience and not panna. Okay, enough said. Metta, James 56827 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 0:12am Subject: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Dear Suan - > > I apologize for the following! I had no right to question your > motives, and no basis, either. What I wrote says much more about myself than you. I'm > very sorry. > This is very nice of you. Actually, when I read your original post to Suan I thought that he had definitely pushed your buttons. Really, I didn't blame you for being upset. Asking questions in that manner, with no follow up or explanation for the question, is a type of mind/ego game. Of course, Zen masters do that with their students but in that case it is different. The student completely trusts the intentions of the master and the master has no ulterior motive than to liberate the student. In the case of Suan's questions to you, it is not the same because he is not your teacher and you are not his student. Therefore, such a questioning technique is improper. However, what I noticed, and maybe to give you some food for thought, is that even though you found his questioning technique improper, you still answered him. You could have just refused to answer and remained silent, right? Instead, you answered and then gave him a lashing about his questioning. Why answer? I think it is because of ego. So often we want to protect our egos in a forum like this: "What will the others think of me if I don't answer? Will they think I am stupid or something? Will Suan get the satisfaction of thinking he has beaten me? I won't let down my `admiring public' and I won't let Suan beat me! I am going to answer but also let Suan know what a jerk he is! That way, it is win/win for ME!" (I am not saying that you thought in this fashion. I know that you are quite free from ego ;-)) In a forum like this, with so many people watching and not everyone has the best intentions, we have to be so careful of our egos getting in the way of decent communication. And I speak from experience because EGO has led me to make a complete ass of myself on several occasions! ;-)) Metta, James 56828 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:13am Subject: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > >.... > And I speak from experience because EGO has led me to make a > complete ass of myself on several occasions! ;-)) > > Metta, > James > Sadhu, sadhu ! (And I'm such a one too) Metta Joop 56829 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:15am Subject: Quotation marks, wisdom, 'realities' AnRe: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob K (Sarah & Jon), > > I think that the moderators have made a wise choice in wording the > description of DSG, "The discussions include matters of both theory and > practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas > (the `realities' of the present moment)." > > By using the term "dhammas" they have kept true to the texts. > > By including the term "realities", they have recognized the most common > translation of the term "dhammas" in this context. > > By putting the term "realities" in quotation marks, they have suggested > a separation of the Buddha's teaching from ontology. Of course, this is > just my interpretation of the implication of the quotation marks around > the term "realties". The moderators may have something else in mind > entirely when they added the quotation marks :-) > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > About the socalled 'realities'. I propose not to use the term at all any more. Rob M must be right in his judgement about the wisdom of the DSG moderators. But is it right and wise to use at all the term "realities", even with quotation marks? In a discussion about "the two truths" a mont or so ago Jon and I agreed about the fact that Abhidhamma states there are two kind or realities: concopual and ultimate. It's a usage in DSG - but not a good usage - to label only the ultimate ones as 'realities' Some days ago TG said (to Suan and Howard): "… the term "reality." I know I'm uncomfortable using that term for a couple of reasons (although it occasionally slips in). So I looked it up in the dictionary to see if maybe I could find a problem there. Most definitions were very acceptable until I got to the last which was completely unacceptable. This last definition defined 'reality' as -- "Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive." This definition may be true regarding Nibbana; but it is diametrically opposed to what is true regarding conditions/conditionality. Eureka! Evidence that supports my innate discomfort with the term 'reality.' " I'm not sure but I think most Abhidhammikas don't like the term 'illusions', even if used for the 'concepual realities'. Still it's a rather good term for describing the psychological process that occurring again and again in (nearly) all human beings: we get all kind of information from outside and to prevent we got mad about the chaotic and pointless character of that information we create a theory in which that information seems to fit. AND WE CALL THAT CREATED THEORY REALITY. Abhidhammikas will (I think) more or less agree with this description, when it's about the 'conceptual realities'. But more I more I get the idea that the Abhidhamma (with its 89 cittas +52 cetasikas+28 rupas+1 nibbana and the relations between them and processes) are a theory too. An superior theory, an ultimate theory, but a theory: only a raft for awakening us, not an aim in itself. For some people this theory works very well. Others prefer to plunge in the chaos. I don't know if there are others in DSG with the same experience, but my buddhistic intuition is saying to me I've studied and contemplated enough Abhidhamma for a while and that it's better to continue my path without this theory, if possible without any theory. Metta Joop BTW: Perhaps this is a proof of my reaction to James 56830 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:40am Subject: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Dear RobM, TG, Howard, Joop & all, Thankyou for giving me the chance to consider more about the use of reality or ‘reality’ as a translation of dhamma, referring to that which arises, falls and can be known when it appears now. Let me try to take you through some of my reflections here. S: The khandhas are dhammas which exist, which manifest right now: * “Whatever feeling...Whatever perception..Whatever volitional formations...Whatever consciousness has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be’. (SN 22:62, Bodhi transl) * S: This existence of dhammas, this actuality does not apply to concepts, only to impermanent khandhas right now: * “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? From that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling...Perception...Volitional Formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.” (SN 22:94). * S:The 5 khandhas are dhammas which exist and which are to be known, to be directly understood: * “And what, bhikkhus, is something that should be fully understood? Form, bhikkhus, is something that should be fully understood; feeling....perception...volitional formations..consciousness is something that should be fully understood. These are called the things that should be fully understood.”(SN 22:23) * S: Here ‘something’ and ‘things’ are translations of dhammaa (dhammas). It is these ‘things', these actualities which are dukkha and which are conditioned to arise and fall away. Please note that the meaning of dhammas is not the same as the meaning of conditions. Dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too): * “Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.” (SN 22:81). * S: So we have the present dhammas, the present khandhas translated and defined here as things, something, ‘that which exists’, ‘that which has become manifest’, ‘has been born’, ‘conditioned’ and so on. Elsewhere Bodhi translates dhammas as actualities or even as ‘ultimately real actualities’ when the texts are stressing the characteristics of such dhammas. In my pocket Oxford dictionary, the first definition of *reality* that is given is: “What is real or existent or underlies appearances”. I believe this is a pretty standard definition. (For *actuality*, it gives: “Reality” for its first definition!) Dhammas to be understood right now are real, are existent and I would say ‘underlie appearances’. To take this a step further, at the start of the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN1, Bodhi transl), we read about the ‘root of all things’ (sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya) and the misperceptions of these dhammas , translated here as things. The various uses of ‘all’ in the various texts are explained in the commentary and here it is stressed that ‘all’ refers to the ‘all of personality’ (sakkaayasabba). We are looking at the dhammas which ‘underlie the appearances’ and the misperceptions, the proliferations which lead to the ideas of personality and thereby, all other wrong views. The commentary continues to elaborate on the different meanings of ‘dhamma’ in various contexts and stresses that in suttas such as this one: * “the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: ‘They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas; (attano lakkha.na’m dhaarentii ti dhammaa).” * S: The sub-commentary elaborates further to stress that this distinction differentiates dhammas(realities), i.e the khandhas, from concepts: * “Although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics, this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures (sabhava) devoid of such attributions as that of a ‘being’ etc. “Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasurableness, and permanence etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiiva), body etc which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as ‘sky-flowers’ etc, which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamattho), these dhammas (i.e those endowed with a specific nature) can. “These dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities....” * S: It may be argued that here I’m looking at the commentaries. However, I see no difference in intended meaning between what is said here and what we read in the suttas, such as in the brief extracts above. Dhammas are only ever discovered or known as ‘ultimately real actualities’ (or ‘realities’ to use less of a mouthful) through the direct development of awareness and wisdom. When satipatthana develops, there is no doubt at all that the khandhas are real, they are conditioned, they exist momentarily, they fall away immediately. There have no self-nature, they have no substance, but when they appear, they exist, they are real, they can be directly understood. I believe that teachers (especially in the name of Buddhism) who have expounded that nothing exists ever, that there are only ever ideas about nothing, or that nibbana is the only truly existing reality, have done a great disservice to the Dhamma (the Teachings of the Buddha). The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas which exist and appear, one at a time. Metta, Sarah p.s comments most welcome of course:) ====== 56831 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:48am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 400- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (k) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) Kusala citta does not arise alone, it is accompanied by cetasikas: by the universals (sabbacitta sådhårana), the cetasikas which accompany each citta, by particulars (pakinnakå), cetasikas which accompany cittas of the four classes (jåtis) of kusala, akusala, vipåka and kiriya(1), but which do not accompany each citta, and by sobhana cetasikas, beautiful cetasikas. Kusala citta cannot be accompanied by akusala cetasikas. One may wonder why the term “sobhana” and not the term “kusala” is used for cetasikas which accompany kusala citta. The reason is that sobhana cetasikas do not only accompany kusala cittas, but also cittas of the jåtis which are vipåka and kiriya(2). All the cittas which are accompanied by sobhana cetasikas are called sobhana cittas. *** 1) See Introduction. 2) There are also vipåka-cittas and kiriyacittas which are not sobhana cittas, namely ahetuka (rootless) vipåkacittas and ahetuka kiriyacittas. See Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Chapter 19. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56832 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 3/16/06 11:47:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Consider this: > > Nina: "The Tiika explains that he, because of wrong perception of > happiness > (sukhasaññaa) takes for happiness what is understood by the wise as > just dukkha, namely, the three kinds of dukkha: intrinsic dukkha > (dukkha-dukkha, painful feeling and unhappy feeling), dukkha in change > (vipari.naama dukkha)and sa²nkhaaradukkha (dukkha inherent in all > conditioned dhammas). He wrongly perceives the dukkha of sa.msaara (the > cycle of birth and death) as happiness and clings to it. In this way the > occurring of clinging, tanhaa, is taught." > > L: It looks like it is saying painful feeling, change, and formations > are dukkha. I would think an arahant would be painfully aware of this > whereas an ordinary person is not. Therefore an arahant experiences more > dukkha than an ordinary person. > > Perhaps we could say the end of the latent tendency to desire is the > cessation of future dukkha (no rebirth), but the only cessation of > present dukkha is the consciousness of nibbana. > > Larry > ======================== Now I follow you. Here is my understanding: There are several senses of 'dukkha'. A couple of them relate to matters that do not disappear with arahantship. One such sense, an ordinary, non-Dhammic one, is that of unpleasant feeling. That occurs in the mindstreams of all sentient beings. The bodily sensation resulting from a wound, for example, is, even in a Buddha, unpleasant. Another such sense, a fundamental Dhammic sense, is that of the inability of conditioned dhammas to serve as sources of genuine satisfaction. This is universal, and it is a fact for both worldlings and all ariyans. However, an arahant is never dissatisfied or distressed. An arahant never suffers. That is the primary Dhammic sense of 'dukkha' - mental pain, suffering, and distress of any degree and to any extent. As regards dukkha, it is exactly that, and only that, which is missing in the arahant. 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) 56833 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 0:38am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 3/17/06 2:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Well, I guess I will give this subject one more post and then go > back to being quiet. It's starting to turn into an endless > argument. Your description (and Jon's) of panna sounds more like > omniscience than panna. According to "The Questions of King > Milanda", panna (wisdom) is described as being like the "light" > which comes on in a dark room. Therefore, I don't think it is > proper to see panna as something different than normal mental > processing of phenomena; it is just something that allows one to see > that same mental processing in a new light. To say that panna can > see a dhamma (phenomena) and then instantly know the three > characteristics of that dhamma, in that very instant, smacks to me > of omniscience and not panna. Okay, enough said. > > Metta, > James > ====================== Well, you could be right, James. That would be ok with me. I don't have any emotional investment in this matter I'm pleased to say. Actually, my view of pa~n~na runs afoul of the Abhidhammic perspective of its being a cetasika of its own. I see it as cognitive functioning that is perfect, a functioning operating free of defilement. Most specifically, I think of it as sa~n~na operating free of corruption. I see it as more than just clarity of mind. I see it as including clear comprehension, an unmistaken, uncorrupted understanding and recognition. I think that such pristine operation is very far from ordinary. In fact, I think it is extraordinary. Synonyms for 'pa~n~na' are 'vijja' (emphasizing "seeing") and '~nana', emphasizing knowledge and understanding. While I think that 'omniscience' is too strong a term, because it suggests knowing all details of all things, even ordinary-knowledge details, I do think that that pa~n~na is a powerful and direct knowing of reality as it is. The state of an arahant, most especially of a Buddha, is, I believe, radically different from the state of even lesser ariyans - it is a quantum leap beyond even that of nonreturner. 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) 56834 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 0:57am Subject: Re: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Suan) - In a message dated 3/17/06 3:12:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Dear Suan - > > > > I apologize for the following! I had no right to question > your > >motives, and no basis, either. What I wrote says much more about > myself than you. I'm > >very sorry. > > > > This is very nice of you. Actually, when I read your original post > to Suan I thought that he had definitely pushed your buttons. > Really, I didn't blame you for being upset. Asking questions in > that manner, with no follow up or explanation for the question, is a > type of mind/ego game. Of course, Zen masters do that with their > students but in that case it is different. The student completely > trusts the intentions of the master and the master has no ulterior > motive than to liberate the student. In the case of Suan's > questions to you, it is not the same because he is not your teacher > and you are not his student. Therefore, such a questioning > technique is improper. > > However, what I noticed, and maybe to give you some food for > thought, is that even though you found his questioning technique > improper, you still answered him. You could have just refused to > answer and remained silent, right? Instead, you answered and then > gave him a lashing about his questioning. Why answer? I think it > is because of ego. So often we want to protect our egos in a forum > like this: "What will the others think of me if I don't answer? > Will they think I am stupid or something? Will Suan get the > satisfaction of thinking he has beaten me? I won't let down > my `admiring public' and I won't let Suan beat me! I am going to > answer but also let Suan know what a jerk he is! That way, it is > win/win for ME!" (I am not saying that you thought in this fashion. > I know that you are quite free from ego ;-)) In a forum like this, > with so many people watching and not everyone has the best > intentions, we have to be so careful of our egos getting in the way > of decent communication. > > And I speak from experience because EGO has led me to make a > complete ass of myself on several occasions! ;-)) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, of course, I'm very far from being egoless - sadly far. ;-) As for your point about my answering Suan's question: No - truly - ego wasn't involved with that. That was actually a matter of common courtesy, the only aspect of my response to display that. It was just a matter of addressing the objective question. However, my rude lashing out was *very* much a matter of ego! The ego was standing right there, pushing the anger forward! It's like anger is the "front man" for ego! I'm really unhappy about that venting, not only because of what it tells me about being deficient in guarding the senses, but more because I really hate to cause upset in anyone else, and I regret my hurtful reply to Suan. Suan, again, I apologize. --------------------------------------- > > Metta, > James > ==================== With metta. Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56835 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:07am Subject: Re: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana sarahprocter... Dear Howard, (& Suan*) It’s a kind apology and I sympathise – I know that certain styles of writing make you feel uncomfortable, such as this sort of questioning. It reminds me somewhat of Han’s description of his experience at the Foundation, being asked questions, having all his comments queeried and generally being put on the spot. I’m sure we all feel uncomforatable at times when we’re queeried or put on the spot, but I think we can appreciate that often this discomfort is indicative of our own questioning and uncertainty. I find it can be a condition for reflecting more deeply and questioning my ideas. For me this is more useful than being concerned with the others’ motives. I also think it's very natural to feel agitated and this is just another passing dhamma to be known:). On that, I’ll also add that while of course, all our motives are mixed, I don’t see such a questioning approach (as shown in posts like Suan’s in this case) as being indicative at all of bad intentions or inflated ego, regardless of whether there is the correct or mistaken idea of ‘having the answers’ or an attempt to show up one’s real/imagined ‘heresy’. It can also be a cultural difference in approach. One thing for sure is that we all have our own styles and as you point out in your kind note here, we can only take responsibility for our own ways and motives. It might be that if we were to suddenly adopt another style (such as Suan’s in your case), that it would be with bad motives, but we don’t know that it’s so for the one who wrote it. And now what I’m writing probably sounds equally presumptuous and you’re most welcome to ignore it:)). I just know that sometimes some of our posts do cause you to feel discomfort or agitation (even some I know have been written with kindness), and I was very glad to see this was an opportunity to consider a little more. Metta, Sarah *Good to see you around, Suan! --- upasaka@... wrote: > Dear Suan - > > I apologize for the following! I had no right to question your > motives, and no basis, either. What I wrote says much more about myself > than you. I'm > very sorry. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 3/16/06 12:38:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka > writes: > > > I have another question, Suan: Why are you questioning me in this > > fashion? 56836 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" jonoabb Hi TG The term 'reality' is a translation of the term 'dhamma' used in the suttas (as in the context 'all dhammas are anatta') and the abhidhamma. Is your discomfort concerning the term 'reality' a discomfort with the Pali term 'dhamma', or with the use of 'reality' as a translation of the Pali? If the latter, then it might help to just use the original Pali term, as we do for Nibbana, etc. To my way of thinking, the dictionary definition of an English term that is a translation of the original Pali can only be helpful in considering how suitable the English translation is, and not determining the appropriateness of the original Pali term. Jon TGrand458@... wrote: > >Hi Suan, Howard, All > >A few comments. First of all is the term "reality." I know I'm >uncomfortable using that term for a couple of reasons (although it occasionally slips >in). > >So I looked it up in the dictionary to see if maybe I could find a problem >there. Most definitions were very acceptable until I got to the last which >was completely unacceptable. This last definition defined 'reality' as -- >"Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other >things derive." > >This definition may be true regarding Nibbana; but it is diametrically >opposed to what is true regarding conditions/conditionality. Eureka! Evidence >that supports my innate discomfort with the term 'reality.' > >The definition of 'reality' above is actually a perfect definition of >'self.' I think the term 'reality,' at least subliminally, is very likely to >imposes a sense of self onto that which is called a 'reality.' > >This continues to support what I believe is a unwitting effort by some folks >to see states as "having self." I.E., "own characteristics," "ultimate >realities," etc. These terms and the outlooks they imbue do not correspond to >the Buddha's teachings as I understand them...as impermanent, unsatisfactory, >not-self. As I see it, these terms impose, subliminally, a view of little >'effervescent selves.' > >Why don't we just call conditions -- 'conditions'? ... and leave it at >that. > >TG > > >In a message dated 3/15/2006 5:28:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, >suanluzaw@... writes: > >So far, so good! When we get here thus, you now seem needing to >revise your earlier position that reality is beyond conditions. > >This is because Samsaara constitutes series of conditioned phenomena >and because Samsaara is a reality. > >As you know all along, there are four ultimate realites, namely, >matter, consciousness, mental associates and nibbaana. > >Samsaara covers three ultimate realities which are subject to >Dependent Origination. > >Nibbaana is the only ultimate reality beyond conditions. > >Howard, are you now happy with the above stock-taking of ultimate >realities with their conditioned status (or unconditioned status in >the case of nibbaana)? > >With regards, > >Suan Lu Zaw > > 56837 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:22am Subject: Re: Mea Culpa Re: [dsg] Is Avijjaa Real? Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Suan) - In a message dated 3/17/06 9:11:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Dear Howard, (& Suan*) > > It’s a kind apology and I sympathise – I know that certain styles of > writing make you feel uncomfortable, such as this sort of questioning. It > reminds me somewhat of Han’s description of his experience at the > Foundation, being asked questions, having all his comments queeried and > generally being put on the spot. > > I’m sure we all feel uncomforatable at times when we’re queeried or put on > the spot, but I think we can appreciate that often this discomfort is > indicative of our own questioning and uncertainty. > ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, quite so. --------------------------------- I find it can be a> > condition for reflecting more deeply and questioning my ideas. For me this > is more useful than being concerned with the others’ motives. I also think > it's very natural to feel agitated and this is just another passing dhamma > to be known:). > > On that, I’ll also add that while of course, all our motives are mixed, I > don’t see such a questioning approach (as shown in posts like Suan’s in > this case) as being indicative at all of bad intentions or inflated ego, > regardless of whether there is the correct or mistaken idea of ‘having the > answers’ or an attempt to show up one’s real/imagined ‘heresy’. It can > also be a cultural difference in approach. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I had no valid basis for questioning Suan's motives. I should have presumed nothing but good will. Suan, I'm really sorry for my inappropriate response. -------------------------------------------- > > One thing for sure is that we all have our own styles and as you point out > in your kind note here, we can only take responsibility for our own ways > and motives. It might be that if we were to suddenly adopt another style > (such as Suan’s in your case), that it would be with bad motives, but we > don’t know that it’s so for the one who wrote it. > > And now what I’m writing probably sounds equally presumptuous and you’re > most welcome to ignore it:)). > ------------------------------------- Howard: No, not at all presumptuous. As a friend, and also as moderator, your words here are most appropriate. ------------------------------------- I just know that sometimes some of our posts> > do cause you to feel discomfort or agitation (even some I know have been > written with kindness), and I was very glad to see this was an opportunity > to consider a little more. > > Metta, > > Sarah > *Good to see you around, Suan! ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it is, Suan. Please forgive my boorish reply to you, and please don't let it sour your experience here. =================== 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) 56838 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Haven't written to you in a while, hope all is well! A few (strong) but well meaning comments... In a message dated 3/17/2006 2:41:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear RobM, TG, Howard, Joop & all, Thankyou for giving me the chance to consider more about the use of reality or ‘reality’ as a translation of dhamma, referring to that which arises, falls and can be known when it appears now. Let me try to take you through some of my reflections here. S: The khandhas are dhammas which exist, which manifest right now: * TG: The term "exist" is unnecessary here and is setting a foundation for a "substantialist based argument." If you had said "manifest right now" only, I would be in full agreement with you. “Whatever feeling...Whatever perception..Whatever volitional formations...Whatever consciousness has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be’. (SN 22:62, Bodhi transl) * S: This existence of dhammas, this actuality does not apply to concepts, only to impermanent khandhas right now: * TG: Manifest does apply to concepts. That's why concepts are mental formations and there is no conflict. They do arise ... they manifest. However, they do not "exist" and neither do any of the so-called "realities." They only manifest. This issue regarding concepts always comes up in relation to minds that "seeing things as real." When nama and rupa are considered "real," concepts must not be real. If nama and rupa were "states with their own essence," I'd agree. Since this is exactly what they are not, I have to disagree. Nama and rupa are empty, coreless, and alien, of anything "of themselves." And, so are concepts. One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts. IMO. The former would lead to detachment. The latter leads to attachment. “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? From that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling...Perception...Volitional Formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.â€? (SN 22:94). * TG: Here the word 'exists' would also be better suited to being translated as manifests or arises. Keeping in mind that the Buddha said that states don't exist, nor do they not exist ... in other suttas. Paraphrasing ... -- One who sees the arising of the world does not believe in the non-existence of the world ... one who see the disintegration of the world does not believe in the existence of the world. -- S:The 5 khandhas are dhammas which exist and which are to be known, to be directly understood: * TG: To me the 5 khandas are to be known for what they are ... empty, coreless, alien, 'resultant' manifestations. They are not to be known as "existing" or "not existing" IMO and apparently in the opinion of the Buddha as well. “And what, bhikkhus, is something that should be fully understood? Form, bhikkhus, is something that should be fully understood; feeling....perception...volitional formations..consciousness is something that should be fully understood. These are called the things that should be fully understood.â€?(SN 22:23) * S: Here ‘something’ and ‘things’ are translations of dhammaa (dhammas). It is these ‘things', these actualities which are dukkha and which are conditioned to arise and fall away. Please note that the meaning of dhammas is not the same as the meaning of conditions. Dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too): * TG: But Dhammas are conditions and vice versa so I'm not sure why a note that distinguishes them as different is correct or of important? Paraphrasing -- One who sees Dependent Arising sees Dhamma. One who sees Dhamma sees Dependent Arising. -- From this I gather that what the Buddha wants us to know is -- "the principle of Dependent Arising" ... and "seeing" the manifestations (dhammas) is only a tool used to develop comprehension of Dependent Arising principles...impermanence, dukkha, no-self...leading to detachment and liberation. Sarah's post continues .... “Thus, bhikkhus, that formation is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that craving is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that contact is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen; that ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.â€? (SN 22:81). * S: So we have the present dhammas, the present khandhas translated and defined here as things, something, ‘that which exists’, ‘that which has become manifest’, ‘has been born’, ‘conditioned’ and so on. Elsewhere Bodhi translates dhammas as actualities or even as ‘ultimately real actualities’ when the texts are stressing the characteristics of such dhammas. In my pocket Oxford dictionary, the first definition of *reality* that is given is: “What is real or existent or underlies appearancesâ€?. I believe this is a pretty standard definition. (For *actuality*, it gives: “Realityâ€? for its first definition!) Dhammas to be understood right now are real, are existent and I would say ‘underlie appearances’. TG: I consider the above self-viewpoint. It takes Buddha's teaching that are delicately trying to balance between existing and not-existing and concludes on perhaps "the wrong end" -- IT EXISTS. This view would have "real things" with "their own characteristics" that are existing beneath a veal of appearances. IMO, the 'veal of appearances' is as "real as it gets." Paraphrasing -- Two ascetics approach the Buddha...one says "I believe all exists." The other says "I believe nothing exists." -- The Buddha praises the latter view as being superior as it is closer to detachment. Sarah's post continues... To take this a step further, at the start of the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN1, Bodhi transl), we read about the ‘root of all things’ (sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya) and the misperceptions of these dhammas , translated here as things. The various uses of ‘all’ in the various texts are explained in the commentary and here it is stressed that ‘all’ refers to the ‘all of personality’ (sakkaayasabba). We are looking at the dhammas which ‘underlie the appearances’ and the misperceptions, the proliferations which lead to the ideas of personality and thereby, all other wrong views. TG: In my view Sarah, your approach is "personifying" dhammas. Sarah's post continues... The commentary continues to elaborate on the different meanings of ‘dhamma’ in various contexts and stresses that in suttas such as this one: * “the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: ‘They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas; (attano lakkha.na’m dhaarentii ti dhammaa).â€? * S: The sub-commentary elaborates further to stress that this distinction differentiates dhammas(realities), i.e the khandhas, from concepts: TG: Obviously I disagree with both of these commentarial hypothesizes. Sarah's post continues... * “Although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics, this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures (sabhava) devoid of such attributions as that of a ‘being’ etc. “Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasurableness, and permanence etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiiva), body etc which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as ‘sky-flowers’ etc, which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamattho), these dhammas (i.e those endowed with a specific nature) can. “These dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities....â€? * TG: Regarding the commentary above. The commentary is oblivious to the fact that it is engendering, and a substrate level, the same "misconstructions" that it is criticizing. The "misconstructions" the commentary criticizes "as being mere expressions" is because those states are empty of their own essence. THE DHAMMAS ARE EMPTY OF THEIR OWN ESSENCE ALSO. They are not "endowed with a specific nature" as the commentary contends. What a totally "attached viewpoint" IMO. Sarah's post continues... S: It may be argued that here I’m looking at the commentaries. However, I see no difference in intended meaning between what is said here and what we read in the suttas, such as in the brief extracts above. TG: This is the problem IMO. You don't see the difference. Dhammas are only ever discovered or known as ‘ultimately real actualities’ (or ‘realities’ to use less of a mouthful) through the direct development of awareness and wisdom. When satipatthana develops, there is no doubt at all that the khandhas are real, they are conditioned, they exist momentarily, they fall away immediately. There have no self-nature, they have no substance, but when they appear, they exist, they are real, they can be directly understood. TG: I believe, that some are so attached to "dhammas" which is the same as "being attached to self," that they just can't bear to let go of terms like "reality" or "own characteristic." Because...to let go of that is to let go of the self. Some folks seem to be holding on to those terms "for dear life." Why? Because they are the only things supporting subliminal-self-views. Sarah's post continues... I believe that teachers (especially in the name of Buddhism) who have expounded that nothing exists ever, that there are only ever ideas about nothing, or that nibbana is the only truly existing reality, have done a great disservice to the Dhamma (the Teachings of the Buddha). The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas which exist and appear, one at a time. TG: I feel you are doing equal if not greater damage. The perniciousness of the above paragraph's views are relatively easy to uncover and expose. But the subtle way self-view resides in the minds of some abhidhammists, is much more difficult to shed light on. This is because the views expressed in your post, "appear," to coincide with the Suttas in many ways. Minds, as a result, are more easily led astray. But deep down, these views do not coincide with the Suttas and to me always look like they are "twisting" the Suttas to say something "substantialist" and grasping oriented IMO. Sorry for the strong disagreement but its not meant in an antagonistic way. TG Metta, Sarah p.s comments most welcome of course:) 56839 From: han tun Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:54am Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 879 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 879 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: There are many ways of practising on 'metta brahmavihara' or 'pure-living on loving-kindness'. Citations of 528 sentences or mental exertion on these 528 wishes is just a means of doing loving-kindness. 'Sukhino vaa khemino hontu sabba satta bhavantu sukhitattaa'. Sukha is wellbeing. Khema means 'free of danger'. Hontu means 'be that'. Sabba means 'all' 'everyone'. Satta means being. Bhavantu means 'exist, fill, full'. Sukhitatta_ sukhi + atta means physical wellbeing. 1. May all beings be healthy, free from danger and filled with physical and mental wellbeing. 2. May all arahats be healthy,wealthy and free of danger. 3. May all non-arahats 4. May beings who have long body (snakes etc) 5. May beings who have short body (mouse etc) 6. May beings who have middle-length body (cat etc) 7. May beings who have large body (elephant etc) 8. May beings who have small body (ant etc) 9. May beings who have middle-sized body (cat etc) 10.May beings who have fat body (pig etc) 11.May beings who have thin body (sparrow etc) 12.May beings who have middle-fat body (cat etc) 13. May beings who have been seen before 14. May beings who have not seen before 15. May beings who are close to us 16. May beings who are distant from us 17. May beings who are grown up 18. May beings who are still not grown up all beings be healthy, wealthy and free of danger. May one not attack others and vice versa. The mother who has a single child will keep her child healthy so that she may not lose him or her. Loving-kindness also protect all beings as if all beings are it single child. All these mental exertions have to be bred or cultivated through out the day. That is both in day time and night time. That is 24 hours or as long as one is still conscious and is aware that he or she is still living. When stand, one has to stand with loving kindness. When sit, one has to sit with loving-kindness. When lying, one has to lie down with loving-kindness. And when walking, loving-kindness should be accompanied. When these contemplations or mental exertions or cultivation happen most of the time and this habbit is no more a difficult practise, then this stage may be equated with parikamma samadhi or preparatory concentration. But there is no uggaha nimitta like other 1st-jhaanika kammatthaana or other 22 meditation objects that can give rise to uggaha nimitta and patibhaaga nimitta. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56840 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/17/2006 7:09:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG The term 'reality' is a translation of the term 'dhamma' used in the suttas (as in the context 'all dhammas are anatta') and the abhidhamma. Is your discomfort concerning the term 'reality' a discomfort with the Pali term 'dhamma', or with the use of 'reality' as a translation of the Pali? If the latter, then it might help to just use the original Pali term, as we do for Nibbana, etc. To my way of thinking, the dictionary definition of an English term that is a translation of the original Pali can only be helpful in considering how suitable the English translation is, and not determining the appropriateness of the original Pali term. Jon Hi Jon I think I was pretty explicit in my original post as to why the discomfort with the term "reality." Now, just going through Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and seeing his multi-definitions of "Dhamma" ... "reality" does not come up once. Among other terms, he does use "quality" and "phenomena/phenomenon." I prefer either of these as they come with a minimum of ontological baggage. I personally translate "Dhamma" as -- "the natural order of events." But that's cumbersome. Dhamma also is somewhat broader...but not broad enough to include "reality" IMO. As far as using the original Pali term only ... that IMO does not clarify anything to a group communicating in English. Everyone would have a vastly different idea of what the term means. As much as possible, I prefer English to be used. Just a few thoughts. TG 56841 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 62, and Tiika. lbidd2 Howard: "Here is my understanding: There are several senses of 'dukkha'. A couple of them relate to matters that do not disappear with arahantship. One such sense, an ordinary, non-Dhammic one, is that of unpleasant feeling. That occurs in the mindstreams of all sentient beings. The bodily sensation resulting from a wound, for example, is, even in a Buddha, unpleasant. Another such sense, a fundamental Dhammic sense, is that of the inability of conditioned dhammas to serve as sources of genuine satisfaction. This is universal, and it is a fact for both worldlings and all ariyans. However, an arahant is never dissatisfied or distressed. An arahant never suffers. That is the primary Dhammic sense of 'dukkha' - mental pain, suffering, and distress of any degree and to any extent. As regards dukkha, it is exactly that, and only that, which is missing in the arahant." Hi Howard, I don't know. An arahant must experience dukkha, otherwise how would he penetrate the first noble truth. If impermanence, painful bodily feeling, and formations are all dukkha then he must experience dukkha most of the time. I never read anywhere that dukkha is only the pain that accompanies dosa (hatred). This is a reasonable view but I don't see it in sutta or commentary. If it were just a matter of squelching dosa, why didn't the Buddha live to 100, and why not continue with rebirth? It seems to me there is a dichotomy set up between conditioned and unconditioned and the conditioned is inherently dukkha, and no amount of insight can change that. Larry 56842 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:46pm Subject: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta indriyabala Dear Han (and all)- After I had posted a discussion on the Patisambhidamagga a moment ago, I still continued to ponder over 'ceto-vimutti' and the related seven anupassanas in the Patisambhidamagga. The subject matter is both very deep and very broad in scope; even to try to superficially understand it, my small mind is completely stressed and overwhelmed. I also searched around and found two suttas; the Ceto-vimutti Sutta in the Thai Tipitaka CD and an important sutta : the Sangiti Sutta. Below is my English translation of the Ceto-vimutti Sutta from the Thai. Have you seen this sutta before? And if so, please give me its (smoother) translation. Further, I should be quite happy if you feel like discussing it with me. Tep's translation: "These five things, when they are well developed and frequently practiced by a meditator, will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit(phala), ceto-vimutti as the outcome, panna-vimutti as the fruit and panna-vimutti as the outcome. Which five? 1. anicca sanna in all conditioned things, 2. dukkha sanna in the impermanent, 3. anatta sana in the stressful, 4. nirodha sanna, and 5. viraga sanna." The Sangiti Sutta is a Sariputta's discourse that is a Patisambhidamagga look-alike ! It is a very long sutta. Below is the Web link that locates its source on line. Please review it (by skipping and skimming) and let me know if you also think it looks very much like the Patisambhidamagga. I plan to discuss it with you all later -- if you want me too. http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/sangiti_sutta.htm Warm regards, Tep ======= 56843 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - benefits of becoming a monk (continued) tikmok One of the benefits of being a monk is that some of the teachings become readily understandable in a monk's life. Let me give some examples. In Visuddhimagga and elsewhere in the Tipitakas, we hear about the filthiness of the body, that the body is, in a summary, 9 orifices that leak filth and waste. Being a layperson, this may not be very apparent, as we shower everyday, get our body scented (by soap, deodorants, perfumes, etc), and change into fresh clothings. Because of this, we are not particularly willing to accept the fact that, it's only for the upkeeping that our bodies appear clean. Being a monk, some of these daily rituals are not allowed. Scenting the body is not allowed, and therefore, in one's daily life (especially with hot weather, or chores that are physically involved), one can readily appreciate why V. Sariputta, near his Parinibbana, said that he was not sorry to be parting with the body because of its foulness. Another example are the drawbacks of sensuality mentioned in the Maha- dukkhakkhandha Sutta ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-013-tb0.html). The sufferings of one having to find foods (even just going for alms as a monk) are quite apparent when one has to walk bare-footed in the gravels, in the rain, and in the cold, and up and down the hill. Since a monk has so little, when something is lost --- it can be a big deal to replace the item. Another benefit of the monkhood is the patikmokha itself. Besides the ten benefits that the Buddha stated (see earlier post), here's what V. Thanisaro explained (reworded) which I found to be applicable: to help restrain and prevent mental pollutants within the individual monks. This point quickly becomes apparent to anyone who seriously tries to keep to the rules, for they encourage mindfulness and circumspection in one's actions, qualities that carry over into the training of the mind. One doesn't have to worry about cooking, about TV, about what brands of soap to get, what kinds of hairstyles, how to be funny, how to be interesting, or how to entertain yourself --- just imagine the mental energy you have in focusing on more useful things! How about being in an environment where people have high confidence in the Buddha, in the Dhamma, and in the Sangha, are working toward the same thing that you are, and whenever they talk they remind you of a passage from the teachings? Well, that's another benefit too. Again, one can focus most of the energy onto something useful. You already know the power of associations. With whom one is associated is a good indication of how that person will turn out. (next, some other lessons learned) -- Kom Tukovinit kom@... 56844 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob K (Sarah & Jon), > > I think that the moderators have made a wise choice in wording the > description of DSG, "The discussions include matters of both theory and > practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of dhammas > (the `realities' of the present moment)." > > By using the term "dhammas" they have kept true to the texts. > > By including the term "realities", they have recognized the most common > translation of the term "dhammas" in this context. > > By putting the term "realities" in quotation marks, they have suggested > a separation of the Buddha's teaching from ontology. ________ Dear Robm, I am not sure what ontology is or how it relates to Dhamma. If someone doesn't like the translation 'ultimate realities' for paramattha dhammas it may indicate firm misunderstanding of Dhamma. There are even Buddhists who don't like the pali term 'paramattha dhammas'! Paramattha dhammas are as real as real can be. Nothing ever referred to by the English word 'reality', in however many thousand years it has been in common use, is more real than paramattha dhammas. Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature..These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities whcih result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction but are themseleves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of existence. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama =ultimate, highest, final, and attha = reality, thing."Bodhi p.25 Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma. Thus I think to avoid using this usual translation is pandering to wrongview. RobertK 56845 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology scottduncan2 Dear All, "There are even Buddhists who don't like the pali term 'paramattha dhammas'!" S: And with surprising vehemence I might add. "Paramattha dhammas are as real as real can be. Nothing ever referred to by the English word 'reality', in however many thousand years it has been in common use, is more real than paramattha dhammas. Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature..These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities whcih result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction but are themseleves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of existence. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama =ultimate, highest, final, and attha = reality, thing."Bodhi p.25 Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma." S: I just thought I'd say that the day or two after which I first encountered the (at the time) absolutely shocking (to me) teachings regarding paramattha dhammas were among the coolest days I've had during my brief sojourn within Theravada Buddhism. I can't really put the experience into words except to say that these teachings are all that Bhikkhu Bodhi says. My world view was beautifully altered. Forgive the rant. Sincerely, Scott. 56846 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology TGrand458@... Hi Robert K In a message dated 3/17/2006 8:31:17 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear Robm, I am not sure what ontology is or how it relates to Dhamma. If someone doesn't like the translation 'ultimate realities' for paramattha dhammas it may indicate firm misunderstanding of Dhamma. There are even Buddhists who don't like the pali term 'paramattha dhammas'! TG: Not sure how a Buddhist who doesn't agree with a 'translation of a term' that 'the Buddha never used,' is thereby, " firmly misunderstanding Dhamma" / Buddhism? Doesn't the oddity of that idea strike you? Paramattha dhammas are as real as real can be. Nothing ever referred to by the English word 'reality', in however many thousand years it has been in common use, is more real than paramattha dhammas. Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature..These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities whcih result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction but are themseleves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of existence. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama =ultimate, highest, final, and attha = reality, thing."Bodhi p.25 Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma. Thus I think to avoid using this usual translation is pandering to wrongview. RobertK That's quite a forceful defense of the great importance of the term and idea of Paramattha Dhammas -- Ultimate Realities. Problem...as I understand it...the Buddha didn't even think it important enough to mention it once. Apparently, the Buddha may not only have not approved of the translation, he didn't even approve of the idea of labeling things Paramattha Dhammas. Since he avoided it...I wonder if he was pandering to wrong view? Perhaps not even acknowledging Paramattha Dhamma, the Buddha had "Ultimate Wrong View." ;-) TG 56847 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:51pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 401- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (l) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) There are twenty four sobhana cittas of the sense-sphere, kåmasobhana cittas. They are: - 8 mahå-kusala cittas(1) - 8 mahå-vipåkacittas - 8 mahå-kiriyacittas(2) Cittas of the sense-sphere can be sobhana cittas, cittas accompanied by sobhana cetasikas, or asobhana cittas, cittas which are not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas. Cittas of the planes of consciousness other than the sensuous plane are always sobhana cittas. Those who have developed calm to the stage of absorption, jhåna, have jhåna-cittas and these are sobhana cittas. There are rúpa-jhånacittas or rúpåvacara cittas and arúpa-jhånacittas or arúpåvacara cittas. Rúpa-jhåna can be translated as “fine-material” jhåna and arúpa-jhåna can be translated as “immaterial” jhåna. Arúpa-jhåna is more refined than rúpa-jhåna since the meditation subjects of arúpa-jhåna are not dependant on materiality. The sobhana cittas which are rúpåvacara cittas, pertaining to five stages of rúpa-jhåna, are the following: - 5 rúpåvacara kusala cittas - 5 rúpåvacara vipåkacittas - 5 rúpåvacara kiriyacittas (of the arahat) The sobhana cittas which are arúpåvacara cittas, pertaining to four stages of arúpa-jhåna, are the following: - 4 arúpåvacara kusala cittas - 4 arúpåvacara vipåkacittas - 4 arúpåvacara kiriyacittas Apart from the sobhana cittas which are jhånacittas, there are sobhana cittas which are lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing nibbåna. There are eight lokuttara cittas, but when one takes into account the lokuttara cittas which are accompanied by jhåna-factors of the different stages of jhåna, there are forty lokuttara cittas(3). When cittas are counted as eighty nine (not including lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhåna-factors of the different stages of jhåna), there are fifty nine sobhana cittas, and when cittas are counted as hundred-and-twenty-one (including forty lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhåna-factors), there are ninety-one sobhana cittas. *** 1) Mahå means great. Here the term is used in the case of sobhana cittas of the sense-sphere. 2) The arahat has, instead of mahå-kusala cittas, mahå-kiriyacittas. 3) See Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Chapter 22. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56848 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 0:20am Subject: Buddhist understanding of Stillbirth and Miscarriage christine_fo... Hello all, The birthsuites of a busy hospital are always full of hustle and urgency, with the latest in technology, expert and caring staff who deal compassionately with those experiencing a mixture of discomfort, pain, rejoicing and, at times, crushing desolation. I am always conscious of the drama of life - not just in the inevitable progression of the stages of physical birth, but the stages evident within the families gathering to be with the labouring woman ... the babes in arms, the children, the partners and the grand-parents, the great grand-parents. I rarely get to share the moments of rejoicing ... this last week I have been paged to be available to three very different families who were each going through a stillbirth. One was a traditional Samoan family, with woman patient, partner and three older generation women present. This baby was taken home for three days before a legal burial. The family were very aware of the process of decompositon, which they believed assisted with the grieving process; the next was a conservative religious Muslim family, with woman patient, husband and his brother present. This baby had to have a funeral before sunset - it was born at midday - and was taken almost immediately to the Mosque by the father and uncle. This family understood that this was the will of Allah and there was a purpose to it all, even if, at this moment, they may not quite see it; and the third family was of English descent, woman patient, and partner present - but with a caravan of friends and female relations coming and going during the process. This baby was going for an autopsy and would be collected by a funeral director after a few days for cremation. This family was not religious, but the shattering experience impelled them to try and remember vague ideas they had of an after-life and all-loving Father God, who no doubt knew the reason for such happenings. Though from widely differing backgrounds, and with different beliefs and requirements, the mental and emotional suffering of those involved was equally intense, and equally unexpected by them. Often the legal requirements of a particular country can be an added burden to a grieving family. In this country, the State does not regard a miscarriage as the birth of a baby. The term miscarriage is used until the fetus is 19 weeks and 6 days gestation. This birth is not registered, no Death Certificate is issued, the bereaved parents do not receive any Maternity Allowance, and there is no legal requirement for a funeral. They may request the remains of the fetus, otherwise it is disposed of with other surgical waste. In some cases, there is only a small difference in time - a day even, or a week or two - separating a birth deemed to be a miscarriage from one deemed to be a stillbirth. This is determined by ultrasound, and the age is stated by the medical specialist. From 20 weeks onwards, the term used is Stillbirth, and the birth of this baby must then be registered, there must be a death certificate by a medical officer, and a legal funeral. The bereaved parents are also paid (currently $4,000-00) as a Maternity payment by the government. My understanding is that the Theravada tradition holds that the Buddha taught that rebirth occurs at the moment the sperm, the egg and 'being to be reborn' combine ... I have also found one possible explanation for a miscarriage/stillbirth in the Buddha's teaching of kamma in MN 135.5 Cuu.lakammavihanga Sutta, and wonder if there is anything more explicit? '5 "Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short lived." [note 1224] Note 1224: If the kamma of killing directly determines the mode of rebirth, it will produce rebirth in one of the states of deprivation. But if a wholesome kamma brings about a human rebirth - and rebirth as a human being is always the result of wholesome kamma - the kamma of killing will operate in a manner contrary to that of the rebirth-generative kamma by causing various adversities that may reach their peak in a premature death. The same principle holds for the subsequent cases in which unwholesome kamma comes to maturity in a human existence: in each case the unwholesome kamma counteracts the wholesome kamma responsible for the human rebirth by engendering a specific type of misfortune corresponding to its own distinctive quality.' (Bhikkhu ~Naa.namoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi p.1054) Any comments would be appreciated. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 56849 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple sarahprocter... Hi Kom (& Tep), I liked your answers and further reflections – all very interesting. I just have one or two questions on the following: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Q1) How does keeping the rules help the achievement of the sasasana's > goal? How does not keeping the rules hinder the achievement of the > sasana's goals? > > If the ultimate goal of this sasana is to achieve nibbana, then the Pali > and commentaries are rather clear on this point. Without keeping the > rules (perhaps perfectly or close to it?), then higher benefits of the > sasana (samatha and vipassana) cannot be hoped for. .... S: Yes, but according to the texts who keeps the rules perfectly? For lay people too, who keeps the precepts perfectly, not just in this life time either? What is the main condition for perfecting sila (adhi sila)? Of course, it may seem relatively simple to us now when we living in comfort, not facing famine or war or other difficulties. ..... Keeping the rules > is a cause leading towards non-anxiety, non-anxiety towards Piti, Piti > towards Sukha, Sukha towards single-pointedness, and single-pointedness > towards the achievement of insights. .... S: This reminds me of a sutta Tep has quoted and a good discussion I’ve had with him too. I believe it is implied here that it is the keeping of rules with understanding, not just by following the tradition. Do you have any other idea? .... >It is clear to me that if you hope > to achieve the ultimate goal as a monk, sila --- patimokha, the > restraints of the faculties, the reflections on the life necessities, > and the purity of the livelihood --- must be achieved. In fact, > Vissudhimagga says this generally towards laypeople and monks alike. .... S: Isn’t the ultimate goal (as you said before), the development of wisdom, the full realization of the Noble Truths and the eradication of all defilements? There is restraint of the faculties at each moment of kusala, but isn’t there a development of restraint only by the development of wisdom? And isn’t the goal that of detachment from all conditioned dhammas, including sila, in order to really understand them as anatta? I think that in order for understanding to become a bala (power), it has to truly know and become detached (i.e not mind at all) about akusala as well as kusala states. Otherwise don’t we go on clinging to having a pure self? I’d be glad to hear your further comments, Kom. (Please don’t let the questions distract you from continuing your excellent series:)) Tep may also have more to add. Metta, Sarah ======= 56850 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) sarahprocter... Hi Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: > Hi Sarah! > > "The blessed Buddha once pointed out: > Bhikkhus, these ideas: 'I am...', 'I am this...', 'I will be...', 'I > shall not be...', > 'I shall be of such form', 'I shall be formless...', 'I will > experience such...', > 'I will not experience...', 'I shall be neither percipient nor > non-percipient...', > are all self-deceptions, are all conceited fantasies, are all whimsy > illusions, > are all agitated excitations, are escalated proliferations and are all > inflated, > vain & narcissistic self-love, leading to egotism, puffed pride & > arrogance..." .... S: I think this was from one of Ven Samahita's translations - some good, colourful language! Certainly makes the point:). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > A friend off-list also wrote: "Kom´s experiences as a Bhikkhu are > being > > precious for all of us! I won´t dare to butting in his > posts...seriously!" > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And now I will violate all the Anatta precepts... > > ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .... S: Ah, but one can say ME ME ME without any violation or misunderstanding too!!!! .... > > I am loving Kom´s good posts about his experiences at Sangha!!! > I have got also some questions about the Vinaya - mainly the > Pattimokka and the observance of Uposattha days by Bhikkhus > nowadays...but I prefer do it after some more posting, avoiding cut > off his exposition sequence!!!! > Real life experience! .... S: Yes, I had intended to wait too ...but conditions dictated otherwise. I'm sure he (and ME ME ME!) will be interested to hear your questions on Vinaya....please don't wait too long as I'm curious now. .... > > (Oh well... I had violated the anatta precepts and now I must random > walk at the Akusala reigns of Kali Yuga for some more aeons!!! I will > endure..ops! Violating anatta again!!!!!) .... S: Who knows....I'm sure that using 'I' and 'Me' will not send you there:). Glad to read your good humour again:))) Metta, Sarah ====== 56851 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta hantun1 Dear Tep, I found AN V.71 pathama ceto-vimutti-phala sutta, and AN V.72 dutiya ceto-vimutti-phala sutta. I do not have English translation. I have inserted Pali words to your translation of the extract from AN V.72. "These five things, when they are well developed (bhaavitaa) and frequently practiced (bahulikataa) by a meditator, will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit (phala), ceto-vimutti as the outcome (aanisansa), panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and panna-vimutti as the outcome (aanisansa). Which five? (1). impermanence (anicca sanna), (2). suffering in impermanence (anicce-dukkha sanna), (3). non-self in suffering (dukkhe-anatta sanna), (4). abandonment (pahaana sanna), and (5). dispassion (viraaga sanna)." In the second part of the sutta, the Buddha teaches five abandonments: (1) abandonment of ignorance (avijjaa pahiinaa) (2) abandonment of conditions for existence, rebirth and samsara (ponobaviko jaatisamsaaro pahiino) (3) abandonment of craving (tanhaa pahiinaa) (4) abandonment of five lower fetters (orambhaagiyaa-samyojanaa pahiinaa) (5) abandonment of conceit (asmimaano pahiino) ------------------------------ In Patisambhidamagga, the seven contemplations are: (1) Contemplation of impermanence (aniccaanupassanaa) abandons the perception of permanence (nicca sannaa). (2) Contemplation of pain (dukkhaanupassanaa) abandons the perception of happiness (sukha sannaa). (3) Contemplation of not self (anattaanupassanaa) abandons the perception of self (atta sannaa). (4) Contemplation of dispassion (nibbidaanupassana) abandons delighting (nandi). (5) Contemplation of fading away (viragaanupassanaa) abandons lust (raga). (6) Contemplation of cessation (nirodhaanupassanaa) abandons originating (samudaya). (7) Contemplation of relinquishment (patinissaggaanupassanaa) abandons grasping (aadaana) How do you see the connection between the two (i.e. between AN V.72 and Patisambhidamagga)? ----------------------------- I have also DN 33 Sangiiti Sutta. ------------------------------ I will be happy to discuss with you, but I do not know on what point you wish to discuss. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- indriyabala wrote: > > Dear Han (and all)- > > After I had posted a discussion on the > Patisambhidamagga a moment ago, > I still continued to ponder over 'ceto-vimutti' and > the related seven > anupassanas in the Patisambhidamagga. 56852 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ... Hallo RobertK, Scott, TG, Sarah, all Robert, you stated: "… the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama =ultimate, highest, final, and attha = reality, thing. …. Thus I think to avoid using this usual translation is pandering to wrongview." To be more sure what you meant I have first looked up in my english- dutch dictionary what "pandering" means: it's a condemning meaning. Now your view is clear to me and also is clear that in your own opinion your view is the right view. Refererring to my message #56829 I will ask you: Is it possible to agree with me when I state: It's not important if this theory of paramattha dhammas is TRUE (in capitals) but if it's doing it's awakening work where it's made for? I think it does. And I think we simpy can not, we can not (to quote you) in however many thousand years" know if it's TRUE But I also think this paramattha-theory can do (especially for people with a analytic personality structure or in some phases of ones Path) it's soteriologioc work. Metta Joop 56853 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana And the incomprehensibles sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Thanks for the information. > Regarding the discussion with Howard the question is: > With which of these "eyes" is anicca detectable > and how does this work? .... The clear understanding of the arising and falling away of realities is present at the 4th stage of insight (the first 'powerful' stage of insight). Anicca would be clearly apparent to the fivefold eyes mentioned (i.e Buddha eye, Dhamma eye -dhammacakkhu - starting with sotapatti magga citta, universal eye, divine eye and of course the wisdom eye - pannacakkhu- which discerns the 4 Noble Truths too). In the Dhammacakkhapavattana Sutta and the reference to Kondana you were discussing, the dhammacakkhu refers to his attainment of sotapatti magga -no more doubt ever again about the Noble Truths or the tilakkhana. .... > Is it with the mind door, one of the five sense door or with a > seventh door, called by me intuition? .... S: All the stages of insight and also enlightenment have to arise in the mind door process. There is no seventh door in the Buddha's teachings:) .... I hope I've answered satisfactorily. Metta, Sarah ======== > And if Herman is lurking: hoe gaat het er mee? .... S: I drew it to his attention. He's doing fine and so are his boys, but his wife will shortly undergo surgery. ============== 56854 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and other irrealities (3) And dreams sarahprocter... Hi Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah, all > > Two short remarks. First; > Sarah: "I think that the more we appreciate dhammas as being anatta, > as not being within anyone's control …" > Some comments: > - "Appreciate" and "dhammas" are not terms that belong together .... S: Just to clarify, appreciate in this context means accept or understand. .... > - To me "dhammas as being anatta" is not correct said: "anatta" means > that "atta" does not exists, but you make a kind a property, a > chararacteristic or (the most worse expression) a sabhava of the > term "anatta" .... S: Yes, anatta is one of the ti-lakkhana, one of the characteristics of all dhammas. As you say, it refers to the not existing of atta. .... <...> > Joop (now): the core quote was: > Joop (a week ago): "also the socalled ultimate truth is an illusion, > there is no ultimate truth, we need a truth and create/construct it". .... S: What we construct or create are illusions, fantasies and ideas about truths. Regardless of any such constructing, namas and rupas arise and fall away all the time. They are paramattha dhammas, not illusions. Nibbana is the unconditioned paramattha dhamma - again not an illusion when it is experienced:). .... > > Perhaps I had to say it more explicit: what I said is a Mahayana- > opinion, I evolve - not being within anyone's control - to a > Mahayanist. .... S: That's fine, but I don't believe the idea you state is in line with the truth that the Buddha taught or what can be directly known now. I don't believe that such an idea will help lead out of samsara. .... > PS, In another message you say: > "An interesting speculative point following Nina & Jon's discussion > concerns the attaining of arahantship in higher realms...." > I don't know how it is to you but to me "higher realms" are concepts, > illusions, made by the mind of some human beings in the past. ..... S: Yes, 'higher realms' are concepts, but they are concepts representing particular cittas, cetasikas and rupas. In the end these dhammas are just as unsatisfactory and worthless as those we experience now in the human realm. The arahant has no more illusion about the unsatisfactory being satisfactory, the impure being pure, the impermanent being permanent etc Apologies for delays in responding to this and other posts as usual:) Metta, Sarah p.s How is your group and work in the Netherlands going, Joop? I thought of you when other friends were mentioning their work in Indonesia. Did you receive a copy of 'Survey' yet? How do you find it? ======= 56855 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:27am Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple ... The Other Side of the Fence.. indriyabala Hi, Sarah and Kom - I truly appreciate Your excellent series of discussion, Kom. It is very helpful and I have learned so much from your experience that is a solid confirmation for what I have believed in, namely: ..................... 1) > > If the ultimate goal of this sasana is to achieve nibbana, then the Pali and commentaries are rather clear on this point. Without keeping the rules (perhaps perfectly or close to it?), then higher benefits of the sasana (samatha and vipassana) cannot be hoped for. > 2) > >Keeping the rules is a cause leading towards non-anxiety, non-anxiety towards Piti, Piti towards Sukha, Sukha towards single-pointedness, and single-pointedness towards the achievement of insights. > .... .................... Sarah, you are right that we had a good discussion before on the issues of sila, indriya-samvara, wisdom, and the eradication of defilements. But Kom's perspective is quite different because he has been on the other side of the fence. Respectfully, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Kom (& Tep), > > I liked your answers and further reflections – all very interesting. > > I just have one or two questions on the following: > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > (snipped) > .... > S: Yes, but according to the texts who keeps the rules perfectly? For lay people too, who keeps the precepts perfectly, not just in this life time either? What is the main condition for perfecting sila (adhi sila)? Of course, it may seem relatively simple to us now when we living in comfort, not facing famine or war or other difficulties. > ..... (snipped) > > I'd be glad to hear your further comments, Kom. (Please don't let the questions distract you from continuing your excellent series:)) Tep may also have more to add. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > 56856 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:12am Subject: Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta indriyabala Dear Han (Matheesha, Nina, Joop)- This is the first time that I accidentally posted a message. We may have a limited discussion here because I think most readers don't have background knowledge of the Path of Discrimination -- unlike the other discussion group. Thank you for finding AN V.71 and AN V.72 and also for the Pali contribution. 1. Let's discuss the following Pali words a little bit. Using your inserts as guidance, I found these words from the PTS: bahu = much, many, large, abundant; plenty; bahulikata = practised (frequently), usually combd with bhāvita SN ii.264 aanisansa = that which is commendable, profit, merit, advantage, good result. pahiinaa or pahaana = given up, abandoned, left, eliminated. patinissagga = giving up, forsaking; rejection, renunciation. So my translation of 'phala-anisan' as "outcome" is wrong ! Thus, "will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit(phala), ceto-vimutti as the outcome (aanisansa), panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and panna-vimutti as the outcome (aanisansa)" should be changed to the following : "will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit (phala), ceto-vimutti as the merit (phala-aanisansa), panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and panna-vimutti as the merit (phala-aanisansa)". The translation of 'pahaana' as 'abandoned' or 'eliminated' is very good; the meaning is not the same as 'given up' or 'renunciation', I think. Why? Pahaana in Thai (as a verb) means 'kill', eliminate; the kilesa that gets killed will never ever come back again. ......................... 2. You kindly asked : "How do you see the connection between the two (i.e. between AN V.72 and Patisambhidamagga)?" Kind indeed, because you knew that I was itching all over to answer that question {:>)) Well, there are some common dhammas in AN V.72 and Patisambhidamagga as follows. AN V.72 : After establishing five sannas (anicca-sanna, dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna PLUS pahaana-sanna and viraga-sanna), the meditator will be able to abandon five things including birth, cravings, lower fetters, and conceit. --> Nibbana. Patisambhidamagga : Following the three contemplations of anicca, dukkha, anatta (to establish anicca-sanna, dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna), the meditator will be able to abandon four things : nandi(delight), raaga(passion or lust), samudaya(originating of lust), aadaana (grasping, seizing; fig. appropriating, clinging to the world). --> Nibbana. So in my opinion, the two have a lot in common. Let's discuss DN 33 at the other discussion group if you agree. Kind regards, Tep, your friend. ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I found AN V.71 pathama ceto-vimutti-phala sutta, and > AN V.72 dutiya ceto-vimutti-phala sutta. > I do not have English translation. > I have inserted Pali words to your translation of the > extract from AN V.72. > > "These five things, when they are well developed > (bhaavitaa) and frequently practiced (bahulikataa) by > a meditator, will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit > (phala), ceto-vimutti as the outcome (aanisansa), > panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and panna-vimutti > as the outcome (aanisansa). Which five? > (1). impermanence (anicca sanna), > (2). suffering in impermanence (anicce-dukkha sanna), > (3). non-self in suffering (dukkhe-anatta sanna), > (4). abandonment (pahaana sanna), and > (5). dispassion (viraaga sanna)." > (snipped) 56857 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) icarofranca Dear Sarah: --------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: I think this was from one of Ven Samahita's translations - >some good, > colourful language! Certainly makes the point:). > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yes!!! Since he gave me an invitation for G-mail, the Ven. Samahita is in my book now...oh well, lobha again!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: Ah, but one can say ME ME ME without any violation or >misunderstanding > too!!!! > .... -------------------------------------------------------------------- You can begin at Abhidhamma way: ME ME ME ME ME MYSELF ME MYSELF ME MYSELF ME MYSELF ME MYSELF MINE ME MYSELF MINE ME MYSELF MINE.... (Well... dosa...) ------------------------------------------------------------------ > S: Yes, I had intended to wait too ...but conditions dictated >otherwise. > I'm sure he (and ME ME ME!) will be interested to hear your >questions on > Vinaya....please don't wait too long as I'm curious now. > .... ------------------------------------------------------------------ I just have to think about my questions about Pattimokka. Today I am reading the Abhidhammapitake Dhaatukathaa and I am glady surprised by some of its remarks, not speaking about my Pali fluency! This Abhidhamma volume is so good and right to point that at Dhaatukathaa Maatikaa stanza 5 - Baahiramaatikaa - it´s clearly stated that "Sabbaa´pi dhammasangani dhaatukathaaya maatikaa´ti." Which I would translate as: "All the external world [knowledge] is included on Dhammasangani and Dhaatukathaa.". Very good, isn´t it ? But I will make my Uposatha and Pattimokka questions to Kom at a good time!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: Who knows....I'm sure that using 'I' and 'Me' will not send you > there:). Glad to read your good humour again:))) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh well... with so many lobha, dosa and moha hindrances I will become a Seinfeld sitcom´s character as George Constanza rather than a Bhikkhu probationer :))) But, anyway, as Azita usually says, "Cheers and good chance!" Mettaya and kisses to you and Jon! Ícaro 56858 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta hantun1 Dear Tep, Tep: So my translation should be changed to the following : "will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit (phala), ceto-vimutti as the merit (phala-aanisansa), panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and panna-vimutti as the merit (phala-aanisansa)". Han: According to your translation, (phala-aanisansa) will mean “fruit merit” and not just “merit”. But it is not that important. Say that I agree. ------------------------------ Tep: AN V.72 : After establishing five sannas (anicca-sanna, dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna PLUS pahaana-sanna and viraga-sanna), the meditator will be able to abandon five things including birth, cravings, lower fetters, and conceit. --> Nibbana. Patisambhidamagga : Following the three contemplations of anicca, dukkha, anatta (to establish anicca-sanna, dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna), the meditator will be able to abandon four things :nandi (delight), raga (passion or lust), samudaya (originating of lust), aadaana (grasping, seizing; fig. appropriating, clinging to the world). --> Nibbana. So in my opinion, the two have a lot in common. Han: You are right. But I would have appreciated more if you had pointed out this connection in the first place and shared your knowledge with me and other members. ------------------------------ Tep: Let's discuss DN 33 at the other discussion group if you agree. Han: Okay. ------------------------------ With metta and deepest respect, Han 56859 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: >> Refererring to my message #56829 I will ask you: > Is it possible to agree with me when I state: > It's not important if this theory of paramattha dhammas is TRUE (in > capitals) but > if it's doing it's awakening work where it's made for? > I think it does. And I think we simpy can not, we can not (to quote > you) in however many thousand years" know if it's TRUE > > But I also think this paramattha-theory can do (especially for people > with a analytic personality structure or in some phases of ones Path) > it's soteriologioc work. > > ______ Dear Joop, I agree that it is helping towards awakening. And if it is helping that must be because it is true, wouln't you say? Robertk > 56860 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta indriyabala Dear Han - Interesting suggestion. > But I would have appreciated more if you had pointed > out this connection in the first place and shared your > knowledge with me and other members. > What if my knowledge/understanding has flaws but the other members are not so certain that I have been wrong? In a situation like this, going through several rounds of exchange of ideas is one way to evolve a better understanding together. Yours truly, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > (snipped). > > ------------------------------ > > Tep: AN V.72 : After establishing five sannas > (anicca-sanna, dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna PLUS > pahaana-sanna and viraga-sanna), the meditator will be > able to abandon five things including birth, cravings, > lower fetters, and conceit. --> Nibbana. > Patisambhidamagga : Following the three contemplations > of anicca, dukkha, anatta (to establish anicca-sanna, > dukkha-sanna, and anatta-sanna), the meditator will be > able to abandon four things :nandi (delight), raga > (passion or lust), samudaya (originating of lust), > aadaana (grasping, seizing; fig. appropriating, > clinging to the world). --> Nibbana. > So in my opinion, the two have a lot in common. > > Han: You are right. (snipped) > ------------------------------ > > Tep: Let's discuss DN 33 at the other discussion group > if you agree. > > Han: Okay. > 56861 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:04am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple tikmok Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Yes, but according to the texts who keeps the rules perfectly? For lay > people too, who keeps the precepts perfectly, not just in this life time > either? There are at least a few stories (especially in Theragatha, therigatha) that talked about monks reaching englightenment starting with reflecting on their perfect sila. For example, there was a monk who got on a boat. While in the middle of the ocean, he reflected on the magnificence of the Blessed ones compared to the ocean and became gladdened, and then he thought that he too had kept the sila as vast as the ocean perfectly and became raptured by that, and continued to achieve arahatship right on that spot... Of course, I haven't read detailed explanations about what "perfect" really is. For a monk, perfect virtues may mean that when he infracts one of the rules, he makes amend for it. Somehow, reading the descriptions in the theragatha-therigatha however, I definitely don't get this impression. In a favorable environment (which the monks clearly have more options than laypeople), I believe this to be possible (without having reached enlightments, but clearly with all the sampajanna and the rest). Infracting the rules for a monk (without being able to make amends) have more severe penalties (preventing rebirths in happy planes of existence, preventing enlightenments). For a layperson, the severe penalities don't apply... The stakes are just much higher to keep the sila. > S: This reminds me of a sutta Tep has quoted and a good discussion I've > had with him too. I believe it is implied here that it is the keeping of > rules with understanding, not just by following the tradition. Do you have > any other idea? I think this is a reasonable argument, which many monks do apply. The example that Nina gave was, what does monk do when it is cold? There is a rule prohibiting monks to wear clothes that are "like" laypeople's. Now, what is "like" laypeople's clothes? One of the sweaters given to me (because of the cold weather) was a one- shouldered knitted shirt. It is common to see monks in Thailand and here in the US wear this type of sweater. I haven't seen laypeople wearing this either --- until a couple of days ago, when I saw a model wearing s similar-styled shirt. On the other hands, understanding perfectly the justifications of the rules and disciplines are clearly in the realm of only the Buddha (In the Vinaya pitaka, when asked to issue Patimokkha by V. Sariputta for the long endurance of the Sasana, the Buddha told V. Sariputta that only he knew when to do that --- the commentaries explains that the rules are issued on the basis of the wisdom pertaining only to the Buddha). My suspicion is that one keeps to the rules as much as possible --- enough that it prevents anxiety and encourages gladness, but like I said, this can be a dangerous assumption for only the Buddha knows the benefits of following the rules, and the penalties of not following them. > .... > S: Isn't the ultimate goal (as you said before), the development of > wisdom, the full realization of the Noble Truths and the eradication of > all defilements? There is restraint of the faculties at each moment of > kusala, but isn't there a development of restraint only by the > development of wisdom? Sarah, I personally believe that if one have a strong confidence in the Buddha (with wisdom, of course, otherwise, one wouldn't know what a Buddha is), believing that these rules are not without justifications, are not without benefits to oneself and others, then one can blindly follow many of the rules mentioned (in fact, I think one would have to follow many rules before understanding what the benefits are since one tend to learn the basics of the rules before all the details become known), and in fact, achieve constraints of the bodily and verbal actions, up to a certain point. > > And isn't the goal that of detachment from all conditioned dhammas, > including sila, in order to really understand them as anatta? I think that > in order for understanding to become a bala (power), it has to truly know > and become detached (i.e not mind at all) about akusala as well as kusala > states. Otherwise don't we go on clinging to having a pure self? > And even to Sathipastthana itself, but one doesn't get rid of the raft before one reaches the shore, I think, so one develops all kusala until there is no more condition for it. kom 56862 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:43am Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple ... The Other Side of the Fence.. tikmok --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > > Sarah, you are right that we had a good discussion before on the > issues of sila, indriya-samvara, wisdom, and the eradication of > defilements. But Kom's perspective is quite different because he has > been on the other side of the fence. > They are my perspectives, which are, of course, not necessarily right. One always verifies, verifies, and verifies. The four great references says, if a monk says he heard this from the Buddha -> we compare this to the teachings if a monk says he heard this from the Sangha -> we compare this to the teachings if a monk says he heard this from a group of monk (with number not reaching the sangha level yet) -> we compare this to the teachings if a monk says he heard this from another monk -> we compare this to the teachings Keep the Buddha's teachings, and discard the rest. Thanks Tep, for bringing this up, for this is a point I was planning to make somewhere, but don't know how to get to it yet :-). I personally think we should be weary of other (contemporary) people's experiences, and to a certain extent, our own experiences. If our own experiences are good guides, we would have achieved nibbana a long time ago. Another teaching of the Buddha that comes to mind connected to this discussion is: One of the reasons why the Dispensation fades away is because we start paying attention to the disciples' teachings that are contemporary, are beautifully written, or are believeable (maybe because we think they have certain qualifications), but not enough attention to the teachings of the Buddha that are profound, deep, and that lead us to release. Really, it's surprising that we pay lots of attention to the experiences of the people that are contemporary to us even when the differences in experiences are so vast, and the fruitfulness of the experiences can be dubious, whereas we have ancient texts that record these canonically or commentarially verified experiences of the sangha, which are as close to the real things as can be nowadays... kom ps: The other point that I was going to make somewhere is that if we become (conditions willing :-) ), who we associate with. With whom better to associate with than the Sanghas that are mentioned in the texts? If we want to become a good speaker, one of the things we do is we can emulate a great speaker, right? There are so many examples of what the Sangha said, did, and thought in the ancient texts. Why not emulate (some of) those too? 56863 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:12am Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' indriyabala Hi Sarah, Reading through your message # 56830, I can see a coherent thought pattern emerging! >Sarah : p.s comments most welcome of course:) [Sarah's comments] 1.) The khandhas are dhammas which exist, which manifest right now: ... 2) This existence of dhammas, this actuality does not apply to concepts,only to impermanent khandhas right now: ... <'Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.' ..feelings, ..., consciousness ..., SN 22:94> 3) The 5 khandhas are dhammas which exist and which are to be known, to be directly understood: ... It is these `things', these actualities which are dukkha and which are conditioned to arise and fall away. Please note that the meaning of dhammas is not the same as the meaning of conditions. Dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too): ... 4) So we have the present dhammas, the present khandhas translated and defined here as things, something, `that which exists', `that which has become manifest', `has been born', `conditioned' and so on. Tep: The numbered comments are yours. They are quite smooth and agreeable, with or without the referenced materials, except the Bodhi's terminology (`ultimately real actualities'). Why are they real only ultimately? ..................... S: Dhammas to be understood right now are real, are existent and I would say `underlie appearances'. Tep: Yes, I agree. But at times I have found it surprising that some ( among us) disagree with the use of "real" as the descriptor of the five aggregates. .................... S: To take this a step further, at the start of the Mulapariyaya Sutta (MN1,Bodhi transl), we read about the `root of all things' (sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya) and the misperceptions of these dhammas , translated here as things. ... We are looking at the dhammas which `underlie the appearances' and the misperceptions, the proliferations which lead to the ideas of personality and thereby, all other wrong views. S: Dhammas are only ever discovered or known as `ultimately real actualities' (or `realities' to use less of a mouthful) through the direct development of awareness and wisdom. When satipatthana develops, there is no doubt at all that the khandhas are real, they are conditioned, they exist momentarily, they fall away immediately. There have no self-nature, they have no substance, but when they appear, they exist, they are real, they can be directly understood. Tep: Well said, Sarah (except that `ultimately real actualities'). You've finally put everything together in a coherent way. ............................ S: The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas which exist and appear, one at a time. Tep: Why is it not possible for more than one nama to exist and dissolve together at the same time, given that such "dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too)"? Kind regards, Tep. your friend. ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear RobM, TG, Howard, Joop & all, > > Thankyou for giving me the chance to consider more about the use of > reality or `reality' as a translation of dhamma, referring to that which > arises, falls and can be known when it appears now. > > Let me try to take you through some of my reflections here. > (snipped) > > Sarah > p.s comments most welcome of course:) > ====== > 56864 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta hantun1 Dear Tep, I know your knowledge and understanding of suttas. There cannot be any flaws where your interpretations of suttas are concerned. Anyway, I agree that going through several rounds of exchange of ideas is one way to evolve a better understanding together. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- indriyabala wrote: > Dear Han - > What if my knowledge/understanding has flaws but the > other members are > not so certain that I have been wrong? In a > situation like this, going > through several rounds of exchange of ideas is one > way to evolve a > better understanding together. > Yours truly, > Tep > ======= > > 56865 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - some lessons learned tikmok Here are some other lessons learned in my monkhood, as some of you (or maybe just Sarah :-) ) may want to find out. You may expect something deep, new, and insightful (or maybe the opposites), but I don't want to set you up for the disappointments --- it's probably just a rehash of what have already been discussed many times before. I learned that I haven't taken the teachings of the Buddha, i.e., taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha far enough, Satipathana or not. I have had a good appreciation of some of the teachings, like the four great references (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56862), for a while, but have not applied them rigorously enough. For example, I don't think I have had enough studies of the texts (gasp! horror! especially those who think there are already too much study) enough to really apply the four great reference principles towards the teachings of contemporary teachers (their being right or not). What I do half of the time is spending efforts to understand what the (contemporary) teachers understand, but really not enough on really what the texts really say. I think this is a clear sign of a lapse in taking the Buddha and the dhamma for refuge. Taking refuge in the dhamma not only means taking refuge in the 9 lokuttara damma (magga. phala, and nibbana), but taking refuge in the Pariyatti, the teachings of the Buddha, as well. If one doesn't know/appreciate enough of what the Buddha teaches, how could one take refuge in the dhamma at all, especially when lokuttara dhamma is not yet in sight? I have learned that understanding the Pariyatti is like building a model of how the teachings say in your mind. Unfortunately, sometimes the model doesn't really turn out quite right, and sometimes I really hold on to the model too tightly to see the flaws. Fortunately, the process of finding the flaws, even at the intellectual levels, is aided by the tremendous materials available in the ancient texts. Just like scientific theories (which are really models), one can find evidence that supports and disproves (if it is a wrong theory!) [and also somewhere in between] the models. In the intellectual studies of Buddhism, one can find evidence that supports and disproves the model that one has in one's mind as well by looking at the experiences and the paths that the Buddha and the ancient teachers had taken. If one reads the texts, and then somehow a piece (or worse/better yet, multiple pieces) doesn't fit in one's model, and one has to get other people to rigorously jiggle it to fit it in, then it is imperative that one critically re-examines the model. If one relies on ONE teacher to fit it in (except if it is the Buddha and the Sangha!), the person isn't going to be around forever to help you jiggle it. The more jiggling one has to do, the more critical that one has to reexamine the model. Another lesson I learned is that I still have far-far to study, even just the texts and the commentaries alone, just to be able to make comparison of the Buddha's teachings to guides given by my teachers. Do you know that a monk cannot live independently by himself without a teacher UNTIL five years have passed, that he has SUFFICIENTLY learned the rules and disciplines (memorizing the Bikkhu's and Bikkhuni's Patimokkha by hearts, in Pali, and understanding the commentaries), and have enough materials to progress in both Samatha and Vipassana? The commentaries says the 5- year rule only applies to competent monks (possibly HIGHLY competent ones) --- for the rest, they may have to stay in a student- teacher relationship for the lifetime. I personally believe that, unless we are at the beginning period of the sasana (maybe in the first 500 years), extensive studies are virtually required to get the most out of the teachings. (next, hopefully a wrap-up, or close to it :-) ) -- Kom Tukovinit kom [at] alum.mit.edu 56866 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 0:52pm Subject: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 3/17/06 2:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Well, I guess I will give this subject one more post and then go > > back to being quiet. It's starting to turn into an endless > > argument. Your description (and Jon's) of panna sounds more like > > omniscience than panna. According to "The Questions of King > > Milanda", panna (wisdom) is described as being like the "light" > > which comes on in a dark room. Therefore, I don't think it is > > proper to see panna as something different than normal mental > > processing of phenomena; it is just something that allows one to see > > that same mental processing in a new light. To say that panna can > > see a dhamma (phenomena) and then instantly know the three > > characteristics of that dhamma, in that very instant, smacks to me > > of omniscience and not panna. Okay, enough said. > > > > Metta, > > James > > > ====================== > Well, you could be right, James. That would be ok with me. I don't > have any emotional investment in this matter I'm pleased to say. Actually, my > view of pa~n~na runs afoul of the Abhidhammic perspective of its being a cetasika > of its own. I see it as cognitive functioning that is perfect, a functioning > operating free of defilement. Most specifically, I think of it as sa~n~na > operating free of corruption. I see it as more than just clarity of mind. I see it > as including clear comprehension, an unmistaken, uncorrupted understanding > and recognition. > I think that such pristine operation is very far from ordinary. In > fact, I think it is extraordinary. Synonyms for 'pa~n~na' are 'vijja' > (emphasizing "seeing") and '~nana', emphasizing knowledge and understanding. While I > think that 'omniscience' is too strong a term, because it suggests knowing all > details of all things, even ordinary-knowledge details, I do think that that > pa~n~na is a powerful and direct knowing of reality as it is. The state of an > arahant, most especially of a Buddha, is, I believe, radically different from the > state of even lesser ariyans - it is a quantum leap beyond even that of > nonreturner. > > With metta, > Howard I really do want to step out of this thread, as I said I would, but I was inspired to give you one final comment. Though I find your reasoning convoluted, I find your method of expression simply BEAUTIFUL!! Your writing is really breathtaking nowadays. I pity the fool who crosses you! ;-)) Metta, James 56867 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:34pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta indriyabala Dear Friend Han - Thank you for the kind words and understanding; I am encouraged especially when they are given by a virtuous person like you whom I have known well over 3 years. "It is through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning. "It is through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning." [Ud VI.2 Jatila Sutta] Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I know your knowledge and understanding of suttas. > There cannot be any flaws where your interpretations > of suttas are concerned. > > Anyway, I agree that going through several rounds of > exchange of ideas is one way to evolve a better > understanding together. > > With metta and deepest respect, > Han > > > --- indriyabala wrote: > > Dear Han - > > What if my knowledge/understanding has flaws but the > > other members are > > not so certain that I have been wrong? In a > > situation like this, going > > through several rounds of exchange of ideas is one > > way to evolve a > > better understanding together. > > Yours truly, > > Tep > > ======= > > 56868 From: "robmoult" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:41pm Subject: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? robmoult Hi All, In DN1, A.X 69 and elsewhere in the Suttas & Vinaya, the Buddha gives a list of subjects of idle chatter (tiracchana-katha; low-talk, beastly talk). The last item in the list is "iti-bhavabhava-katha" (note the second a has an accent, which in Pali grammar can mean that it is a concatenation of a word ending with "a" and a word starting with "a". When a word starts with an "a", it is a negation - so we can expand bhavabhava into "'bhava' and 'not bhava'". A common translation of "bhava" is existence. For this reason, Maurice Walshe (in DN1.1.17) translates iti- bhavabhava-katha as "talk of existence and non-existence". He also includes a footnote as follows, "iti-bhavabhava-katha: also rendered 'profit and loss', but the philosophical sense (as in the Horner and Nanamoli translation of MN76) is preferable." In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non-existence (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". Metta, Rob M :-) 56869 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:10pm Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple ... The Other Side of the Fence.. indriyabala Hello Kom (and Sarah, Han)- Thank you very much for emphasizing the following general guidelines for learning, practicing according to, and discussion of the Teachings: -- "Always compare what one has heard to the Teachings." -- "Keep the Buddha's teachings, and discard the rest." ... Give enough attention to "the teachings of the Buddha that are profound, deep, and that lead us to release." -- " If we become (conditions willing :-) ), who we associate with. With whom better to associate with than the Sanghas that are mentioned in the texts?" I think you talk like a purist. Sometimes, purists are put down by the majority as being too theoretical, idealistic and unrealistic. But I think purism in the Buddha-sasana is absolutely necessary (although not sufficient) for maintaining the Dhamma closest to the Buddha's original Teachings. Respectfully, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > > > Sarah, you are right that we had a good discussion before on the > > issues of sila, indriya-samvara, wisdom, and the eradication of > > defilements. But Kom's perspective is quite different because he > has > > been on the other side of the fence. > > > (snipped) > > Thanks Tep, for bringing this up, for this is a point I was planning > to make somewhere, but don't know how to get to it yet :-). > > I personally think we should be weary of other (contemporary) > people's experiences, and to a certain extent, our own experiences. > If our own experiences are good guides, we would have achieved > nibbana a long time ago. > (snipped) 56870 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:17pm Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? scottduncan2 Dear Rob M., I think you are making a very good point. "In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non-existence (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as 'idle chatter'." I do have a question, which I hope is not simply "idle chatter about idle chatter." In the midst of my engagement in the recent thread regarding "ontology," I found that I was able to clarify certain views about things, and, as such, found that I was able to learn about the Dhamma. How does one differentiate "idle chatter" from productive "dhamma-talk?" How might one know when one is going beyond learning and entering the realm of non-productive discourse? I suppose your question is directed in part to the content and process of the Dhamma Study Group itself, and since I have not had enough history here to be making any comments on matters such as that, I'll limit myself to those questions above. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. 56871 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple ... Gold and Diamonds indriyabala Hi, Friends Kom and Sarah (Han, Howard)- Your ability to accurately recall ancient stories and the Buddha's words from the suttas is amazing, Kom -- it is second to none, in my opinion. Much of what you two have discussed is like gold and diamonds to me. >Kom : > My suspicion is that one keeps to the rules as much as possible > --- enough that it prevents anxiety and encourages gladness, ... Tep: That answer is like skilfully hitting multiple nails on their heads at the same time (by a single hammer). ................. > >Sarah: > > And isn't the goal that of detachment from all conditioned dhammas, including sila, in order to really understand them as anatta? I think that in order for understanding to become a bala (power), it has to truly know and become detached (i.e not mind at all) about akusala as well as kusala states. Otherwise don't we go on clinging to having a pure self? > > > Kom: > And even to Sathipastthana itself, but one doesn't get rid of the > raft before one reaches the shore, I think, so one develops all > kusala until there is no more condition for it. > Tep: Another excellent answer, similar what Howard has said : that's what we want to be from where we are. Please correct me if you disagree, Howard :-)). Thanks to Sarah who always asks challenging questions (some of which are similar to those she asked me in the past discussion). Now, as an audience who lays back and relaxes, I greatly appreciate Kom's smooth and convincing replies to these exceptional questions. [He has done much better job than I can, Sarah.] Yours truly, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > > S: Yes, but according to the texts who keeps the rules perfectly? > For lay > > people too, who keeps the precepts perfectly, not just in this > life time > > either? > > There are at least a few stories (especially in Theragatha, > therigatha) that talked about monks reaching englightenment starting > with reflecting on their perfect sila. For example, there was a > monk who got on a boat. While in the middle of the ocean, he > reflected on the magnificence of the Blessed ones compared to the > ocean and became gladdened, and then he thought that he too had kept > the sila as vast as the ocean perfectly and became raptured by that, > and continued to achieve arahatship right on that spot... > (snipped) I haven't seen laypeople > wearing this either --- until a couple of days ago, when I saw a > model wearing s similar-styled shirt. > (snipped) > > > .... > > S: Isn't the ultimate goal (as you said before), the development of > > wisdom, the full realization of the Noble Truths and the > eradication of > > all defilements? There is restraint of the faculties at each > moment of > > kusala, but isn't there a development of restraint only by the > > development of wisdom? > (snipped) > > > kom > 56872 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? TGrand458@... Hi Rob M By the below post are you saying that the abhidhamma approach of seeing things as existing realities is idle chatter? Or ... that any discussion of existence or non-existence is idle chatter? If the first case is true, I'd tend to agree. If the second case is true, the Buddha must of engaged in idle chatter as he would respond to the subject of existence and non-existence by denying the relevancy of either. I suspect that you are referring to a "philosophical debate" as to whether states exist or do not exist. Abhidhammists do seem to take a "philosophical stance" that "states do exist." As for myself, I think it is a non-issue in the Buddha's teaching (other than in striking down such viewpoints), but I do comment against the idea that "realities exist." This is not to say that they "don't exist." It is to say that this is not the correct way to "view" the Dhamma. Conditions dependently arise, persist while altering, and disintegrate. They are impermanent, dukkha, no-self, empty, alien, coreless, a disease. The mind needs to see this as clearly as possible...and that is what insight is. The more a mind monkeys with these "pure" descriptions, the less it is able to see them "purely." By calling them "realities" with "own characteristics" a lot of unnecessary philosophy is now injected into the process of trying to develop insight. That's my opinion and would like to see if I've understood you correctly, and if possible, what you might agree with or disagree with. Thanks. TG In a message dated 3/18/2006 3:41:54 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rob.moult@... writes: Hi All, In DN1, A.X 69 and elsewhere in the Suttas & Vinaya, the Buddha gives a list of subjects of idle chatter (tiracchana-katha; low-talk, beastly talk). The last item in the list is "iti-bhavabhava-katha" (note the second a has an accent, which in Pali grammar can mean that it is a concatenation of a word ending with "a" and a word starting with "a". When a word starts with an "a", it is a negation - so we can expand bhavabhava into "'bhava' and 'not bhava'". A common translation of "bhava" is existence. For this reason, Maurice Walshe (in DN1.1.17) translates iti- bhavabhava-katha as "talk of existence and non-existence". He also includes a footnote as follows, "iti-bhavabhava-katha: also rendered 'profit and loss', but the philosophical sense (as in the Horner and Nanamoli translation of MN76) is preferable." In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non-existence (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". Metta, Rob M :-) 56873 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:52pm Subject: Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) -- Correction -- indriyabala Hi, all - There was a translation error that you may please correct it for me as follows: Old : 4. nirodha sanna Corrected: 4. pahana sanna (overcoming, abandoning perception) Thank you. Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Dear Han (and all)- > > After I had posted a discussion on the Patisambhidamagga a moment ago, > I still continued to ponder over 'ceto-vimutti' and the related seven > anupassanas in the Patisambhidamagga. The subject matter is both very > deep and very broad in scope; even to try to superficially understand > it, my small mind is completely stressed and overwhelmed. > > I also searched around and found two suttas; the Ceto-vimutti Sutta in > the Thai Tipitaka CD and an important sutta : the Sangiti Sutta. > > Below is my English translation of the Ceto-vimutti Sutta from the > Thai. Have you seen this sutta before? And if so, please give me its > (smoother) translation. Further, I should be quite happy if you feel > like discussing it with me. > > Tep's translation: > > "These five things, when they are well developed and frequently > practiced by a meditator, will lead to ceto-vimutti as the > fruit(phala), ceto-vimutti as the outcome, panna-vimutti as the fruit > and panna-vimutti as the outcome. Which five? 1. anicca sanna in all > conditioned things, 2. dukkha sanna in the impermanent, 3. anatta sana > in the stressful, 4. nirodha sanna, and 5. viraga sanna." > > The Sangiti Sutta is a Sariputta's discourse that is a > Patisambhidamagga look-alike ! It is a very long sutta. Below is the > Web link that locates its source on line. Please review it (by > skipping and skimming) and let me know if you also think it looks very > much like the Patisambhidamagga. I plan to discuss it with you all > later -- if you want me too. > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/sangiti_sutta.htm > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > > ======= > 56874 From: han tun Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:29pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 880 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 880 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: When there reaches a time that there is no difficulty to exert loving-kindness on beings the practitioner will be able to stay with loving-kindness almost all the time. As soon as he or she wakes up, loving-kindness starts to arise in him or her. This is brought along the whole day and then the whole night except the sleeping period or time. Whenever he or she goes, loving-kindness follows. As this happens, at the same time there will not be any discrimination between different types of beings as mentioned in the previous posts. Everyone on this earth loves themselves. Whenever there arises a competition of one's self and others' most people will be on the side of thier selves instead of equilibrium. There are 4 different types of beings from the perspective of priority. These beings are 1. being who we believe is our self 2. beings who are deared by us 3. beings who are not deared or not hated by us 4. beings who are hated by us These 4 beings come in this seniority for priority. If there is just one apple, one will eat it and will not give anyone. If there is 2 apples, one will eat one apple and gives another apple to the deared one. If there is 3 apples and he or she is suggest to give each apple to these 4 beings, one will take for himself or herself, gives one apple to the deared one and gives the 3rd apple to non-deared-non-hated being. If metta is a true one, it should be working for all. Another example is that when a murderer comes and asks for a person to kill from these 4 beings, no one should be given. If one let kill his or her self for the sake of other there is a boundary. If gives the hated one, this is not metta. If gives non-deared-non-hated one, this is also not metta. If one gives the deared one, there still exist boundary. There should not be any boundary between any beings deared or hated or not. This has to be. Because metta is universal friendliness and metta work for all and metta is not limited to anyone. Metta has to be unlimited. This kind of unlimited metta has to be brought along through out the day and night and brought along wherever he or she goes. When this happens, this is mental exertion and this is metta-vitakka or this is thinking in the form of loving-kindness and vitakka or initial-application is working well. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56875 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 3:10pm Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 3/18/06 3:52:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > I really do want to step out of this thread, as I said I would, but > I was inspired to give you one final comment. Though I find your > reasoning convoluted, I find your method of expression simply > BEAUTIFUL!! Your writing is really breathtaking nowadays. I pity > the fool who crosses you! ;-)) > ======================= Thank you for the comments on my writing. That is quite a compliment, most especially coming from one such as you who knows what he's talking about when it comes to writing! :-) 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) 56876 From: "laymanj_72" Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:29pm Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? laymanj_72 I am new to the group, and I am only a simple layman, but I have been reading many of the posts and I think this one hit it right on the dot. :-) Metta, Layman J ---------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > In DN1, A.X 69 and elsewhere in the Suttas & Vinaya, the Buddha gives > a list of subjects of idle chatter (tiracchana-katha; low-talk, > beastly talk). > > The last item in the list is "iti-bhavabhava-katha" (note the second > a has an accent, which in Pali grammar can mean that it is a > concatenation of a word ending with "a" and a word starting with "a". > When a word starts with an "a", it is a negation - so we can expand > bhavabhava into "'bhava' and 'not bhava'". A common translation > of "bhava" is existence. > > For this reason, Maurice Walshe (in DN1.1.17) translates iti- > bhavabhava-katha as "talk of existence and non-existence". He also > includes a footnote as follows, "iti-bhavabhava-katha: also > rendered 'profit and loss', but the philosophical sense (as in the > Horner and Nanamoli translation of MN76) is preferable." > > In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non- existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 56877 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 0:27am Subject: Hey Azita! christine_fo... Hello Azita, Take care if Larry comes calling .... appears to heading for Cairns. Maximum wind gusts : 240 kilometres per hour, intensifying. Map: http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ65002.shtml May you be safe and protected, metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 56878 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 0:37am Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sukinderpal Hi TG, Sarah and All, I composed an in-text reply to TG's post yesterday, but half way through I decided to stop as it was getting way too long. But the need to respond is still there, so today I write more in a general way. --------------------------- I think we all agree about the necessity of hearing the Teachings as a precondition for the correct practice. As far as I am concerned, to be pointed out from the very beginning about the reality/concept distinction is to be taking a step in the right direction towards this end. Otherwise as most Buddhists do, one ends up encouraging observing `concepts', and this is to be involved in wrong practice. Insight comes from direct experience of realities and this direct experience comes only with the correct and firm intellectual understanding of what is and what is not the correct practice amongst other things. Any ideas that concepts can be the object of this kind of understanding will only make it harder for any insight to occur. Meanwhile there will be taking for development of understanding that which is not. The Abhidhamma, including its classification into nama/rupa and its description in detail about the various conditions is meant to discourage us from substantialism, I think. Though the habit and tendency is strong and how each of us deal with the problem, is a matter of individual accumulations. But the concepts, `reality', `existence' themselves are not the cause. They are in fact the best concepts considering our level of panna. You say that the Buddha did not use the term `paramattha dhamma' and go on to say that this is because he thought it best not to. How do you know that he even had the option to use it or not?! His audience did not need to be told, they were not fooled by concepts as we are likely to be. And you and others have gone on to suggest that you too don't need to make this distinction?! You have also said that asserting `reality' and `existence' is indicative of a substantialist view point, but I think this is due to your own misunderstanding. I'll explain more, but allow me to compare this with another matter. Outsiders often characterize K. Sujin's method of teaching as being merely "theory". I think that she in fact *teaches practice*! She constantly points to the need to pay attention to whatever is the present dhamma. However, because this does not often happen and this being due to the listener's own lack of `firm' intellectual understanding, the discussion naturally move towards pariyatti. And this is so because these two, patipatti and pariyatti are related in a very direct way. On the hand, those who in many words, stress so much on the "practice' at the expense of `theory', are in fact missing the point. They don't realize that their idea of practice is conditioned by "wrong theory", a theory in which pariyatti has little or no value. It manifests as `idealism', an expression of ignorance and wrong view. And in the meantime, these `idea'ls lead to any number of wrong practices, there being 1001 ways of being fooled, each of which can conveniently interpret the Dhamma to suit itself. How is this related to the discussion about the classifying the way things are into nama/rupa, concept/reality and so on? I think those of us who find the need to again and again come back to making theses distinctions, are in effect admitting to being quite ignorant in "experience". How each one of us evolve and overcome any wrong understanding, is as I said before, a matter of accumulations. You talk about attachment, but I think resistance is also a consequence of attachment, no? When faced with constantly mistaking concept for reality, does it not make sense to attempt at making the distinction between what does and what doesn't ultimately exist? Why "real" and why "exist"? `Real' because only *these* according to the Buddha have characteristics and are conditioned. Concepts, such as a `tree' don't and are not. `Existing' because for something to manifest, it must on some level exist, even when it means that the arising moment is not the same as the presence nor the falling away, and the falling away, not the same as the arising nor the presence. Yet, these three being stages of any dhamma, the dhammas itself can be said to exist. Not only this, the panna that knows the falling away, does not deny that a dhamma *did* exist, and so even to the past and the future dhammas, can the word `existence' apply, I think. Of course, all this is a reference to ephemeral dhammas and not to concepts such as man and mountain. TG you say that it is unnecessary to think of concepts as unreal and you are saying that those who do, do so because of their theory about nama and rupa. To me the same reasoning comes up when thinking about your own position. I think that it is because of your own refusal to think `concepts' as being illusory and incapable of being an object of insight, that you have so much resistance to the notion of paramattha dhammas and refusal to make any distinction between `concept and reality'. ;-) Nama and rupa are without core and dependently arisen, but this does not make them equal to concepts!! A tree does not `not have core' and is not `dependently arisen', because it does not exists at any time at all, having no arising, presence and falling away moments. You said in your response to Sarah, "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts. IMO. The former would lead to detachment. The latter leads to attachment." First, there can't ever be detachment without `understanding' of dhammas, including `attachment', which has its own, cause, manifestation and `characteristic'. Second, the `concept and reality' distinction becomes more clear as these same dhammas are understood better and better and is not necessarily the product of dwelling on the idea `intellectually'. Third, the Buddha's teachings is not about any kind of psychological conditioning, whereby one can develop a particular attitude towards everything, re: "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts." Detachment comes from `understanding' presently arising dhammas. Thinking ones way no matter how `reasonable' it may sound, seems to me to invariably lead instead to more attachment. You say that `dhammas are without essence', is this the same as saying that they are `without individual characteristics'? And I see that you have arrived at this conclusion by reasoning that, because dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, they must lack `individual' characteristics? I think rather, that because the *have* individual characteristics, i.e. each one of those conditioning/conditioned dhammas that there can be this regularity, such as lobhamula cittas are lobhamula cittas and lokuttara cittas are lokuttara cittas. Anatta, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of individual dhammas and not because dhammas are conditioned. Each dhamma is anatta *and* conditioned. Anatta is not because of D.O., but D.O. is because of anatta and the fact of individual characteristics. In the past, whenever you have stated to the effect about the importance of knowing D.O. over knowing individual characteristics of dhammas, I am stirred when looking at just one link in the chain, `ignorance'. I think, "Does TG know ignorance? How can he be saying anything meaningful about the whole chain?" It seems to be that you are being driven by a theory and not taking into account what you don't know and what needs to be known. Meanwhile, ignorance as a reality ;-) is doing its job in adding bricks to samsara. Your post to Sarah was a heavy read, so it can be expected that I misunderstood your position. If so, you can correct me. Please allow for some time gap in any further response from me, as it becomes harder to find time for DSG. Metta, Sukinder 56879 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:18am Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? jwromeijn Hallo RobM I don't agree with your proposal. Isn't one of the principles behind the Abhidhamma the distinguisment between concepts/conventional phenomena versus ultimate phenomena? Simply accept that the ultimate phenomena (the dhammas) are the only real phenomena is not fruitful: we have to make clear again and again for ourselves the connections between the two kind of phenomena. Or is your message a kind of agreement with my proposal not to use any more the term "realities"? Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi All, > > In DN1, A.X 69 and elsewhere in the Suttas & Vinaya, the Buddha gives > a list of subjects of idle chatter (tiracchana-katha; low-talk, > beastly talk). > > The last item in the list is "iti-bhavabhava-katha" (note the second > a has an accent, which in Pali grammar can mean that it is a > concatenation of a word ending with "a" and a word starting with "a". > When a word starts with an "a", it is a negation - so we can expand > bhavabhava into "'bhava' and 'not bhava'". A common translation > of "bhava" is existence. > > For this reason, Maurice Walshe (in DN1.1.17) translates iti- > bhavabhava-katha as "talk of existence and non-existence". He also > includes a footnote as follows, "iti-bhavabhava-katha: also > rendered 'profit and loss', but the philosophical sense (as in the > Horner and Nanamoli translation of MN76) is preferable." > > In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non- existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 56880 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:34am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 402- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (m) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) Sobhana cittas are accompanied by the universals, by particulars and by sobhana cetasikas. There are twenty five sobhana cetasikas in all which can accompany sobhana cittas. Not all twenty five sobhana cetasikas accompany each sobhana citta, but at least nineteen sobhana cetasikas have to accompany each sobhana citta. Among the twenty five sobhana cetasikas three are sobhana hetus (roots). These are: - non-attachment, alobha - non-aversion, adosa - wisdom, amoha or paññå Non-attachment and non-aversion have to accompany each sobhana citta, and wisdom or understanding may or may not accompany sobhana citta. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56881 From: "robmoult" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:51am Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? robmoult Hi Scott (and All), You raise a good point for discussion --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Rob M., > > I think you are making a very good point. > > "In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non- existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as 'idle chatter'." > > I do have a question, which I hope is not simply "idle chatter about > idle chatter." In the midst of my engagement in the recent thread > regarding "ontology," I found that I was able to clarify certain views > about things, and, as such, found that I was able to learn about the > Dhamma. > > How does one differentiate "idle chatter" from productive > "dhamma-talk?" How might one know when one is going beyond learning > and entering the realm of non-productive discourse? > > I suppose your question is directed in part to the content and process > of the Dhamma Study Group itself, and since I have not had enough > history here to be making any comments on matters such as that, I'll > limit myself to those questions above. > > Thanks for your consideration. ===== Answering your questions in reverse order, "No, my comment was not directed at all to the content or process of DSG." Differentiating "idle chatter" from "productive dhamma-talk" is an interesting issue. As stated in the Suttas, the scope of the Buddha's teaching is limited to that which is conducive to the holy life and leads to Nibbana. I have in my library books titled, `Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity ' and `Origin of Species According to the Buddha '. I picked up these books because I have studied these subjects. Though there are some interesting parallels, they are separate subjects; the law of kamma is outside of the scope of physics and the Buddha did not discuss evolution of species. My library also contains a number of popular books (The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig) which have been written on the theme of parallels between Eastern thinking and modern science. These books are very interesting to read but they are not a good way to learn about the Buddha's teaching. Metta, Rob M :-) 56882 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:08am Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > > In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non- existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) +++++++++ Dear RobM, I assume you are not referring to the Theravada teachings that all khandhas(agreggates), ayatanas(sense bases) and dhatus(elements),i.e paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities), exist as being in any sense animal talk. That would be misguided, as understanding begins with knowing what is concept and what is reality, and deepens the more this distinction is known I refer now to the Kaccanagotta sutta which is often misused to justify the wrong view that khandhas, ayatanas and dhatus (paramattha dhammas ) do not exist. In the Samyutta Nikaya [1] II. The Book of Causation (Nidanavagga) 15 (5) Kaccanagotta Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi Page 544 At Savatthi. Then the Venerable Kaccanagotta approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: "Venerable sir, it is said, `right view, right view.' In what way, venerable sir, is there right view?" "This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. [1] But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. [3] "This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. [4] But this one [with right view] does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about `my self.' [5] He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. [6] "`All exists': Kaccana, this is one extreme. `All does not exist': this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: `With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness.... Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness.... Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." [End of Kaccanagotta Sutta] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- [1] [Footnote 29] Dvayanissito khvayam Kaccana loko yebhuyyena atthitan c' eva natthitan ca. Spk: "For the most part" (yebhuyyena) means: for the great multitude, with the exception of the noble individuals (ariyapuggala). The notion of existence (atthita) is eternalism (sassata); the notion of nonexistence (natthita) is annihilationism (uccheda). Spk-pt: The notion of existence is eternalism because it maintains that the entire world (of personal existence) exists forever. The notion of nonexistence is annihilationism because it maintains that the entire world does not exist (forever) but is cut off. In view of these explanations it would be misleading to translate the two terms, atthita and natthita, simply as "existence" and "nonexistence" and then to maintain (as is sometimes done) that the Buddha rejects all ontological notions as inherently invalid. The Buddha's utterances at 22:94, for example, show that he did not hesitate to make pronouncements with a clear ontological import when they were called for. In the present passage atthita and natthita are abstract nouns formed from the verbs atthi and natthi. It is thus the metaphysical assumptions implicit in such abstractions that are at fault, not the ascriptions of existence and nonexistence themselves. I have tried to convey this sense of metaphysical abstraction, conveyed in Pali by the terminal -ta, by rendering the two terms "the notion of existence" and "the notion of nonexistence," respectively. On the two extremes rejected by the Buddha, see 12:48, and for the Buddha's teaching on the origin and passing away of the world, 12:44. Unfortunately, atthita and bhava both had to be rendered by "existence," which obscures the fact that in Pali they are derived from different roots. While atthita is the notion of existence in the abstract, bhava is concrete individual existence in one or another of the three realms. For the sake of marking the difference, bhava might have been rendered by "being" (as was done in MLDB), but this English word, I feel, is too broad (suggestive of "Being," the absolute object of philosophical speculation) and does not sufficiently convey the sense of concreteness intrinsic to bhava. [3] [Footnote 30] Spk: The origin of the world: the production of the world of formations. There is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world: there does not occur in him the annihilationist view that might arise in regard to phenomena produced and made manifest in the world of formations, holding "They do not exist." Spk-pt: The annihilationist view might arise in regard to the world of formations thus: "On account of the annihilation and perishing of beings right where they are, there is no persisting being or phenomenon." It also includes the wrong view, having those formations as its object, which holds: "There are no beings who are reborn." That view does not occur in him; for one seeing with right understanding the production and origination of the world of formations in dependence on such diverse conditions as kamma, ignorance, craving, etc., that annihilationist view does not occur, since one sees the uninterrupted production of formations. Spk: The cessation of the world: the dissolution (bhanga) of formations. There is no notion of existence in regard to the world: There does not occur in him the eternalist view which might arise in regard to phenomena produced and made manifest in the world of formations, holding "They exist." Spk-pt: The eternalist view might arise in regard to the world of formations, taking it to exist at all times, owing to the apprehension of identity in the uninterrupted continuum occurring in a cause-effect relationship. But that view does not occur in him; because he sees the cessation of the successively arisen phenomena and the arising of successively new phenomena, the eternalist view does not occur. Spk: Further, "the origin of the world" is direct-order conditionality (anuloma-paccayakara); "the cessation of the world," reverse-order conditionality (patiloma-paccayakara). [Spk-pt: "Direct-order conditionality" is the conditioning efficiency of the conditions in relation to their own effect s; "reverse-order conditionality" is the cessation of the effects through the cessation of their respective causes.] For in seeing the dependency of the world, when one sees the non- termination of the conditionally arisen phenomena owing to the nontermination of their conditions, the annihilationist view, which might otherwise arise, does not occur. And in seeing the cessation of conditions, when one sees the cessation of the conditionally arisen phenomena owing to the cessation of their conditions, the eternalist view, which might otherwise arise, does not occur. [4] [footnote 31] The reading I prefer is a hybrid of Be and Se: upayupadan- dbhinivesavinibaddho. I take upay- from Be (Se and Ee: upay-) and -vinibaddho from Se (Be and Ee: -vinibandho). The rendering at KS 2:13, "grasping after systems and imprisoned by dogmas," echoed by SN-Anth 2:17, is too narrow in emphasis. Spk explains that each of the three nouns-engagement, clinging, and adherence—occurs by way of craving and views (tanha, ditthi), for it is through these that one engages, clings to, and adheres to the phenomena of the three planes as "I" and "mine." [5] [footnote 32] Tan cdyam upayupdddnam cetaso adhitthdnam abhinivesanu- sayam na upeti na upddiyati nddhitthdti "atta me" ti. I have unravelled the difficult syntax of this sentence with the aid of Spk, which glosses ayam as "this noble disciple" (ayam ariyasdvakd). Spk says that craving and views are also called "mental standpoints" (adhitthdna) because they are the foundation for the (unwholesome) mind, and "adherences and underlying tendencies" (abhinivesdnusaya) because they adhere to the mind and lie latent within it. Spk connects the verb adhitthdti to the following "atta me," and I conform to this interpretation in the translation. [6] [footnote 33] Spk explains dukkha here as "the mere five aggregates subject to clinging" (pancupdddnakkhandhamattam eva). Thus what the noble disciple sees, when he reflects upon his personal existence, is not a self or a substantially existent person but a mere assemblage of conditioned phenomena arising and passing away through the conditioning process governed by dependent origination. In this connection see the verses of the bhikkhuni Vajira, I, vv. 553-55. Spk: By just this much—the abandonment of the idea of a being (satta-sanna)— there is right seeing. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I hope that clears up any misuderstanding, As Bhikku Bodhi says: ""In view of these explanations it would be misleading to translate the two terms, atthita and natthita, simply as "existence" and "nonexistence" and then to maintain (as is sometimes done) that the Buddha rejects all ontological notions as inherently invalid."" To quote the Buddha directly:Samyutta Nikaya Khandavagga 94(2) Flowers Bodhi page 950 "Form (rupa) that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeing that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS. Perception (sanna)that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS. Sankhara that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS. Vinnana (consciousness) that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; this the wise in the world agree upon as existing and I too say it EXISTS.""endquote Thus the ancient Theravada texts faithfully preserve the Dhamma by the emphasis they place on understanding paramttha dhammas. In no way whatsoever is explaining paramattha dhammas 'animal talk', rather it is talk hard to hear and of priceless value: and discouraging anyone from knowing teachings about concept and reality is hindering their progress and giving a blow to the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Bodhi:"Ultimate realities are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature..These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities whcih result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction but are themseleves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of existence. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama =ultimate, highest, final, and attha = reality, thing."Bodhi p.25 Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma. Robertk 56883 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:19am Subject: Re: Hey Azita! /impermance gazita2002 Hello Chris, thanx, yes Larry looks like a big one - its extremely still here at the moment, eerily so, and very humid even tho its 9pm. quite an experience, not really knowing what will happen. Have been thro a few cyclones but none this big - cat 4; cat 5 being the biggest it can get. I keep reminding myself that every moment - with or without Larry - is unknown, that we never know what will arise in the very next moment. Again, thanx for your thoughts, Chris. there is also that 'wonderful' aussie humour abounding up here, 'nahh, dont worry about food, just get us a slab a 4X'; if the roof starts to go, pull the mattress over yer head and sit tight'. patience, courage and good cheer, azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello Azita, > > Take care if Larry comes calling .... appears to heading for Cairns. > Maximum wind gusts : 240 kilometres per hour, intensifying. > Map: > http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ65002.shtml > > May you be safe and protected, > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 56884 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:57am Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? scottduncan2 Dear Rob M., Thanks for your reply. "As stated in the Suttas, the scope of the Buddha's teaching is limited to that which is conducive to the holy life and leads to Nibbana." S: Agreed. The scope of the Buddha's teachings is wide and deep. A lot to read. A lot to understand. A lot to discuss. "I have in my library books titled, `Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity ' and `Origin of Species According to the Buddha '. I picked up these books because I have studied these subjects. Though there are some interesting parallels, they are separate subjects; the law of kamma is outside of the scope of physics and the Buddha did not discuss evolution of species." S: Also agreed. There are so many well-written, well-thought out written works. I admit that I am tempted to read these sorts of books because they are so thought-provoking. Time is short, however, isn't it? As you noted above, thinking about these comparisons is like watching The Simpsons as far as leading to Nibbana. Good distractions. I wonder, now that I come to think of it, what Homer Simpson would have to say about D.O. versus relativity ("Doh," most likely). My library also contains a number of popular books (The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig) which have been written on the theme of parallels between Eastern thinking and modern science. These books are very interesting to read but they are not a good way to learn about the Buddha's teaching." S: Yes. Reading the original is best. (And I suppose reading it in Pali, not English). Reading the Commentaries on the original is best. I'll tell you what is happening to me lately. As I try to learn, and come across something and sort of understand it, I find myself going, "I think . . ." (as if what I think is really important) and then I shudder because you wouldn't believe the things I can wind up thinking. I want to know what the Dhamma is and I want to know it as deeply and correctly as possible. To return to the topic. There are things worth discussing for sure. And there are ways of discussing things correctly. I look for those whose knowledge exceeds my own. I value trying to discuss the Dhamma with such individuals. I can almost tell, sometimes, when someone who seems to know something is someone I can learn from. It's hard to keep up in certain discussions, at least for me, but I'll try to persist and catch up. Thanks for the good discussion! Sincerely, Scott. 56885 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' upasaka_howard Hi. Sukin (and TG & Sarah) - If I may I'd like to add a few comments on a few points. In a message dated 3/19/06 3:37:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: > Hi TG, Sarah and All, > > I composed an in-text reply to TG's post yesterday, but half way through > I decided to stop as it was getting way too long. But the need to > respond is still there, so today I write more in a general way. > --------------------------- > I think we all agree about the necessity of hearing the Teachings as a > precondition for the correct practice. As far as I am concerned, to be > pointed out from the very beginning about the reality/concept distinction > is to be taking a step in the right direction towards this end. Otherwise > as most Buddhists do, one ends up encouraging observing `concepts', > and this is to be involved in wrong practice. > Insight comes from direct experience of realities and this direct > experience comes only with the correct and firm intellectual > understanding of what is and what is not the correct practice amongst > other things. Any ideas that concepts can be the object of this kind of > understanding will only make it harder for any insight to occur. > Meanwhile there will be taking for development of understanding that > which is not. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Clear understanding of conventional objects, while not itself producing wisdom and liberation, can be supportive of it. This is why, I believe the Buddha himself repeatedly pointed to the suffering, impermanence, and not-self aspects of very conventional entities such as spouses, children, ones life, and so on and so forth. Understanding such matters constitute the more commonplace, mundane aspects of what the Buddha taught, but it also is important. Of course, it is common to most religions and is not distinctively Buddhist. If you think, however, that the Buddha and his chief followers did not deal with conventional matters, consider the following for example: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth."And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging."And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death."And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called sorrow."And what is lamentation? Whatever crying, grieving, lamenting, weeping, wailing, lamentation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called lamentation."And what is pain? Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called pain."And what is distress? Whatever is experienced as mental pain, mental discomfort, pain or discomfort born of mental contact, that is called distress."And what is despair? Whatever despair, despondency, desperation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called despair."And what is the stress of association with the unbeloved? There is the case where undesirable, unpleasing, unattractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations occur to one; or one has connection, contact, relationship, interaction with those who wish one ill, who wish for one's harm, who wish for one's discomfort, who wish one no security from the yoke. This is called the stress of association with the unbeloved."And what is the stress of separation from the loved? There is the case where desirable, pleasing, attractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavors, or tactile sensations do not occur to one; or one has no connection, no contact, no relationship, no interaction with those who wish one well, who wish for one's benefit, who wish for one's comfort, who wish one security from the yoke, nor with one's mother, father, brother, sister, friends, companions, or relatives. This is called the stress of separation from the loved."And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings subject to birth, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to birth, and may birth not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair, and may aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted.— MN 141 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------- > > The Abhidhamma, including its classification into nama/rupa and its > description in detail about the various conditions is meant to discourage > us from substantialism, I think. Though the habit and tendency is strong > and how each of us deal with the problem, is a matter of individual > accumulations. But the concepts, `reality', `existence' themselves are not > the cause. They are in fact the best concepts considering our level of > panna. > > You say that the Buddha did not use the term `paramattha dhamma' and > go on to say that this is because he thought it best not to. How do you > know that he even had the option to use it or not?! His audience did not > need to be told, they were not fooled by concepts as we are likely to be. --------------------------------------- Howard: All of his audience? How much of his audience consisted of worldlings? All those following the Buddha back then saw clearly? You really think so? -------------------------------------- > And you and others have gone on to suggest that you too don't need to > make this distinction?! ---------------------------------------- Howard: For the record, I am one for whom the distinction between concept and reality is of utmost importance. The trouble, as I see it, with the use of the term 'reality' comes in when we use it not to distinguish what is actually observable from what is merely imagined, but when we use it it to refer to an individual phenomenon as if that phenomenon were a self-existent entity, with own being (i.e., with self). To speak of "a reality" or of "realities" IN THAT SENSE is dangerous. To use the words 'real' and 'reality' only to distinguish between actual occurrences and merely imagined occurrences, however, is fine and important. As I see it, for example, evergreen odor occurs, but evergreen trees do not actually occur, though a host of actual occurrences, evergreen odor being an example, do occur that underly the conceptualizing that we *call* the "occurrence/existence of an evergreen tree". ---------------------------------------------------- > > You have also said that asserting `reality' and `existence' is indicative of > > a substantialist view point, but I think this is due to your own > misunderstanding. I'll explain more, but allow me to compare this with > another matter. > > Outsiders often characterize K. Sujin's method of teaching as being > merely "theory". I think that she in fact *teaches practice*! She > constantly points to the need to pay attention to whatever is the present > dhamma. However, because this does not often happen and this being > due to the listener's own lack of `firm' intellectual understanding, the > discussion naturally move towards pariyatti. And this is so because > these two, patipatti and pariyatti are related in a very direct way. > > On the hand, those who in many words, stress so much on > the "practice' at the expense of `theory', are in fact missing the point. > They don't realize that their idea of practice is conditioned by "wrong > theory", a theory in which pariyatti has little or no value. It manifests > as `idealism', an expression of ignorance and wrong view. And in the > meantime, these `idea'ls lead to any number of wrong practices, there > being 1001 ways of being fooled, each of which can conveniently > interpret the Dhamma to suit itself. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Most of those on DSG who emphasize practice do so not "at the expense of theory," but in response to the perceived attitude of some here that practice (or what they call "conventional practice") is ego-centered activity that should not be engaged in. I for one see this as an extreme view that flies in the face of much of the Buddha's teaching, and that is why I constantly call for practice in its fullness. Practice not based on theory is practice that is likely to run afoul. It is like a ship without a rudder. However, theory without practice is like having had the ship scuttled on a barren, desert island on which those stranded will soon expire. ------------------------------------------- > > How is this related to the discussion about the classifying the way things > are into nama/rupa, concept/reality and so on? I think those of us who > find the need to again and again come back to making theses > distinctions, are in effect admitting to being quite ignorant > in "experience". How each one of us evolve and overcome any wrong > understanding, is as I said before, a matter of accumulations. You talk > about attachment, but I think resistance is also a consequence of > attachment, no? > > When faced with constantly mistaking concept for reality, does it not > make sense to attempt at making the distinction between what does > and what doesn't ultimately exist? Why "real" and why "exist"? `Real' > because only *these* according to the Buddha have characteristics and > are conditioned. Concepts, such as a `tree' don't and are not. `Existing' > because for something to manifest, it must on some level exist, even > when it means that the arising moment is not the same as the presence > nor the falling away, and the falling away, not the same as the arising > nor the presence. Yet, these three being stages of any dhamma, the > dhammas itself can be said to exist. Not only this, the panna that knows > the falling away, does not deny that a dhamma *did* exist, and so even > to the past and the future dhammas, can the word `existence' apply, I > think. Of course, all this is a reference to ephemeral dhammas and not > to concepts such as man and mountain. > > TG you say that it is unnecessary to think of concepts as unreal and you > are saying that those who do, do so because of their theory about nama > and rupa. To me the same reasoning comes up when thinking about > your own position. I think that it is because of your own refusal to > think `concepts' as being illusory and incapable of being an object of > insight, that you have so much resistance to the notion of paramattha > dhammas and refusal to make any distinction between `concept and > reality'. ;-) > > Nama and rupa are without core and dependently arisen, but this does > not make them equal to concepts!! A tree does not `not have core' and > is not `dependently arisen', because it does not exists at any time at all, > having no arising, presence and falling away moments. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly agree with that paragraph, Sukin. :-) I would only add that there is a host of actual phenomena underlying "the tree" that do arise and cease in reality, though, of course, not as self-existent entities. These serve as basis for "the tree," making "it" not as illusory as, for example, a unicorn that has no actual phenomena as basis but is utterly imagined. ------------------------------------------ > > You said in your response to Sarah, > > "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as > concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of > nama and rupa in relation to concepts. IMO. The former would lead to > detachment. The latter leads to attachment." > > First, there can't ever be detachment without `understanding' of > dhammas, including `attachment', which has its own, cause, > manifestation and `characteristic'. > Second, the `concept and reality' distinction becomes more clear as > these same dhammas are understood better and better and is not > necessarily the product of dwelling on the idea `intellectually'. > Third, the Buddha's teachings is not about any kind of psychological > conditioning, whereby one can develop a particular attitude towards > everything, re: "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and > rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up > the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts." > Detachment comes from `understanding' presently arising dhammas. > Thinking ones way no matter how `reasonable' it may sound, seems to > me to invariably lead instead to more attachment. > You say that `dhammas are without essence', is this the same as saying > that they are `without individual characteristics'? And I see that you have > arrived at this conclusion by reasoning that, because dhammas are > conditioned in multiple ways, they must lack `individual' characteristics? I > > think rather, that because the *have* individual characteristics, i.e. > each one of those conditioning/conditioned dhammas that there can be > this regularity, such as lobhamula cittas are lobhamula cittas and > lokuttara cittas are lokuttara cittas. Anatta, anicca and dukkha are > characteristics of individual dhammas and not because dhammas are > conditioned. Each dhamma is anatta *and* conditioned. Anatta is not > because of D.O., but D.O. is because of anatta and the fact of individual > characteristics. --------------------------------------- Howard: Dhammas, as I see the matter don't "have" qualities. They *are* qualities. An example: In our ordinary, very flawed way of speaking, we say a tree is hard, thinking of the tree as an entity and as hardness as a characteristic of that entity. In fact, there is no tree. But the quality of hardness, that experiential quality, that dhamma, conditioned and not-self, does arise and cease. ----------------------------------------- > > In the past, whenever you have stated to the effect about the > importance of knowing D.O. over knowing individual characteristics of > dhammas, I am stirred when looking at just one link in the > chain, `ignorance'. I think, "Does TG know ignorance? How can he be > saying anything meaningful about the whole chain?" It seems to be that > you are being driven by a theory and not taking into account what you > don't know and what needs to be known. Meanwhile, ignorance as a > reality ;-) is doing its job in adding bricks to samsara. > > Your post to Sarah was a heavy read, so it can be expected that I > misunderstood your position. If so, you can correct me. Please allow for > some time gap in any further response from me, as it becomes harder > to find time for DSG. > > Metta, > > Sukinder > ======================== 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) 56886 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:17am Subject: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Hi, all - I am posting today, but I will most likely not be doing very much posting for the next two weeks. We are leaving tomorrow, shortly past noon, to fly to Dallas, TX for a two-week stay - hopefully not longer. On Wednesday (the 22nd) our granddaughter, Sophie Emma, will be having her open-heart surgery. One happy aspect of the trip will be that my wife and I will be carrying out the lion's share of caring for the older sister, Sarah, and this, while not so easy for us who are not not as young as the task would ideally call for ;-), will be a joy. And it will be wonderful to visit with our son and darling daughter-in-law, and, of course, to spend time with Sophie, whom we haven't seen since her birth three and a half months ago. But the fact of the major surgery to patch a large hole and replace one valve by the intended two valves (tricuspid & mitral) is a stressful and really worrisome matter. But it is as it is. I will check in with the list from time to time while away, and perhaps post a little as well. With much 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) 56887 From: connie Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:22am Subject: thank you, Sukin nichiconn Dear Sukin, Thank you for sending "the Erik collection". Nibbana may not appear, but for sure, old stories do... best wishes, connie 56888 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Mar 18, 2006 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' TGrand458@... Hi Tep and sarah In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:12:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, indriyabala@... writes: S: The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas which exist and appear, one at a time. Tep: Why is it not possible for more than one nama to exist and dissolve together at the same time, given that such "dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too)"? Kind regards, Tep. Tep... I think Sarah means "appear one at a time" to consciousness/attention, etc. Sarah and Tep... Sarah's paragraph above highlights various namas as if they are separate states....shall we say .... with their own characteristics? However, there is a Sutta where a monk (I believe) asks the Buddha directly if the Buddha separates nama Khandas because they are really separate things, or if they are 'un-separatable'...and just being separated in the Buddha's teachings for purposes of analysis. The answer from the Buddha is -- that they are not separate things and are not separatable ... but that they are merely separated for purposes of analysis. It seems to me, from an abhidhammic point of view, the Buddha is saying that these are not the "separate and distinct realities" that abhidhamma analysis seems to be saying they are. Conclusion... They are separatable as "qualities" but they are NOT separatable as "realities." Comments? TG 56889 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:20am Subject: Re: ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? buddhatrue Hi Rob M., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non- existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Sadhu! I agree! And, also, after a certain point, such discussions are very boring. ;-) Metta, James 56890 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:24am Subject: Re: Leaving Tomorrow scottduncan2 Dear Howard, "On Wednesday (the 22nd) our granddaughter, Sophie Emma, will be having her open-heart surgery. . . a stressful and really worrisome matter. But it is as it is." Peace! Sincerely, Scott. 56891 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:42am Subject: Re: Leaving Tomorrow buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > I am posting today, but I will most likely not be doing very much > posting for the next two weeks. We are leaving tomorrow, shortly past noon, to fly > to Dallas, TX for a two-week stay I hope that all goes well. My thoughts are with you. Metta, James 56892 From: "Kom Tukovinit" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - moving to the second temple tikmok I was at the first temple for about 4 months, past vassa until the Kathina (the robe) day. The end of vassa brought a most interesting ritual. On the full moon day, when the vassa was ending, instead of having a recital of the Patimokkha, the monks gathered and asked for the chastisement from other monks about the behaviors that they could improve. The theory was, since they had lived with one another for the entire vassa, it would be plain to other monks what behaviors were inappropriate or could be improved. This would also give the newer monks or a student monk the opportunities to chastise the elder monks and their masters. Nowadays, according to other monks, this particular ritual can go badly (can you imagine a bunch of people who may not have met until a few months ago getting together and then starting criticizing one another?). At the temple I was at, it went rather well, I think, as the monks ended up criticizing themselves half the time instead of criticizing others. The Kathina day is also a most interesting ritual. In the olden days (and perhaps maybe again in the future, when time maybe worse), monks get together and make robe for a qualified individual (with all the qualifications spelled out in the texts, obviously). They gather woods, find rags, boil water (to color the rags), and then congregate to sew the rags together into a robe. I did none of this, as nowadays the tradition in Thailand is more like giving a robe to the monks, and giving money to the temple usually for a construction project (if you remember, a kitchen with two attached bedrooms pretty much got built). Having this ceremony is still very important these days. Giving a single robe (even without the money) extends certain privileges to the monks (regarding to the disciplines) for some 5 months after the ceremony. I had a very good experience at this temple. It was a very good place to vet into a life of a monk, study the Vinayas, and develop more confidence of the Buddha --- all with clean air (but maybe too cold of a weather), strong supports from the communities and people from Bangkok, and good exercise (the temple is on a hill). By the time I left, we studied the vinayas (straight from the tipitakas and the commentaries) from Pacitiya infractions up to the end-of-Vassa rituals --- (still, 5 books out of ten remain). The group circumbulations of the Stupa happened mostly everyday --- the abbot had such strong confidence that I couldn't help picking up some too just by association with him. By the end, the stupa contained not only the relics from the Buddha and V. Sariputta, a layperson contributed the relics of V. Sivali (the monk most excellent in worldly gains) also. After that I went to a temple near Bangkok. The temple is situated right along the Chao Phraya river (the main river system in Bangkok) where lots of big shippers pass by. The daily life here is not as structured as the first temple: the temple is being built into a studying institution, and so many monks there are already a few years into the monkhood. Most of the monks there were there to study Pali. Let me mention how studying Pali works in Thailand nowadays. There are two systems of studying. One studies the abridged version --- a version that I think was invented within the last 200 years. This system requires some studies of grammars and memorizations of passages. This system is easier and shorter to complete, but it doesn't give the richness of the other system. The second system was designed by V. Maha-Kaccayana during or after the Buddha's life. This is the Maha-Kaccayana, not someone who had taken his name, that were most excellent in expanding/detailing the Buddha teachings taught in brief. In fact, the first book to study is called the "Maha-Kaccayana Sutra". The Sutra here --- I am not sure if it means the normal "Sutra" or "formula". To study this text, you memorize (word-by-word, in Pali) some hundreds of passages, and then the teacher would explain to you how these formula (the passages, which are formulas and reminders) are applied. There are some 7 books in total (very thick ones --- the binding is about 4 inch across and the paper is letter sized). This second system is currently taught in Thailand at maybe four different temples (one in the North [lampang], one in the south [Hadyai], and two near Bangkok [this temple, and Mahadhatu temple). It is not a system that most monks in Thailand study nowadays. The monks --- coming from all parts of Thailand, Cambodia, and Sri-Lanka --- who studied this system at this temple pretty much spent all their time into studying it. I didn't really study Pali here (too much commitment), although I was enthralled by the idea that there is actually a course of study designed by one of these venerables most excellent in wisdom. I met, however, too most excellent teachers deeply knowledgeable in the Vinayas (they also knew Pali, a necessity if you want to learn these stuffs deeply enough because many tikas still remain in Pali) from whom I greatly benefited. I am not only grateful for the knowledge imparted to me (and their willingness to answer the many questions I have), but for their commitment to help/inspire other monks to fully take up the rules and disciplines again. There are now a small group of monks gathering every-year to discuss some knotty points in the Vinayas as practiced by the respective monks, and these two teachers were the main speakers at the gathering last year. The abbot at the temple is an old-time abhidhamma teacher (the temple is actually labeled as being a Abhidhamma studying institution). As I mentioned, he has produced the most prolific teachers in Thailand, both laypeople and monks. The thing that impressed me was, I briefly studied the Anusaya-Yamaka (a part of the Yamaka Abhidhamma Tipitaka) with him at the requests of two nuns who wanted to study it. He had designed the course such that for the brief hours that we had (4 hours over 2 days), it was possible to continue studying the particular section from the Tipitaka and commentaries without additional interactions with him. He not only made it easy on himself, he also made it easy for the students some of who had to travel long distance to come see him. At this temple, I studied Anapanasati --- from Vinaya pitaka, Sutra pitaka, and Vissudhimagga --- Pacaya 24, Brahmavihara from Vissudhimagga, a few subtle points of the rules and disciplines, and others. It was a reasonably productive time as well. This brings me to and end of this tale. Sarah thought this might be useful to some people, and I hope it is. I have no plan to participate in DSG for a while, as writing takes a bit too much time for me, and the writings --- right or wrong --- pretty much lasts forever nowadays. I am leaving for Thailand for an extended basis tomorrow. I wish you all most productive time in the dhammas, and may you find all the blessings in the magnificence of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. With Metta, kom -- Kom Tukovinit kom [at] alum.mit.edu 56894 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:09am Subject: Never Happy buddhatrue Hi All, I thought I would share a little story, about myself, to demonstrate how terrible and suffering life is- or at least how we make it that way. I was going to school on the bus this morning and I was extremely tired. I mean so tired I could hardly stay awake! I moved this week, had a very important meeting at my school dealing with American certification (of which I played a crucial role), and I had a teacher's conference to go to this weekend which destroyed my weekend. So, anyway, I was damn tired! As I was riding in the bus, I was sitting there in my seat with my eyes closed, trying to rest some, and all I kept thinking about was how I wish I could be home in my bed. I just kept wishing and pondering how nice it would be for me to be home in my bed and how it was terrible that I had to go to school to teach- I just kept thinking and thinking about this. I was torturing myself even more! Then I thought about when I finally did get to the school how I was going to have to be on my feet, teaching and disciplining students, and how tiring that was going to be. And I thought, "I will be so tired that I will wish that I could at least sit down and close my eyes for a little bit." Then it dawned on me, I wasn't happy with anything! If I'm teaching I wish I could at least rest my eyes; if I'm resting my eyes I wish I could be sleeping; if I'm sleeping I wish I could sleep more; if I sleep more I wish I didn't sleep so much…etc., etc., etc. And there, in the bus, with my eyes closed, I smiled at my own inherent ignorance. Metta, James 56895 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Thanks, Scott! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/19/06 12:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > "On Wednesday (the 22nd) our granddaughter, Sophie Emma, will be > having her open-heart surgery. . . a stressful and really worrisome > matter. But it is as it is." > > Peace! > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56896 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Thank you, James! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/19/06 12:43:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > I hope that all goes well. My thoughts are with you. > > Metta, > James > /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) 56897 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Never Happy upasaka_howard Good one, James!! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/19/06 1:10:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi All, > > I thought I would share a little story, about myself, to demonstrate > how terrible and suffering life is- or at least how we make it that > way. I was going to school on the bus this morning and I was > extremely tired. I mean so tired I could hardly stay awake! I > moved this week, had a very important meeting at my school dealing > with American certification (of which I played a crucial role), and > I had a teacher's conference to go to this weekend which destroyed > my weekend. So, anyway, I was damn tired! > > As I was riding in the bus, I was sitting there in my seat with my > eyes closed, trying to rest some, and all I kept thinking about was > how I wish I could be home in my bed. I just kept wishing and > pondering how nice it would be for me to be home in my bed and how > it was terrible that I had to go to school to teach- I just kept > thinking and thinking about this. I was torturing myself even > more! Then I thought about when I finally did get to the school how > I was going to have to be on my feet, teaching and disciplining > students, and how tiring that was going to be. And I thought, "I > will be so tired that I will wish that I could at least sit down and > close my eyes for a little bit." Then it dawned on me, I wasn't > happy with anything! If I'm teaching I wish I could at least rest > my eyes; if I'm resting my eyes I wish I could be sleeping; if I'm > sleeping I wish I could sleep more; if I sleep more I wish I didn't > sleep so much…etc., etc., etc. And there, in the bus, with my eyes > closed, I smiled at my own inherent ignorance. > > Metta, > James > /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) 56898 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:35am Subject: Re: Never Happy indriyabala Hi James - >James: >And I thought, "I will be so tired that I will wish that I could at >least sit down and close my eyes for a little bit." >Then it dawned on me, I wasn't happy with anything! ... ... I am curious about that little moment when the wholesome thought "dawned" on you. Do you have any idea how it happened? Sincerely, Tep ============= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I thought I would share a little story, about myself, to demonstrate > how terrible and suffering life is- or at least how we make it that > way. I was going to school on the bus this morning and I was > extremely tired. I mean so tired I could hardly stay awake! I > moved this week, had a very important meeting at my school dealing > with American certification (of which I played a crucial role), and > I had a teacher's conference to go to this weekend which destroyed > my weekend. So, anyway, I was damn tired! > > As I was riding in the bus, I was sitting there in my seat with my > eyes closed, trying to rest some, and all I kept thinking about was > how I wish I could be home in my bed. I just kept wishing and > pondering how nice it would be for me to be home in my bed and how > it was terrible that I had to go to school to teach- I just kept > thinking and thinking about this. I was torturing myself even > more! Then I thought about when I finally did get to the school how > I was going to have to be on my feet, teaching and disciplining > students, and how tiring that was going to be. And I thought, "I > will be so tired that I will wish that I could at least sit down and > close my eyes for a little bit." Then it dawned on me, I wasn't > happy with anything! If I'm teaching I wish I could at least rest > my eyes; if I'm resting my eyes I wish I could be sleeping; if I'm > sleeping I wish I could sleep more; if I sleep more I wish I didn't > sleep so much…etc., etc., etc. And there, in the bus, with my eyes > closed, I smiled at my own inherent ignorance. > > Metta, > James > 56899 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:16am Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' indriyabala Hi TG (and Sarah) - Thank you for responding to my question to Sarah; that gives me an opportunity to learn more. >TG: Tep... I think Sarah means "appear one at a time" to >consciousness/attention, etc. >Sarah and Tep... Sarah's paragraph above highlights various namas >as if they are separate states....shall we say .... with their own >characteristics? ........................ Tep: I have to admit at the beginning of this discussion that, because of my superficial knowledge of the Abhidhamma, I may not know what I am talking about. {:>) So please be kind and patient with me. Do you mean only one nama can appear to the present-moment consciousness (or citta)? Why? But have you not ruled out the possibility that more than one nama can exist and dissolve together at the same time (regardless of the citta's capability to handle only one of them or not), given that such "dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too)"? ....................... >TG: The answer from the Buddha is -- that they are not separate things and are not separatable ... but that they are merely separated for purposes of analysis. >It seems to me, from an abhidhammic point of view, the Buddha is saying that these are not the "separate and distinct realities" that abhidhamma analysis seems to be saying they are. Conclusion... They are separatable as "qualities" but they are NOT separatable as "realities." Comments? Tep: I am confused by the realities. Let me give a non-abhidhammic point of view as follows: the nama-khandhas are not separatable because they are continuous phenomena (processes) with continuous characteristics (qualities, rise and fall, etc.) that are "conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors and in turn condition other dhammas too". Best wishes, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Tep and sarah > > In a message dated 3/18/2006 11:12:29 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > S: The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly > understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly > distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas > which exist and appear, one at a time. > > Tep: Why is it not possible for more than one nama to exist and > dissolve together at the same time, given that such "dhammas are > conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn > condition other dhammas too)"? > (snipped) > TG: > However, there is a Sutta where a monk (I believe) asks the Buddha directly if the Buddha separates nama Khandas because they are really separate things, or if they are 'un-separatable'...and just being separated in the Buddha's teachings for purposes of analysis. > > The answer from the Buddha is -- that they are not separate things and are not separatable ... but that they are merely separated for purposes of analysis. > 56900 From: han tun Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 0:51pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 881 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 881 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: When metta or loving-kindness is with us all the time through out the day and through out the night and metta or loving-kindness or universal-friendliness is with us wherever we go that is when we stand, when we sit, when we lie down, when we walk, it can be said that we are living with loving-kindness or we are staying with pure-living-on-loving-kindness or metta-brahmavihara. When there are only these thoughts of wishing all beings to be healthy, wealthy, free of danger etc etc, there will not be any thoughts of aversion like 'wanting to kill, wanting to hit, wanting to destroy etc etc'. So there is free of byapada or aversive-thinking. As these wishes are pure wishes and they are not profit-expecting wishes there will not be any sensuous-thinking or kaamacchanda. If one is doing metta and he or she is expecting some forms of profit by doing this metta then this is not a true one. If this happens, then there already arise sensuous-thinking or kaamacchanda nivarana or hindrance of sensuous-thinking. When one is stick to these metta-wishes all the time, there will not be any worrying and there will not be any straying of thoughts. Because their thoughts are all directed to beings and these beings are not discriminated as there is no more boundary when the practice is advanced. This is breakage of the 3rd hindrance called uddhacca-kukkucca-nivarana or hindrance of spreading-worrying-thinking. When one is consciously proliferating all these pure wishes of kindness on all beings without any limitation, he or she is alert, active, light, flexible, fast-minded, malleable, calmed and there is no sloth and torpor. This is breakage of the 4th hindrance called thina-middha-nivarana or hindrance of sloth-torpored-thinking. When there are not any of these 4 hindrances and one is diligently practising metta-bhavana in this way, he or she will be happy, calm, tranquilised with metta-bhavana and when there is no doubt or suspicion on the practice, then the 5th hindrance is said to be broken down and it does not arise any more when there is a continuous flow of thoughts of kindness-wishes to all beings. As there is free of all hindrances, the concentration at that particular time can be called as proximity-concentration or upacaara samadhi. Because this kind of concentration is proximate to the next step of much stronger concentration called absorptive concentration or appanaa samadhi. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56901 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' TGrand458@... Hi Sukinder Your post is so long that I tend not to want to engage the whole thing, but decided to give it a go.... (I'm glad you decided to send the "short version." ;-) In a message dated 3/19/2006 1:37:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, sukinder@... writes: Hi TG, Sarah and All, I composed an in-text reply to TG's post yesterday, but half way through I decided to stop as it was getting way too long. But the need to respond is still there, so today I write more in a general way. --------------------------- I think we all agree about the necessity of hearing the Teachings as a precondition for the correct practice. As far as I am concerned, to be pointed out from the very beginning about the reality/concept distinction is to be taking a step in the right direction towards this end. Otherwise as most Buddhists do, one ends up encouraging observing `concepts', and this is to be involved in wrong practice. Insight comes from direct experience of realities and this direct experience comes only with the correct and firm intellectual understanding of what is and what is not the correct practice amongst other things. Any ideas that concepts can be the object of this kind of understanding will only make it harder for any insight to occur. Meanwhile there will be taking for development of understanding that which is not. TG: The concept vs reality issue is rarely mentioned in the Buddha's teaching... and not mentioned with the type of "reality demanding viewpoints" that we see in in some abhidhamma practitioners. Why can't concepts be fodder for insight? The Satipatthana Sutta has many conceptual tacts...indisputable even from an Abhidhamma interpretation. Why can't the conditions and conditional history that generate a concepts(s) be traced down and understood? Granted...this process will "pull the rug out" from under the concept as the mind will become forced to pay attention to other mental states. Yes, concepts are delusion, but delusion is a state that arises. It is not a non-existent thing. Speaking of which, it seems abhidhammists are "in the business" of determining states as either "existing" or "non-existing." This is exactly what the Buddha did not want IMO. I've already stated the quotes. The Abhidhamma, including its classification into nama/rupa and its description in detail about the various conditions is meant to discourage us from substantialism, I think. Though the habit and tendency is strong and how each of us deal with the problem, is a matter of individual accumulations. But the concepts, `reality', `existence' themselves are not the cause. They are in fact the best concepts considering our level of panna. TG: Agreed with the intent of first sentence above, disagree with some results. You say that the Buddha did not use the term `paramattha dhamma' and go on to say that this is because he thought it best not to. How do you know that he even had the option to use it or not?! His audience did not need to be told, they were not fooled by concepts as we are likely to be. And you and others have gone on to suggest that you too don't need to make this distinction?! TG: Not just I say the Buddha did not use the term Paramattha Dhamma, I believe Nina has posted this as well...Nyanatiloka, others. As for the second part of your first sentence, I did not say that. I said, paraphrasing, apparently he didn't think it important. And apparently he didn't or he would have said so. Do you honestly think that everyone the Buddha spoke to in his day was clear on the issue of concepts? My goodness. They must of all been arahats in Buddha's day. You have also said that asserting `reality' and `existence' is indicative of a substantialist view point, but I think this is due to your own misunderstanding. I'll explain more, but allow me to compare this with another matter. Outsiders often characterize K. Sujin's method of teaching as being merely "theory". I think that she in fact *teaches practice*! She constantly points to the need to pay attention to whatever is the present dhamma. However, because this does not often happen and this being due to the listener's own lack of `firm' intellectual understanding, the discussion naturally move towards pariyatti. And this is so because these two, patipatti and pariyatti are related in a very direct way. On the hand, those who in many words, stress so much on the "practice' at the expense of `theory', are in fact missing the point. They don't realize that their idea of practice is conditioned by "wrong theory", a theory in which pariyatti has little or no value. It manifests as `idealism', an expression of ignorance and wrong view. And in the meantime, these `idea'ls lead to any number of wrong practices, there being 1001 ways of being fooled, each of which can conveniently interpret the Dhamma to suit itself. TG: This is what I see happening when I compare Sutta practice and postulations with abhidhamma practice and postulations. I believe a flawed theory is misleading the abhidhamma practice and tending to make the mind grasp after dhammas ... dhammas, not really being the issue ... not grasping is the issue. By spending so much attention to "making dhammas realities," I see a mind as having little chance of detaching from them. Its a subtle disagreement, but perhaps important consequences. How is this related to the discussion about the classifying the way things are into nama/rupa, concept/reality and so on? I think those of us who find the need to again and again come back to making theses distinctions, are in effect admitting to being quite ignorant in "experience". How each one of us evolve and overcome any wrong understanding, is as I said before, a matter of accumulations. You talk about attachment, but I think resistance is also a consequence of attachment, no? TG: Or compassion maybe. I'm pretty set with Suttas. Have studied Abhidhamma and appreciate it, but don't like the way it is being interpreted. However, communicating with folks like you is of great value for a variety of reasons. Attached to my views?...perhaps. I suppose we all are to some extent until we can become arahats. When faced with constantly mistaking concept for reality, does it not make sense to attempt at making the distinction between what does and what doesn't ultimately exist? Why "real" and why "exist"? `Real' because only *these* according to the Buddha have characteristics and are conditioned. Concepts, such as a `tree' don't and are not. `Existing' because for something to manifest, it must on some level exist, even when it means that the arising moment is not the same as the presence nor the falling away, and the falling away, not the same as the arising nor the presence. Yet, these three being stages of any dhamma, the dhammas itself can be said to exist. Not only this, the panna that knows the falling away, does not deny that a dhamma *did* exist, and so even to the past and the future dhammas, can the word `existence' apply, I think. Of course, all this is a reference to ephemeral dhammas and not to concepts such as man and mountain. TG: Existence or non-existence is just concept. Conditions don't manifest as existing or not-existing. They are more like echoes of echoes of echoes of echoes and so on. And there is nothing "standing on its own." These 'empty echoes' that arise are structured by 'other empties.' The "empty echoes" that arise are mere "resultants" 'of something else' and have nothing about themselves. Just qualities of 'altering emptiness' is what is being discerned by the mind which is also a quality of emptiness. In the final analysis, physical energies and mental energies are just as empty as concepts. Hate mail should be directed to ... LOL ;-)) TG you say that it is unnecessary to think of concepts as unreal and you are saying that those who do, do so because of their theory about nama and rupa. To me the same reasoning comes up when thinking about your own position. I think that it is because of your own refusal to think `concepts' as being illusory and incapable of being an object of insight, that you have so much resistance to the notion of paramattha dhammas and refusal to make any distinction between `concept and reality'. ;-) TG: Concepts are delusion. I think of them as like a mirage. Does this make you feel a little better? ;-) To say that something that arises does not exist, does not make any sense to me. A concept arises...its "referent" does not. But a concept is just a concept...it is not supposed to be "the referent." I believe a lot of folks confuse "the referent" with "the concept." Nama and rupa are without core and dependently arisen, but this does not make them equal to concepts!! A tree does not `not have core' and is not `dependently arisen', because it does not exists at any time at all, having no arising, presence and falling away moments. TG: The concepts "referent" does not arise. When you say a "tree does not exist" ... well, of course it does arise. It is physical form -- rupa. When you say a "tree" doesn't exist.... what you mean is that the concept's "referent" does not exist. The concept of "tree" is a mental formation...it arises. The "referent" tree is pure "imagination"...the imagination arises (as concept), but the "referent" of the imagination does not arise...why should it? The form that a mind interprets as a tree is rupa...is arises. You said in your response to Sarah, "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts. IMO. The former would lead to detachment. The latter leads to attachment." First, there can't ever be detachment without `understanding' of dhammas, including `attachment', which has its own, cause, manifestation and `characteristic'. Second, the `concept and reality' distinction becomes more clear as these same dhammas are understood better and better and is not necessarily the product of dwelling on the idea `intellectually'. Third, the Buddha's teachings is not about any kind of psychological conditioning, whereby one can develop a particular attitude towards everything, re: "One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of nama and rupa in relation to concepts." Detachment comes from `understanding' presently arising dhammas. Thinking ones way no matter how `reasonable' it may sound, seems to me to invariably lead instead to more attachment. You say that `dhammas are without essence', is this the same as saying that they are `without individual characteristics'? And I see that you have arrived at this conclusion by reasoning that, because dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, they must lack `individual' characteristics? I think rather, that because the *have* individual characteristics, i.e. each one of those conditioning/conditioned dhammas that there can be this regularity, such as lobhamula cittas are lobhamula cittas and lokuttara cittas are lokuttara cittas. Anatta, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of individual dhammas and not because dhammas are conditioned. Each dhamma is anatta *and* conditioned. Anatta is not because of D.O., but D.O. is because of anatta and the fact of individual characteristics. TG: Care to demonstrate this last sentence with a quote from a Sutta? I base my thinking on observation and Sutta material as my primary resources. You want quotes where the Buddha say we should see things as empty, void, coreless, alien? I got a lot of those. But I haven't found a one where the Buddha says we should see things as ultimate realities ... or as with there own characteristics. The only reference to "own characteristics" appears in the pattisambhidammaga which denies it. The Buddha does advise to have a variety of "attitudes toward conditions" throughout the Suttas. I have to disagree with that comment in your above paragraph. In the past, whenever you have stated to the effect about the importance of knowing D.O. over knowing individual characteristics of dhammas, I am stirred when looking at just one link in the chain, `ignorance'. I think, "Does TG know ignorance? How can he be saying anything meaningful about the whole chain?" It seems to be that you are being driven by a theory and not taking into account what you don't know and what needs to be known. Meanwhile, ignorance as a reality ;-) is doing its job in adding bricks to samsara. TG: Well, the entire Pali Canon is a lesson in D.O. I don't know how many hundreds or thousands of times the Buddha uses the term D.O. in the Suttas. As for "individual characteristic," my understanding is the number is zero. Your post to Sarah was a heavy read, so it can be expected that I misunderstood your position. If so, you can correct me. Please allow for some time gap in any further response from me, as it becomes harder to find time for DSG. Metta, Sukinder TG: Sukinder, I like your challenging comments and analysis. Please continue to do so when you have such motivation...fire away! I suspect our understanding is much closer than you might think it is. I sometimes make a hard argument on a very fine point because this fine point is important and crucial in clearly realizing D.O. TG 56902 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello - moving to the second temple icarofranca Dear Kom! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The end of vassa brought a most interesting ritual. On the full moon > day, when the vassa was ending, instead of having a recital of the > Patimokkha, the monks gathered and asked for the chastisement from other > monks about the behaviors that they could improve. The theory was, > since they had lived with one another for the entire vassa, it would be > plain to other monks what behaviors were inappropriate or could be > improved. This would also give the newer monks or a student monk the > opportunities to chastise the elder monks and their masters. Nowadays, > according to other monks, this particular ritual can go badly (can you > imagine a bunch of people who may not have met until a few months ago > getting together and then starting criticizing one another?). At the > temple I was at, it went rather well, I think, as the monks ended up > criticizing themselves half the time instead of criticizing others. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kom, that´s one of my questions about the Patimokkha. At the Vinaya is stated that at least two days in a month - or two full moons - the collective reading of the Patimokkha and the Chastissement of fault monks could be done by all Sangha. It´s called the Uposattha day. One can just imagine that, at older times, many monks ought to be committed with Patthimokha´s study, memorization and public reading... could you tell me if all the theravadins temples perform this practice nowadays, or it is only done at certain places ? At a first glance, this pratice was one of the greatest efforts to raise true law commitment in ancient world...and there are some present day Jurisprudency scholar works that appoint the Vinaya true role on this way. Really thanks for the clear explanation, Kom!!! And now, some real good stuff: --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The second system was designed by V. Maha-Kaccayana during or after the > Buddha's life. This is the Maha-Kaccayana, not someone who had taken > his name, that were most excellent in expanding/detailing the Buddha > teachings taught in brief. In fact, the first book to study is called > the "Maha-Kaccayana Sutra". The Sutra here --- I am not sure if it > means the normal "Sutra" or "formula". To study this text, you > memorize (word-by-word, in Pali) some hundreds of passages, and then > the teacher would explain to you how these formula (the passages, which > are formulas and reminders) are applied. There are some 7 books in > total (very thick ones --- the binding is about 4 inch across and the > paper is letter sized). > > This second system is currently taught in Thailand at maybe four > different temples (one in the North [lampang], one in the south > [Hadyai], and two near Bangkok [this temple, and Mahadhatu temple). It > is not a system that most monks in Thailand study nowadays. The monks > --- coming from all parts of Thailand, Cambodia, and Sri-Lanka --- who > studied this system at this temple pretty much spent all their time into > studying it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ces´t la vie! But there´s not an easy and a smoothered paved way to learn Pali in full. One must spend all effort, stamina and mental power to masterize all pali grammatical details - such efforts NEVER could be diminished, blocked, mocked, encompassed or subestimated! And finally, a paramount explanation about Abhidhamma´s "Didacta Magna" - our dear Robmoult could have got some words to collated it!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I didn't really study Pali here (too much commitment), although I was > enthralled by the idea that there is actually a course of study designed > by one of these venerables most excellent in wisdom. I met, however, > too most excellent teachers deeply knowledgeable in the Vinayas (they > also knew Pali, a necessity if you want to learn these stuffs deeply > enough because many tikas still remain in Pali) from whom I greatly > benefited. I am not only grateful for the knowledge imparted to me > (and their willingness to answer the many questions I have), but for > their commitment to help/inspire other monks to fully take up the rules > and disciplines again. There are now a small group of monks gathering > every-year to discuss some knotty points in the Vinayas as practiced by > the respective monks, and these two teachers were the main speakers at > the gathering last year. > > The abbot at the temple is an old-time abhidhamma teacher (the temple is > actually labeled as being a Abhidhamma studying institution). As I > mentioned, he has produced the most prolific teachers in Thailand, both > laypeople and monks. The thing that impressed me was, I briefly studied > the Anusaya-Yamaka (a part of the Yamaka Abhidhamma Tipitaka) with him > at the requests of two nuns who wanted to study it. He had designed > the course such that for the brief hours that we had (4 hours over 2 > days), it was possible to continue studying the particular section from > the Tipitaka and commentaries without additional interactions with him. > He not only made it easy on himself, he also made it easy for the > students some of who had to travel long distance to come see him. > > At this temple, I studied Anapanasati --- from Vinaya pitaka, Sutra > pitaka, and Vissudhimagga --- Pacaya 24, Brahmavihara from > Vissudhimagga, a few subtle points of the rules and disciplines, and > others. It was a reasonably productive time as well. > > This brings me to and end of this tale. Sarah thought this might be > useful to some people, and I hope it is. I have no plan to participate > in DSG for a while, as writing takes a bit too much time for me, and the > writings --- right or wrong --- pretty much lasts forever nowadays. I > am leaving for Thailand for an extended basis tomorrow. > > I wish you all most productive time in the dhammas, and may you find > all the blessings in the magnificence of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and > the Sangha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Congrats, Kom ( *applause*!!!.) A real good explanation. Good luck in your new challenges and commitments!!! With Metta Ícaro ( Military officer, MSc on Science, and only an amateur on Abhidhamma and Pali studies) 56903 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:57pm Subject: Re: Never Happy gazita2002 Hello Tep, Hello James. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi James - > > >James: > >And I thought, "I will be so tired that I will wish that I could at > >least sit down and close my eyes for a little bit." > >Then it dawned on me, I wasn't happy with anything! ... ... azita: brillant James, and I like how it made u smile inthe end :-) > > > I am curious about that little moment when the wholesome thought > "dawned" on you. Do you have any idea how it happened? > > Sincerely, > Tep azita; IMHO, I think it shows the anatta-ness of the event. who knows what will happen next. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. 56904 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hey Azita! /impermance lbidd2 Azita: "Hello Chris, thanx, yes Larry looks like a big one -" Larry: Actually, Larry is just sitting here munching on a cracker. Scary~~~ Larry 56905 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow lbidd2 Hi Howard, I hope all goes well. My thoughts will be with little Sophie every day. Larry 56906 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - moving to the second temple lbidd2 Hi Kom, Thanks for this glimpse of the monastic life. I'm sure it will continue to unfold in your stream of becoming in the years ahead. Stay in touch! Larry 56907 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:45pm Subject: Vism.XVII,63 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 63. Furthermore, his non-abandonment of that ignorance about the four truths in particular prevents him from recognizing as suffering the kind of suffering called the fruit of merit, which is fraught with the many dangers beginning with birth, ageing, disease and death, and so he embarks upon the formation of merit classed as bodily, verbal, and mental formations, in order to attain that [kind of suffering], like one desiring celestial nymphs [who jumps over] a cliff. Also, not seeing how that fruit of merit reckoned as pleasure eventually breeds great distress owing to the suffering in its change and that it gives little satisfaction, he embarks upon the formation of merit of the kinds already stated, which is the condition for that very [suffering in change], like a moth that falls into a lamp's flame, and like the man who wants the drop of honey and licks the honey-smeared knife-edge. Also, not seeing the danger in the indulgence of the sense desires, etc., with its results, [wrongly] perceiving pleasure and overcome by defilements, he embarks upon the formation of demerit that occurs in the three doors [of kamma], like a child who plays with filth, and like a man who wants to die and eats poison. Also, unaware of the suffering due to formations and the suffering-in-change [inherent] in kamma-results in the immaterial sphere, owing to the perversion of [wrongly perceiving them as] eternal, etc., he embarks upon the formation of the imperturbable which is a mental formation, like one who has lost his way and takes the road to a goblin city. *********************** 63. apica so taaya catuusu saccesu appahiinaavijjataaya visesato jaatijaraarogamara.naadianekaadiinavavoki.n.nampi pu~n~naphalasa"nkhaata.m dukkha.m dukkhato ajaananto tassa adhigamaaya kaayavaciicittasa"nkhaarabheda.m pu~n~naabhisa"nkhaara.m aarabhati devaccharakaamako viya maruppapaata.m. sukhasammatassaapi ca tassa pu~n~naphalassa ante mahaapari.laahajanika.m vipari.naamadukkhata.m appassaadata~nca apassantopi tappaccaya.m vuttappakaarameva pu~n~naabhisa"nkhaara.m aarabhati salabho viya diipasikhaabhinipaata.m, madhubindugiddho viya ca madhulittasatthadhaaraalehanam. kaamupasevanaadiisu ca savipaakesu aadiinava.m apassanto sukhasa~n~naaya ceva kilesaabhibhuutataaya ca dvaarattayappavattampi apu~n~naabhisa"nkhaara.m aarabhati, baalo viya guuthakii.lana.m, maritukaamo viya ca visakhaadana.m. aaruppavipaakesu caapi sa"nkhaaravipari.naamadukkhata.m anavabujjhamaano sassataadivipallaasena cittasa"nkhaarabhuuta.m aane~njaabhisa"nkhaara.m aarabhati, disaamuu.lho viya pisaacanagaraabhimukhamaggagamana.m. 56908 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Thanks so much, Larry! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/19/06 7:33:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I hope all goes well. My thoughts will be with little Sophie every day. > > Larry > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 56909 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:17pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 403- Beautiful Cetasikas (Sobhana Cetasikas) Introduction (n) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction contd) Each sobhana cetasika has its own specific characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause (immediate occasion). When we perform dåna, observe síla, apply ourselves to the development of calm, samatha, or insight, vipassanå, sobhana cetasikas assist the kusala citta in carrying out its task of wholesomeness. The sobhana vipåkacittas are also accompanied by at least nineteen sobhana cetasikas. Vipåkacittas do not perform deeds, they are results. Sobhana vipåkacittas are results of deeds which are performed by kusala cittas accompanied by sobhana cetasikas. The rebirth-consciousness, for example, can be the result of a deed performed by kusala citta accompanied by sobhana hetus and other sobhana cetasikas. In that case it is sahetuka vipåkacitta (with hetus). The arahat does not perform kusala kamma, he is free from the cycle of birth and death. Thus, instead of kusala cittas he has kiriyacittas which are accompanied by sobhana hetus and other sobhana cetasikas. Sobhana kiriyacittas are accompanied by at least nineteen sobhana cetasikas. ***** (Ch24 - Sobhana Cetasikas Introduction finished!) Metta, Sarah ====== 56910 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ,Is ontology "idle chatter"? sarahprocter... Dear Layman J, Scott & RobM, I’m re-posting below an old message I wrote on this topic with commentary notes on idle talk which clearly highlight that ."there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention.” I'd be grateful if you'd take a look at it. It’s always the intention and nature of the citta and accompanying cetasikas which determines whether talk is ‘idle’ or not, wouldn’t you say? As we read in the texts, “‘Frivolous talk’ is speaking senseless, useless things. The volition which is at the root of all speech of this sort, and is named calumnious, etc, is here alone to be understood.’ “ (Atthasalini, translated as ‘The Expositor,PTS, Courses of Immoral Action) ***** S: In other words, we can talk about flowers, realities or rebirth with kusala or akusala cittas, with good intentions or idle chatter. Layman J, Thanks for joining DSG and for ‘breaking the ice’ here. We’ll look forward to more of your posts. Please tell us a little more about yourself, such as where you live, if you feel inclined to do (of course, this can also be with kindness and good intentions too:)). I’ll look forward to any further comments any of you (or anyone else) has on this topic. (RobM, it's always good to have you around and to read your posts). Metta, Sarah http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21442 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* > > Regards, > Victor > > * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html ..... Sarah wrote before: I meant to add a couple of comments: 1. Note the sutta is addressed to bhikkhus. What is idle or against the rules for bhikkhus is different than for lay people perhaps. 2. I don't understand the last item mentioned, "bhavabhava" to refer to discussions on "whether things exist or not". In the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". I understand these `becomings' to refer to future lives. As we know, only the arahant has eradicated all bhava -tanha or attachment to `becoming'. On the contrary, understanding `the world' and whether dhammas exist and can be known and what these dhammas lies at the core of the teachings imho. While I'm here, let me also requote from the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) in this connection: ***** "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to." ***** commentary notes: 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and when he attends to any mundane things through the four "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), the taint of ignorance arises and increases." 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." " ********** RobM wrote before: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition > > of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, > of > > armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of > > beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of > > villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of > > strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of > > diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" > > > > In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category > > of "idle talk". ====================================================== --- robmoult wrote (recently): > Hi All, > > In DN1, A.X 69 and elsewhere in the Suttas & Vinaya, the Buddha gives > a list of subjects of idle chatter (tiracchana-katha; low-talk, > beastly talk). > > The last item in the list is "iti-bhavabhava-katha" (note the second > a has an accent, which in Pali grammar can mean that it is a > concatenation of a word ending with "a" and a word starting with "a". > When a word starts with an "a", it is a negation - so we can expand > bhavabhava into "'bhava' and 'not bhava'". A common translation > of "bhava" is existence. > > For this reason, Maurice Walshe (in DN1.1.17) translates iti- > bhavabhava-katha as "talk of existence and non-existence". He also > includes a footnote as follows, "iti-bhavabhava-katha: also > rendered 'profit and loss', but the philosophical sense (as in the > Horner and Nanamoli translation of MN76) is preferable." > > In summary, I suggest that discussions of existence and non-existence > (ontology) is clearly mentioned by the Buddha as "idle chatter". 56911 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Hi Sukin, Good to read all your comments - I'm glad you persevered! --- Sukinder wrote: > Hi TG, Sarah and All, > > I composed an in-text reply to TG's post yesterday, but half way through > > I decided to stop as it was getting way too long. But the need to > respond is still there, so today I write more in a general way. .... S: Never mind about the length - you can always post it in installments. So no need to stop:). <...> > Your post to Sarah was a heavy read, so it can be expected that I > misunderstood your position. If so, you can correct me. Please allow for > > some time gap in any further response from me, as it becomes harder > to find time for DSG. > ... S: TG, I greatly appreciated your very detailed and well-considered reply to my post...and I'm also glad to see you've considered all Sukin's comments. Sukin, please continue your discussion with TG - I'm also behind on many, many threads:). Give DSG a little priority:)). Thanks again to both of you and also Tep for your reply to my earlier post. I look f/w to getting back to you and TG on them when I can. Metta, Sarah ====== 56912 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Hi Tep, I thought your response was very good and clear actually - relatively easy for me to respond to:)) --- indriyabala wrote: > [Sarah's comments] > > 1.) The khandhas are dhammas which exist, which manifest right now: ... > 2) This existence of dhammas, this actuality does not apply to > concepts,only to impermanent khandhas right now: ... <'Form that is > impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the > world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.' > ..feelings, ..., consciousness ..., SN 22:94> > 3) The 5 khandhas are dhammas which exist and which are to be known, > to be directly understood: ... It is these `things', these actualities > which are dukkha and which are conditioned to arise and fall away. > Please note that the meaning of dhammas is not the same as the meaning > of conditions. Dhammas are conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple > factors (and in turn condition other dhammas too): ... > 4) So we have the present dhammas, the present khandhas translated and > defined here as things, something, `that which exists', `that which > has become manifest', `has been born', `conditioned' and so on. > > Tep: The numbered comments are yours. They are quite smooth and > agreeable, with or without the referenced materials, except the > Bodhi's terminology (`ultimately real actualities'). Why are they real > only ultimately? ..... S: I liked the way you've summarised the comments and I'm very glad we're on the same page so far here, Tep:). These dhammas are real full-stop. 'Ultimately real' compares with 'conventionally real'. 'Sound' is real right now when there is hearing, but 'bird noise' or 'traffic' are only conventionally real, imagined real, based on the 'ultimately real' dhammas previously heard and attended to. .... > ..................... > > S: Dhammas to be understood right now are real, are existent and I > would say `underlie appearances'. > > Tep: Yes, I agree. But at times I have found it surprising that some ( > among us) disagree with the use of "real" as the descriptor of the > five aggregates. .... S: I'm very glad you agree, Tep. Perhaps you can help explain to TG and other sin your clear manner and with your access to sutta sources:). .... <...> > S: Dhammas are only ever discovered or known as `ultimately real > actualities' (or `realities' to use less of a mouthful) through the > direct development of awareness and wisdom. When satipatthana > develops, there is no doubt at all that the khandhas are real, they > are conditioned, they exist momentarily, they fall away immediately. > There have no self-nature, they have no substance, but when they > appear, they exist, they are real, they can be directly understood. > > Tep: Well said, Sarah (except that `ultimately real actualities'). > You've finally put everything together in a coherent way. .... S: Thanks, not my choice of words, but here B.Bodhi was trying to stay close to the Pali phrase. .... > ............................ > > S: The Dhamma can only be a refuge if the wisdom develops to directly > understand present realities as taught by the Buddha, clearly > distinguishing between rupa khandha and the various nama khandhas > which exist and appear, one at a time. > > Tep: Why is it not possible for more than one nama to exist and > dissolve together at the same time, given that such "dhammas are > conditioned in multiple ways, by multiple factors (and in turn > condition other dhammas too)"? .... S: Excellent and important question! As you indicated many namas exist and dissolve at the same time. To be precise, one citta and a minimum of 7 cetasikas (all namas of course) arise and fall away at every instant. They are conditioned in multiple ways (as you say), including being conditioned by the arammana (object) which may also be a concept. Clearly we cannot interchange 'conditions' and 'realities (dhammas)'. When these namas arise together, they experience one arammana (object) at a time only. As I just mentioned, this object may be a concept when there is thinking in the mind-door process. However, the object may also be a rupa (in a sense door process) or a rupa or nama as object in the mind door process. So we see that although many namas arise together, only one object is ever experienced. When it comes to the development of satipatthana or the understanding of present realities (which I was referring to), this object can only be a nama or a rupa, one at a time. Please ask for any further clarification on this point as I believe it to be an important one. I apologise for any lack of clarity in what I wrote before. Metta, Sarah p.s I'm glad to see your detailed post on the terms from the Patisambhidamagga - I'd like to join in your discussion with Han when I have a chance. Thanks. ======= 56913 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:30pm Subject: Re: Buddhist understanding of Stillbirth and Miscarriage christine_fo... Hello all, Some helpful replies elsewhere, from lay people and several Bhikkhus, to a truncated version of this post might be of value to anyone wondering about Dhamma references applicable to the subject of Stillbirth and Miscarriage: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=27247 metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 56914 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > .... Hallo TG, Sukinder Your discussion about "Understanding dhammas/understanding 'realities' " is on very fundamental topics. I will not complicate it unnecessary by participating; only one question, mainly to TG because I know Sukinder is not a 'formal' meditator; but I'm interested in the reaction of both (and others!) TG: "This is what I see happening when I compare Sutta practice and postulations with abhidhamma practice and postulations. I believe a flawed theory is misleading the abhidhamma practice and tending to make the mind grasp after dhammas ... dhammas, not really being the issue ... not grasping is the issue. By spending so much attention to "making dhammas realities," I see a mind as having little chance of detaching from them. Its a subtle disagreement, but perhaps important consequences." Joop: I don't know TG, what you exactly mean with "Sutta practice": study, contemplation or more? My practice is not only Sutta study (and the last two years Abhidhamma study) but also vipassana meditation (Mahasi style) So my question: don't you think this style of meditation combines both opinions of you: with a blank mind just letting the dhammas coming in (by the sense doors) and just observing and labeling them. And observing the moment that this dhammas start a process of making a concept of them (making 'this must be a airplane' of 'hearing') or grasping ('oh, how nice that sun un my face') etc. In fact this is being mindful of D.O. in oneself in the second meaning (the firsdt being 'in three lifetimes'). Metta Joop 56915 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist understanding of Stillbirth and Miscarriage sarahprocter... Hi Chris & all, --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > My understanding is that the Theravada tradition holds that the > Buddha taught that rebirth occurs at the moment the sperm, the egg > and 'being to be reborn' combine ... I have also found one possible > explanation for a miscarriage/stillbirth in the Buddha's teaching of > kamma in MN 135.5 Cuu.lakammavihanga Sutta, and wonder if there is > anything more explicit? <...> > Any comments would be appreciated. .... S: I was reflecting today about how very fortunate we are if we have some real appreciation and understanding of kamma. I was talking to a friend who had lost her first husband at a rather young age to cancer and her second husband is having heart surgery. Without any acceptance at all about kamma, she feels at a total loss to understand how these things could happen. By knowing about kamma and vipaka we will have confidence that whatever arises, must have conditions. I think these posts help make the point about the effects of kamma: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/51453 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/51281 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/40103 Thanks for sharing your reflections, Metta, Sarah p.s Azita, let us know how you're doing in brace position in Cairns with that big trouble-maker, Larry:) ===== 56916 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:01pm Subject: Re: Never Happy indriyabala Hi Azita, James - It is usually true that there are at least two ways (knowledges, points of views, models, etc.) for explaining any phenomenon. > azita; IMHO, I think it shows the anatta-ness of the event. who > knows what will happen next. > So I think another way to look at this situation is to carefully notice causes and effects so that we learn how to cause a favorable outcome to happen, while avoiding unfavorable ones. Sincerely, Tep ================== > > > > >James: > > >And I thought, "I will be so tired that I will wish that I could > at > > >least sit down and close my eyes for a little bit." > > >Then it dawned on me, I wasn't happy with anything! ... ... > > azita: brillant James, and I like how it made u smile inthe end :-) > > > > > > I am curious about that little moment when the wholesome thought > > "dawned" on you. Do you have any idea how it happened? > > > > Sincerely, > > Tep > > (snipped) > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita. > 56917 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:29pm Subject: How to Remove Distracting Thoughts ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to remove recurring Disadvantageous & Distracting Thoughts? What to do if evil thoughts mixed with hate, greed & confusion keeps coming back? 1: Redirect attention to a different advantageous object: Like when driving out a coarse peg from a piece of wood, using a fine peg, one can substitute and thereby replace : A: Desire for living forms with thinking on a disgusting rottening corpse... B: Desire for inanimate things with thinking on their impermanence... C: Aversion towards living beings with the mental release of universal friendliness... D: Aversion towards inanimate phenomena with noting their composition of elements... E: Delusion, doubt, uncertainty & confusion with thorough scrutiny of the Dhamma... If this does not help, then one can furthermore: 2: Consider the Danger in thoughts mixed with hate, greed & ignorance: These thoughts of mine are disgusting, dangerous, bringing much misery now & later, just like a young man or woman is disgusted & humiliated, if somebody hang a rottening carcase of a snake, dog or human around their neck, so should one regard distractions!!! If this does not help, then one can furthermore: 3: Stopping all flow of thought by Non-Attention and Non-Reflection: Like a man not wishing to see close his eyes and turn away from the place of the object. If this does not help, then one can furthermore: 4: Repeat reflection of the Root Cause of these Distractions: Searching for the reason of these mental afflictions - in itself - can cure them: Like a running man wishing calm finding no reason to run, starts walking... Then finding no reason to walk, he sits down, finding no reason to sit, he lies down... If this does not help, then one can furthermore: 5: Beating the evil mind down with the force of the good mind: By clenching the lower teeth against the upper teeth, and pressing the tongue up against the palate, like a strong man holds down a weak man by the shoulders so should one beat down mind with mind. Then these evil detrimental thoughts rooted in greed, hate, & ignorance are eliminated, & they vanish. By their evaporation mind settles down, becomes focused, concentrated & unified on the purely good thought! Source: Moderated speeches of the Buddha: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts Majjhima Nikaya 21: Full text and commentary is found here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel021.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56918 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:53am Subject: Re: Leaving Tomorrow abhidhammika Dear Howard Thank you for your kind replies regarding my questions. I wish you an enjoyable trip to Dallas, and wish Sophie Emma smooth and successful surgery, speedy recovery and improvement. Perhaps a few more questions may greet you when you come back! :-) With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, all - I am posting today, but I will most likely not be doing very much posting for the next two weeks. We are leaving tomorrow, shortly past noon, to fly to Dallas, TX for a two-week stay - hopefully not longer. On Wednesday (the 22nd) our granddaughter, Sophie Emma, will be having her open-heart surgery. < snip> I will check in with the list from time to time while away, and perhaps post a little as well. With much metta, Howard 56919 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - at the first temple sarahprocter... Kom, just as I’m about to post, I see from your latest/last post in the series that you’re possibly signing off for now and leaving for Bangkok.... Have a good trip and thank you so much for finding the time before departure to write these posts. Pls keep in touch if you can. S. ========= Hi Kom (& Tep), --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > There are at least a few stories (especially in Theragatha, > therigatha) that talked about monks reaching englightenment starting > with reflecting on their perfect sila. For example, there was a > monk who got on a boat. While in the middle of the ocean, he > reflected on the magnificence of the Blessed ones compared to the > ocean and became gladdened, and then he thought that he too had kept > the sila as vast as the ocean perfectly and became raptured by that, > and continued to achieve arahatship right on that spot... .... S: Do you remember which Theragatha it is? I just looked at the Kosiya Theragatha, but here the stress seemed to be on ‘knowing the meaning’ and then ‘shaping his actions’ accordingly. Also, I thought of the Telakani Theragatha and attainment of arahantship with reference to a ship and shore, but the commentary refers to having already found faith when ordaining. In other words, I understand ‘adhi-sila’ (and perfect following of Patimokkha) to be perfected at sotapatti magga. In other words, only through development of vipassana. .... > Of course, I haven't read detailed explanations about what "perfect" > really is. For a monk, perfect virtues may mean that when he > infracts one of the rules, he makes amend for it. Somehow, reading > the descriptions in the theragatha-therigatha however, I definitely > don't get this impression. .... S: Perfect in this context means under no circumstances will he infract one of the rules. (Of course, as we know when we read the Vinaya, it is the intention that is always the key here). The perfect sila of the sotapanna – no akusala kamma patha that can lead to an unhappy rebirth or breaking of the precepts. Of course, still other akusala kamma. I’ll be glad to hear your comments and any more details (preferably with refs) from Their-theragatha. .... > In a favorable environment (which the monks clearly have more > options than laypeople), I believe this to be possible (without > having reached enlightments, but clearly with all the sampajanna and > the rest). Infracting the rules for a monk (without being able to > make amends) have more severe penalties (preventing rebirths in > happy planes of existence, preventing enlightenments). For a > layperson, the severe penalities don't apply... The stakes are just > much higher to keep the sila. .... S: Yes, I agree. Even for lay people, there may be conditions for keeping excellent sila without any breach of the precepts and of course any kusala may be a condition for wise reflection and so on. .... > > S: This reminds me of a sutta Tep has quoted and a good discussion > I've > > had with him too. I believe it is implied here that it is the > keeping of > > rules with understanding, not just by following the tradition. Do > you have > > any other idea? > > I think this is a reasonable argument, which many monks do apply. > The example that Nina gave was, what does monk do when it is cold? > There is a rule prohibiting monks to wear clothes that are "like" > laypeople's. Now, what is "like" laypeople's clothes? <...> .... S: I don’t think this is the same kind of understanding which leads to the unshakeable confidence and wisdom of the sotapanna, do you? ..... > > On the other hands, understanding perfectly the justifications of > the rules and disciplines are clearly in the realm of only the > Buddha (In the Vinaya pitaka, when asked to issue Patimokkha by V. > Sariputta for the long endurance of the Sasana, the Buddha told V. > Sariputta that only he knew when to do that --- the commentaries > explains that the rules are issued on the basis of the wisdom > pertaining only to the Buddha). .... S: But I think we can make the point that the one who had developed satipatthana to the degree that confidence, wisdom and so on are balas (powers), unshakeable will not err in such sila regardless, don’t you think? ..... > My suspicion is that one keeps to the rules as much as possible --- > enough that it prevents anxiety and encourages gladness, but like I > said, this can be a dangerous assumption for only the Buddha knows > the benefits of following the rules, and the penalties of not > following them. .... S: That’s true, but I also think that the more wisdom (i.e satipatthana) develops, the more one can also see the benefit and importance for the Sangha. ..... > Sarah, I personally believe that if one have a strong confidence in > the Buddha (with wisdom, of course, otherwise, one wouldn't know > what a Buddha is), believing that these rules are not without > justifications, are not without benefits to oneself and others, then > one can blindly follow many of the rules mentioned (in fact, I think > one would have to follow many rules before understanding what the > benefits are since one tend to learn the basics of the rules before > all the details become known), and in fact, achieve constraints of > the bodily and verbal actions, up to a certain point. .... S: That’s true and that’s why Patimokkha sila is not adhi sila of itself and why restraint and following of the precepts can be out of tradition, by special undertaking or by eradication of the inclination. .... <..> >>. Otherwise don't we go on clinging to having a pure self? > > > > And even to Sathipastthana itself, but one doesn't get rid of the > raft before one reaches the shore, I think, so one develops all > kusala until there is no more condition for it. ..... S: I think this is the nub here – isn’t any clinging to be seen for what it is? I’d like to discuss this point more sometime with you, Kom. Thanks again for your fascinating and helpful series. Metta, Sarah ======= 56920 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Suan), --- abhidhammika wrote: > Thank you for your kind replies regarding my questions. > > I wish you an enjoyable trip to Dallas, and wish Sophie Emma smooth > and successful surgery, speedy recovery and improvement. > > Perhaps a few more questions may greet you when you come back! :-) > .... S: As Suan and the others have put it so nicely, I'd also like to wish Sophie Emma very well and will be thinking of you and all your family the day after tomorrow. I'll also try to find a few questions for you on return, though maybe not as spicy as Suan's :)) Best wishes to Rita, your son and daughter-in-law too. I know they'll all be very glad to have you with them at this time. (Not to mention little Sarah with all her tricks...) Metta, Sarah ======= 56921 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 3/20/06 7:54:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > Dear Howard > > Thank you for your kind replies regarding my questions. > > I wish you an enjoyable trip to Dallas, and wish Sophie Emma smooth > and successful surgery, speedy recovery and improvement. ------------------------------------------ Howard: You are very kind, Suan. Thank you so much! :-) ----------------------------------------- > > Perhaps a few more questions may greet you when you come back! :-) ----------------------------------------- Howard: I do look forward to that, my friend! ---------------------------------------- > > With regards, > > Suan > ===================== 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) 56922 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/20/06 8:20:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard (& Suan), > > --- abhidhammika wrote: > > >Thank you for your kind replies regarding my questions. > > > >I wish you an enjoyable trip to Dallas, and wish Sophie Emma smooth > >and successful surgery, speedy recovery and improvement. > > > >Perhaps a few more questions may greet you when you come back! :-) > > > .... > S: As Suan and the others have put it so nicely, I'd also like to wish > Sophie Emma very well and will be thinking of you and all your family the > day after tomorrow. -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Sarah! :-) -------------------------------------- > > I'll also try to find a few questions for you on return, though maybe not > as spicy as Suan's :)) -------------------------------------- Howard: :-) Much of "spice" is in one's own mind! -------------------------------------- > > Best wishes to Rita, your son and daughter-in-law too. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! -------------------------------------- I know they'll all> > be very glad to have you with them at this time. (Not to mention little > Sarah with all her tricks...) ------------------------------------- Howard: We're in (mental) training! LOL! ------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sarah =================== 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) 56923 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - moving to the second temple jonoabb Hi Kom I have enjoyed your series very much. It reminds me of my own time in robes ("on the other side of the fence" as Tep would say) as a samanera all those years ago. One of the main reasons behind the initial decision to ordain at that time was the belief that life as a monk afforded better conditions for the development of the path. However, by the time my ordination came around, I was coming to realise that time and place were not the crucial factors I had thought them to be. I think this took some of the edge off the experience for me! Nevertheless, the time I spent in robes left a lasting impression. Thanks for the very informative posts in this series. Please keep in touch on the list! Jon Kom Tukovinit wrote: >I was at the first temple for about 4 months, past vassa until the >Kathina (the robe) day. > >The end of vassa brought a most interesting ritual. ... > 56924 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Leaving Tomorrow nilovg Hi Howard. I am just back from a short trip, and when we were away we were talking about it that you would face some difficicult days ahead, from March 22. We extend all our good wishes to you and your family. We are with you in our thoughts. Nina. op 19-03-2006 17:17 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...: > Hi, all - > > I am posting today, but I will most likely not be doing very much > posting for the next two weeks. We are leaving tomorrow, shortly past noon, to > fly > to Dallas, 56925 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:28am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >>Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: >>H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the >>Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, >>objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without >>this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. >> >>As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a >>separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. >> >>So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in >>just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other >>conditions as anything else. >> >>Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... >>"With this, that; without this, not that." >> >>... we can say: >>"With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; >>without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." >> >>Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will >>occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" >>;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it >>a matter of there "doing nothing". >> >>Jon >> >======================= > Of course that is so, Jon! Every word of it! Does that mean that the >activities that are conventionally called "carrying out the practices urged by >the Buddha" are not possible? No. > If you agree with me on that, then we have no disagreement on the >"practice" issue. Else, we do. ;-) > > I don't expect we're going to agree on the "practice" issue any time soon ;-)). But I think you may now see at least the theoretical possibility of a certain occurrence (a moment of path development) without there necessarily being the need for any preceding conventional activity or arising of a specific intention. As the teaching on this-that conditionality tells us, with the appropriate 'this' conditions, the 'that' will follow. And if those conditions don't include conventional activities or specific intention, then those are not part of the conditioning factors, no matter how large a role they may seem to play in our life as viewed conventionally. But because the conditioned state cannot occur without the conditioning state(s) having occurred some time previously, it can never be said that the development of the path is a matter of doing nothing and waiting. Jon 56926 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Leaving Tomorrow upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/20/06 9:26:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard. > I am just back from a short trip, and when we were away we were talking > about it that you would face some difficicult days ahead, from March 22. We > extend all our good wishes to you and your family. We are with you in our > thoughts. > Nina. > ======================= Thanks so much, Nina! (I'm glad I saw your post now, as we leave the house for the airport in 30 minutes.) 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) 56927 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon- In a message dated 3/20/06 9:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > I don't expect we're going to agree on the "practice" issue any time > soon ;-)). > > But I think you may now see at least the theoretical possibility of a > certain occurrence (a moment of path development) without there > necessarily being the need for any preceding conventional activity or > arising of a specific intention. As the teaching on this-that > conditionality tells us, with the appropriate 'this' conditions, the > 'that' will follow. And if those conditions don't include conventional > activities or specific intention, then those are not part of the > conditioning factors, no matter how large a role they may seem to play > in our life as viewed conventionally. > ===================== A quick reply before shutting off the computer: No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! ;-) 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) 56928 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/20/2006 2:34:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: So my question: don't you think this style of meditation combines both opinions of you: with a blank mind just letting the dhammas coming in (by the sense doors) and just observing and labeling them. And observing the moment that this dhammas start a process of making a concept of them (making 'this must be a airplane' of 'hearing') or grasping ('oh, how nice that sun un my face') etc. In fact this is being mindful of D.O. in oneself in the second meaning (the firsdt being 'in three lifetimes'). Metta Joop Hi Joop I think I understand some of your question and I would say yes. The direct experience of the immediate feeling/sensation followed by contemplation that is also aware of the contemplation process as conditioned, impermanent, Dukkha, no-self. Also good to note the transition process of -- receiving, investigating, and determining. These IMO are not separate and distinct, they are transitions. A careful study of Suttas will reveal that Buddha speaks to impermanence as a "transitional process." This is crucially important in understanding conditionality: impermanence, and no-self. Not sure if this was along the lines of your question or not. TG 56929 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology nilovg Dear Scott, I love your rant! It would be beneficial for all of us if you would elaborate somewhat on this, how your world view altered. It is always delightful to hear others expressing in their own way their confidence in the Dhamma. Nina. op 18-03-2006 04:58 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > S: I just thought I'd say that the day or two after which I first > encountered the (at the time) absolutely shocking (to me) teachings > regarding paramattha dhammas were among the coolest days I've had > during my brief sojourn within Theravada Buddhism. I can't really put > the experience into words except to say that these teachings are all > that Bhikkhu Bodhi says. My world view was beautifully altered. > > Forgive the rant. 56930 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta nilovg Dear Tep and Han, please here also. The Sangiiti sutta is one of my favorites and I read the Pali commentary. The Co. is very helpful. Nina. op 18-03-2006 15:56 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > Tep: Let's discuss DN 33 at the other discussion group > if you agree. 56931 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Joop > > I think I understand some of your question and I would say yes. > The direct experience of the immediate feeling/sensation followed by > contemplation that is also aware of the contemplation process as conditioned, > impermanent, Dukkha, no-self. > > Also good to note the transition process of -- receiving, investigating, and > determining. These IMO are not separate and distinct, they are transitions. > A careful study of Suttas will reveal that Buddha speaks to impermanence as > a "transitional process." This is crucially important in understanding > conditionality: impermanence, and no-self. > > Not sure if this was along the lines of your question or not. > > TG Hallo TG Yes, it was but I realize I had two others questions implicit in my message too: - Is ('formal') sitting meditation a part of your practice when you use that word? - And when you talk about 'D.O.', do you use that in the two ways it can be used: (1) the three lifetimes interpretation and (2) interpretation within a short period (for example a second) See for example Buddhadasa and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/coarise5.htm Metta Joop 56932 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:53am Subject: Re: Never Happy buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > I am curious about that little moment when the wholesome thought > "dawned" on you. Do you have any idea how it happened? Well, haven't you asked the million dollar question?? ;-)) I am going to give you my best guess, but really I am not quite sure (and when I say "I" you should know I don't really mean "I"). I think that there were two factors in play when this realization hit me. The first is that I was practicing mindfulness- most specifically, I was practicing mindfulness of thoughts (meta-cognition). This mindfulness was light and easy. I wasn't trying to catch myself thinking "wrong" thoughts (akusala); I couldn't care less what kinds of thoughts I was thinking. At this point in my life I have made some decisions: I may be an angel or I may be a devil but I am just going to be what I am!! ;-)) So anyway, I was not judging my thoughts- I was simply letting them come and go as they arise. But I was also paying attention to the types of thoughts I was having and the patterns of thoughts. [Being in a foreign country, I often have to watch my thoughts and evaluate if I am thinking along cultural lines or if I am being open-minded to a new culture. So, I have developed this practice of mindfulness of thoughts somewhat extensively.] The other factor that I think came into play was my extreme tiredness. The ego lives and feeds on energy; when that energy is depleted the ego is most vulnerable to collapse. I was very exhausted and tired so the ego didn't have as much energy to perpetuate itself. Mix in mindfulness and a weakened ego and the equation equals some insight. Granted, it wasn't a big insight and my life hasn't really changed for the better. I am still a slave to ego. But every little glimpse gets me that much closer to freedom!! So, anyway, in conclusion, do I recommend a course of action to make this type of insight happen for you and anyone? Of course I do: follow the Noble Eightfold Path!! As the Buddha taught, many factors have to be lined up for insight to arise. I have just detailed a few of the factors here, concerning my little-baby insight; there are probably even more factors at play in this instance that I haven't listed. Try your best to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and let it take you to riches. Sila, Samadhi, and Panna…there ya go! "There's no place like home…there's no place like home…there's no place like home." ;-)) Metta, James 56933 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 9:05am Subject: Re: Never Happy buddhatrue Hi Azita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Hello Tep, Hello James. > azita: brillant James, and I like how it made u smile inthe end :-) James: Oh yes, you really hit on the crux of my message. When we have insights into how ignorant we are, they are reason for happiness and satisfaction. I smiled because I had really seen something for its true self- that is reason to smile. Anyway, as a side note, I just saw the news about the terrible hurricane hitting Australia. I hope that you and Christine are keeping safe! > azita; IMHO, I think it shows the anatta-ness of the event. who > knows what will happen next. James: Yes, good point. It does demonstrate anatta. However, I am not even close enough to discuss anatta in any detail. As you may notice, I shy away from anatta discussions. As long as I am still a slave to the ego, I don't feel I am not qualified to discuss such things. This is the standard I have for myself and I understand others may be different (for some, discussion may get them closer to realizing anatta...who knows??) > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita. > The same to you sweetie, James 56934 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:06am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Jon (BTW Howard, best wishes with regard to your situation.) Came into your discussion late. I was unclear who posted the section below that I "cut in" but I think it was Jon? Its a great analysis of Dependent Arising and its ramifications. Howard, you seem to be saying that there is a "conventional activities or realities" that work or have some motivational force apart from "ultimately real" conditions. (I think I might know you well enough to think that this is a language thing and underlying the language that you and Jon are basically in agreement.) As far as this "convention/ultimate" separation...I think this is a mistake. This is one reason I don't like breaking things down into "ultimate realities" etc. After all, if there are "ultimate realities" there must be realities that aren't ultimate. Makes sense if the mind is so inclined. I believe that language can be considered "conventional" so as to set it aside as being based on a viewpoint that normally incorporates a delusive outlook. However, I don't think there is such a thing as "conditions" that are more real than others. Cultivating insight is a condition and is condition based...as is every condition. A mind cannot "force" a condition to arise. For example...why are we studying Buddhism and other intelligent people (much more so than me for example) are not? The answer is that we have met with the conditions that are motivating us to do so. These other folks have not met with the right conditions. If as in Howard's case, an emergency comes up, he may not be able to proceed with his studies as he might have otherwise. Being that he is so inclined to study dhamma, when those emergency conditions subside, Howard will not doubt have more time for cultivation. Of course the Buddha and the long line of monks that preserved the teachings are necessary conditions that we rely heavily on as well. This study group is a condition that might tend to keep our minds more active in studying dhamma than if it did not exist. However, for some minds, it may be a distraction and perhaps they would be better off without it. There is just no way to "step outside" of mere conditions to "make something happen." Conditions make things happen. Education and effort are also conditions that set in place other conditions which may include motivation to study dhamma. The more we tend to study dhamma, the more we are inclined or motivated to continue. It seems like its "our idea," but I think its just conditions doing that voodoo that they do so well. ;-) I think this is sort of what Jon was saying ... if I read your posts right. I don't think there is such a thing as "conventional activities prescribed by the Buddha" TG >>Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: >>H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the >>Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, >>objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without >>this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. >> >>As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a >>separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. >> >>So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in >>just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other >>conditions as anything else. >> >>Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... >>"With this, that; without this, not that." >> >>... we can say: >>"With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; >>without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." >> >>Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will >>occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" >>;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it >>a matter of there "doing nothing". >> >>Jon In a message dated 3/20/2006 8:02:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Jon- In a message dated 3/20/06 9:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > I don't expect we're going to agree on the "practice" issue any time > soon ;-)). > > But I think you may now see at least the theoretical possibility of a > certain occurrence (a moment of path development) without there > necessarily being the need for any preceding conventional activity or > arising of a specific intention. As the teaching on this-that > conditionality tells us, with the appropriate 'this' conditions, the > 'that' will follow. And if those conditions don't include conventional > activities or specific intention, then those are not part of the > conditioning factors, no matter how large a role they may seem to play > in our life as viewed conventionally. > ===================== A quick reply before shutting off the computer: No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! ;-) With metta, Howard 56935 From: connie Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:29am Subject: Re: Hello - at the first temple nichiconn Offline Hi, Hopefully Right, .... > Of course, I haven't read detailed explanations about what "perfect" > really is. For a monk, perfect virtues may mean that when he > infracts one of the rules, he makes amend for it. Somehow, reading > the descriptions in the theragatha-therigatha however, I definitely > don't get this impression. .... S: Perfect in this context means under no circumstances will he infract one of the rules. (Of course, as we know when we read the Vinaya, it is the intention that is always the key here). C: Excepting the acittaka class of offenses [which carry a penalty even tho committed unintentionally or "with incorrect perception" (?)]... "train mindfully, with discrimination in this dispensation - diligently, with reverence" to paraphrase at least one sutta. S: The perfect sila of the sotapanna – no akusala kamma patha that can lead to an unhappy rebirth or breaking of the precepts. Of course, still other akusala kamma. I’ll be glad to hear your comments and any more details (preferably with refs) from Their-theragatha. .... C: not t-gatha, but Jewel Discourse: << Though he can still perform an evil action / By body even, or by speech or mind, / Yet he cannot conceal it... >> & commentary/illustrator: "such reprehensible transgressions of [training rules] made known as are called 'recoiled from by Enlightened Ones' (Vbh.246), for example, having a hut built [for himself without consulting the Community] (Vin.iii.143), sleeping in the same room [as one not fully admitted to the Community] (vin.iv.14), etc., but [at the same time always] other than and excepting the kind of intentional action reprehended in the world at large... ... the special quality of absence of concealment of what has been done, which is found in one with excellence of seeing, even if negligent". but who, starting where we are, might be(come) that "proficient in the practice leading to the Sure Course"? one possessing the three qualities of "moderation in eating, the guarding of the six doors and vigilance". [Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, Chapter II, 16, The Sure Course)] > In a favorable environment (which the monks clearly have more > options than laypeople), I believe this to be possible (without > having reached enlightments, but clearly with all the sampajanna and > the rest). Infracting the rules for a monk (without being able to > make amends) have more severe penalties (preventing rebirths in > happy planes of existence, preventing enlightenments). For a > layperson, the severe penalities don't apply... The stakes are just > much higher to keep the sila. C: Punna, said to have kept perfect bhikkhuni sila under 6 earlier buddhas, was a slave when she attained stream-entry during her last lifetime and, later, as a bhikkhuni, arahatship so her tendency to pride could no longer defeat her. But Patacara was our buddha's foremost "Keeper of Vinaya" among bhikkhunis. peace, connie 56936 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:37am Subject: arahat and D.O., Larry nilovg Hi Larry, I lost your post on this subject. I said that I would think it over. The arahat has eradicated ignorance and he has no more kamma formations. The sequences of the links have stopped. He is freed from sa.msara dukkha. We read in Vis. 64: Your discussions were also about understanding of what dukkha is, but I do not have the posts, I had too many. When I read your post I remember that I thought: there are different degrees of understanding the four noble truths, including the truth of dukkha. The understanding of the arahat is of a degree higher than the understanding of the sotaapanna. I am afraid I have not quite answered your point, Nina. 56937 From: han tun Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:29pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 882 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 882 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: When metta or loving-kindness is with us all the time through out the day and through out the night and metta or loving-kindness or universal-friendliness is with us wherever we go that is when we stand, when we sit, when we lie down, when we walk, it can be said that we are living with loving-kindness or we are staying with pure-living-on-loving-kindness or metta-brahmavihara. When there are only these thoughts of wishing all beings to be healthy, wealthy, free of danger etc etc, there will not be any thoughts of aversion like 'wanting to kill, wanting to hit, wanting to destroy etc etc'. So there is free of byapada or aversive-thinking. As these wishes are pure wishes and they are not profit-expecting wishes there will not be any sensuous-thinking or kaamacchanda. If one is doing metta and he or she is expecting some forms of profit by doing this metta then this is not a true one. If this happens, then there already arise sensuous-thinging or kaamacchanda nivarana or hindrance of sensuous-thinking. When one is stick to these metta-wishes all the time, there will not be any worrying and there will not be any straying of thoughts. Because their thoughts are all directed to beings and these beings are not discriminated as there is no more boundry when the practice is advanced. This is breakage of the 3rd hindrance called uddhacca-kukkucca-nivarana or hindrance of spreading-worrying-thinking. When one is consciously proliferating all these pure wishes of kindness on all beings without any limitation, he or she is alert, active, light, flexible, fast-minded, malleable, calmed and there is no sloth and torpor. This is breakage of the 4th hindrance called thina-middha-nivarana or hindrance of sloth-torpored-thinking. When there are not any of these 4 hindrances and one is diligently practising metta-bhavana in this way, he or she will be happy, calm, tranquilised with metta-bhavana and when there is no doubt or suspicion on the practice, then the 5th hindrance is said to be broken down and it does not arise any more when there is a continuous flow of thoughts of kindness-wishes to all beings. As there is free of all hindrances, the concentration at that particular time can be called as proximity-concentration or upacaara samadhi. Because this kind of concentration is proximate to the next step of much stronger concentration called absroptice concentration or appanaa samadhi. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56938 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] arahat and D.O., Larry lbidd2 Hi Nina, My question had to do with the end of dukkha and the awareness of dukkha. Ignorance ignores dukkha so an arahant must be aware of dukkha even though it has ended for him. I am talking specifically of the dukkha of impermanence, bodily painful feeling, and formations. This dukkha has not ended for an arahant except in the moments of consciousness of nibbana and somewhat during jhana. However the dukkha of painful mental feeling that accompanies dosa has ended for an arahant because dosa has ended. I had a hope that insight would end dukkha but that is the case only in a limited sense. This line of thought points me toward dosa as an important factor that has been neglected and somewhat deflates ambitions of 'seeing through' impermanence, formations, and physical pain. The dukkha that we experience with these dhammas isn't going to change except in the sense that it won't (eventually) be seen as 'my' dukkha. Larry 56939 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] arahat and D.O., Larry TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/20/2006 6:24:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Nina, My question had to do with the end of dukkha and the awareness of dukkha. Ignorance ignores dukkha so an arahant must be aware of dukkha even though it has ended for him. I am talking specifically of the dukkha of impermanence, bodily painful feeling, and formations. This dukkha has not ended for an arahant except in the moments of consciousness of nibbana and somewhat during jhana. However the dukkha of painful mental feeling that accompanies dosa has ended for an arahant because dosa has ended. I had a hope that insight would end dukkha but that is the case only in a limited sense. This line of thought points me toward dosa as an important factor that has been neglected and somewhat deflates ambitions of 'seeing through' impermanence, formations, and physical pain. The dukkha that we experience with these dhammas isn't going to change except in the sense that it won't (eventually) be seen as 'my' dukkha. Larry Hi Larry Jumping in with some comments ... My understanding would be that the only dukkha an arahat could experience is that of bodily pain. I would think the dukkha of impermanence and formations is only relevant to someone who still has attachments. I think I understand your reasoning...that an arahat is still subject to formations and impermanence and that's true...but there is nothing left in the mind that can allow those states to bring about dukkha except for bodily pain. You seem to indicate in your last paragraph that the dukkha eliminated by an arahat ends up being marginal. But I think that it is the dukkha that remains that is marginal. Yet it will be interesting to read what Nina thinks on the matter. TG 56940 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:29pm Subject: Final Knowledge ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Which Six Things leads to Final Knowledge? 1: Considering the Transience of all Constructions, leads to final knowledge... 2: Contemplating the Pain within all transient states, leads to final knowledge... 3: Comprehending the Impersonality in all suffering, leads to final knowledge... 4: Considering the advantage of Withdrawal from all, leads to final knowledge... 5: Contemplating the Fading Away of Greed in Disillusion, leads to final knowledge... 6: Comprehending the Freedom, Bliss & Peace within Ceasing, leads to final knowledge... Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V 345], section 55:3 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 56941 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb Hi Mateesha matheesha wrote: >>J: But a much more important issue, I think, and one that may >>interest Pablo, is whether a particular level of samatha is >>required in order for the development of awareness to begin. >>My understanding is that the answer to that question is >>clearly 'No'. In which case I'd like to suggest that there >>is more to be gained by discussing the development of >>satipatthana than of samatha, speaking in general terms. >>Satipatthana is the only form of kusala that leads to the >>ending of samsara. >> > >M: Indeed, however there might be more forms of satipattana practice >than mentioned in the satipattana sutta. For example see the samatha >first vipassana later method in the sutta below: > Many thanks for bringing up this interesting sutta. On the general question of there being more forms of satipatthana than mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta, I personally wouldn't see it this way. 'Satipatthana' means, I believe, any moment of mundane path consciousness, that is to say, moment of consciousness that is accompanied by the factors of awareness and wisdom of the level that take a presently arising dhamma as their object. So under whatever circumstances such a moment of consciousness occurs, it is satipatthana. There are no different forms. Nor would I see the Satipatthana Sutta as setting out *ways of * this occurring, but rather as explaining in some detail that it may occur under any and all circumstances, and that there is no limitation in terms of the dhammas that may be the object of such moment of consciousness. But if we are talking about particular sets of circumstances, as are given in the Satipatthana Sutta (by way of illustration, as I see it), then the circumstances described in the Jhana Sutta seem to be similar to those described in the anapanasati section of the kayanupassana division, namely, the development of insight to the level of enlightenment by a person who has already attained jhana. Of most significance is the passage, "He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self." This is straight-out satipatthana/insight development. Taking the second paragraph from your sutta quote below, I would paraphrase it along the following lines: "Enlightenment may be attained in dependence on the first jhana Take the case of a monk who has attained the first jhana. He develops insight into the true nature of any presently arising dhamma (of the 5 khandhas). When he has penetrated the 3 characteristics of all conditioned dhammas, he experiences Nibbana." (What is not apparent from a literal reading of the text, but I understand to be the case, is that development of insight in dependence on jhana refers to moments of insight immediately following after jhana citta that takes the just fallen away citta or its mental factors as object.) What is your own reading of this sutta? Jon >Anguttara Nikaya IX.36 >Jhana Sutta > >"I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the >first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the >dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the >infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell >you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension >of neither perception nor non-perception. > >"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the >first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it >said? There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, >withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first >jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by >directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there >that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & >consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an >arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, >not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having >done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is >peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications; the >relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; >dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > >... > 56942 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:00am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 404- Confidence/saddhaa (a) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch25 - Confidence/saddhaa) Confidence (saddhå) Saddhå, confidence or faith, is one of the sobhana cetasikas which arises with each sobhana citta: with the sobhana cittas of the sense-sphere (kåma-sobhana cittas), with the rúpåvacara cittas, with the arúpåvacara cittas and with the lokuttara cittas. Saddhå is not blind faith in a person, it is confidence in wholesomeness. There is saddhå with dåna, with síla and with bhåvanå. There cannot be any kind of wholesomeness without saddhå. Saddhå is called by the Atthasåliní the “forerunner” of wholesomeness. The Atthasåliní (I, Part IV, Chapter I, 119) states about saddhå: * "… It has purifying or aspiring as its characteristic. As the waterpurifying gem of the universal monarch thrown into water causes solids, alluvia, waterweeds and mud to subside and makes the water clear, transparent and undisturbed, so faith arising discards the hindrances, causes the corruptions to subside, purifies the mind and makes it undisturbed; the mind being purified, the aspirant of noble family gives gifts, observes the precepts, performs the duties of “uposatha”(1), and commences bhåvanå. Thus faith should be known to have purifying as its characteristic…" * *** 1) Uposatha days are days of fasting or vigil; uposatha is observed on the days of full-moon and new-moon, and sometimes also on the days of the first and last moon-quarter. In Buddhist countries there is a tradition for lay-followers to visit temples and to observe eight precepts on these days. ***** (Ch25 - Confidence/saddhaa to be continued) Metta, Sarah ====== 56944 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >I think I was pretty explicit in my original post as to why the discomfort >with the term "reality." > >Now, just going through Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and seeing his >multi-definitions of "Dhamma" ... "reality" does not come up once. Among other terms, he >does use "quality" and "phenomena/phenomenon." I prefer either of these as >they come with a minimum of ontological baggage. > You find that the term 'reality' carries too much 'ontological baggage'. Now I'm not sure what exactly that means, but I believe you are referring to connotations associated with the term as it is used in the Mahayana texts. However, those who are less familiar with the Mahayana texts than you may not have the same difficulty. But all this discussion about appropriate choice of English term is beside the point, I think. What is important, as I know you appreciate, is to consider the essential meaning of the original Pali term in a given context. To my understanding, the term 'dhamma', as used in the sense of 'presently arising dhammas', refers to the bare components ('phenomena') of the present moment, as distinct from our perception of a world of people and things as being the 'reality'. Do you find this distinction a valid and useful one? >I personally translate >"Dhamma" as -- "the natural order of events." But that's cumbersome. > The translation of 'dhamma' as 'natural order of events' is fine so far as it goes, but it is only one of several meanings of 'dhamma' and by no means fits all contexts. >Dhamma also is somewhat broader...but not broad enough to include "reality" IMO. > When you say that 'dhamma is not broad enough to include reality', you have in mind a particular meaning of 'reality'. The fact that no (English) dictionary meaning of 'reality' fits the meaning intended by the Pali 'dhamma' should come as no surprise, since the context of the teachings is so unique and non-conventional. Besides, isn't it really your own accustomed meaning of 'reality' that is being applied here (hence the ontological baggage problem)? On that basis, it would be impossible for any English term to be used the Pali, because there would always be someone who found the meaning inappropriate in some respect. The only solution would be to use something totally neutral like the letter 'A', (but then someone who is a mathematician may object that 'A' carries certain baggage ;-)). ;-)) >As far as using the original Pali term only ... that IMO does not clarify >anything to a group communicating in English. Everyone would have a vastly >different idea of what the term means. As much as possible, I prefer English to >be used. Just a few thoughts. > That's fine, but often all the possible English terms are inadequate and need to be 'relearn' in order not to convey an inaccurate impression. How can any English term, whether single word or phrase, adequately convey the meaning of 'citta', for example? Jon PS The Buddha often used familiar terms in a way that carried a meaning that was new t the listener, so that the listener had to 'relearn' the term. 56945 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:04am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, James - > >... > > >Howard: > ... My impression on DSG has been that Abhidhamma >as understood by the Abhidhammikas here says that wisdom knows nothing but >paramattha dhammas, which then would make final realization of the tilakkhana >problematical. But I understand Jon to have said, to paraphrase him, that wisdom >is wide ranging, and that to know a paramattha dhamma with wisdom includes >knowing *about* that dhamma with wisdom as as well, and so, it would include a >deep and direct understanding of the tilakkhana with respect to it, and it would >include relational knowledge pertaining to it including interdependencies of >various sorts between it and other dhammas. If I have misunderstood Jon, then >I await correction. > > No correction necessary! I think your previous understanding of things said here ('that the Abhidhamma says that wisdom knows noting but paramattha dhammas') is a misunderstanding of something that has been said, namely, that only dhammas (i.e., not concepts) can be object of insight development. This is explained in the Vism at par. 32, Ch XIV as follows: "Now the things classed as aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, etc., are the soil of this understanding ..." As to exactly *what* panna knows about dhammas, the answer to that is found in the description of the levels of insight, beginning with the difference between namas and rupas, and ending with enlightenment. Jon 56946 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta sarahprocter... Hi Tep & Han, Thank you for your discussion and translation work --- indriyabala wrote: > Thank you for finding AN V.71 and AN V.72 and also for the Pali > contribution. > > 1. Let's discuss the following Pali words a little bit. Using your > inserts as guidance, I found these words from the PTS: > <..> > "will lead to ceto-vimutti as the fruit (phala), ceto-vimutti as the > merit (phala-aanisansa), panna-vimutti as the fruit (phala) and > panna-vimutti as the merit (phala-aanisansa)". ..... S: Looking at other contexts, it seems that aanisa.msa means benefit Here in the PTS translation, they use ‘advantages’ ‘Monks, these five things, when made become, made an increase in, have as their fruits: mind emancipation (ceto-vimutti) and the advantages thereof, insight emancipation (pa~n~naa-vimutti) and the advantages thereof. In the Nyantiloka dictionary it says that ceto-vimutti in the highest sense refers to the fruition of arahantship, particularly ‘the concentration associated with it’. It also says that,as here, it is ‘often linked with pa~n~naa-vimutti, the ‘deliverance through wisdom’. .... > The translation of 'pahaana' as 'abandoned' or 'eliminated' is very > good; the meaning is not the same as 'given up' or 'renunciation', I > think. Why? Pahaana in Thai (as a verb) means 'kill', eliminate; the > kilesa that gets killed will never ever come back again. .... S: Pahaana as in pahaana pari~n~naa (full understanding by overcoming) which we discussed in detail before I think – abandoning of defilements at moments of enlightenment, as in the Pahana Sutta in SN etc. In between the stages of insight and stages of enlightenment, there are the anupassanaas or ‘contemplations’ (of course with wisdom (pa~n~naa), not contemplating as we understand the word in its usual sense. Thanks again for your reflections and for Han’s help too (#56851). I look forward to reading more of your comments and discussion. Metta, Sarah ========== 56947 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:10am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: >Hi Howard (and Jon), > > > > ... According to "The Questions of King >Milanda", panna (wisdom) is described as being like the "light" >which comes on in a dark room. Therefore, I don't think it is >proper to see panna as something different than normal mental >processing of phenomena; it is just something that allows one to see >that same mental processing in a new light. > No argument from me about anything you say here. >To say that panna can >see a dhamma (phenomena) and then instantly know the three >characteristics of that dhamma, in that very instant, smacks to me >of omniscience and not panna. > Right (more agreement!). The development of panna can only occur very, very gradualy. Jon 56948 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon- >... > > > No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded >by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas >arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years >of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! >;-) > > I was going to say, 'No surprise here', but then I noticed that a new turn of phrase has crept in to your standard rebuttal. Instead of talking about *undertaking conventional activities* prescribed by the Buddha, you are now talking about *the arising of realities underlying the conventional activities* prescribed by the Buddha. If you keep going this way, Howard, we'll soon have nothing to disagree about!! Jon PS Next we need to work on the *prescribed by the Buddha* part ;-)) PPS Hoping you had a good flight, and that the medical news is good. 56949 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > >Hi Howard and Jon > >Came into your discussion late. I was unclear who posted the section below >that I "cut in" but I think it was Jon? Its a great analysis of Dependent >Arising and its ramifications. > > Actually, it was Howard's framework, I merely gave a specific instance. Howard said: H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. I agree it was very well put. Now if only Howard could see that it applies throughout the teachings ;-)) >... > >There is just no way to "step outside" of mere conditions to "make something >happen." Conditions make things happen. Education and effort are also >conditions that set in place other conditions which may include motivation to >study dhamma. The more we tend to study dhamma, the more we are inclined or >motivated to continue. It seems like its "our idea," but I think its just >conditions doing that voodoo that they do so well. ;-) > > Peggy Lee, wasn't it? That date you (us), TG ;-)) Seriously though, well said. > I think this is sort of what Jon was saying ... if I read your posts right. > >I don't think there is such a thing as "conventional activities prescribed >by the Buddha" > > Right on, TG Jon 56950 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology scottduncan2 Dear Nina, N: "It would be beneficial for all of us if you would elaborate somewhat on this, how your world view altered. It is always delightful to hear others expressing in their own way their confidence in the Dhamma." Thank you for the request. Please understand that I don't wish to brag about this. I'm afraid that the excitement that arises in learning the Dhamma is forcing me to also learn about conceit and how deep and subtle is the belief in self. I'm sorry to say that I find I'm often having to subdue arising feelings of inflation, as if what I learn somehow goes to my head. That notwithstanding, I'll try to respond. At the time I encountered the teachings regarding the paramattha dhammas I had been struggling to find my way within the Buddhist field. My only contact had been with others on another web site. Suffice it to say that I had arrived there after the death of my wife (which, along with having to move off the little farm we had been creating together, totally stripped me of the entire life I had been living up until then). It isn't unusual for such events to change a guy. I guess I had received a deep and wordless teaching about impermanence and found that I had just let a lot of things go. And I had arrived at the Buddhist doorstep. I'd been confused by the many "buddhisms" within Buddhism. I'd sort of felt my way, bit by bit, into the Theravada school, which somehow seemed to be a fit for my temperament. I'd been involved in some thread or other, I don't recall the details at the moment, when I read a brief post by Robert K. in which he pointed out that what I had been trying to figure out at the time was a concept, and that there were only a few realities of note but many, many concepts. I just remember being brought to a complete standstill. Although what he was saying was still conceptual to me, the shock I felt was not. Reading, a bit later, about paramattha dhammas in contradistinction to concepts was like having the rug pulled out from under me and finding a very deep pool underneath. It was like being taken out of a very narrow confine, within my own conceptually limited head, and finding a lot of space in which to move. My world view seem much more defined somehow. I looked at others and other things very differently. Some of what people get all caught up in I could see to be missing the point. It seemed to me that it was more clear what matters and what does not. I remember having to write Robert and ask him who he was, kind of like getting the insurance of the guy whose car just ran into you, or getting the number of the player who just body-checked you so you could get him back. It was like I needed to get a sense for who this guy was who was telling me this amazing thing, I guess because in a general forum you get all sorts of nonsense written by people who can sound knowledgeable. And this hit me hard. At any rate, the whole thing just had, for me, the total ring of truth and, although my understanding is very incomplete, I found that it was no longer a question of what is correct in all the vast reams of thought and ideas within Buddhism today, it was a matter of learning more about this. Some of the debates about paramattha dhammas are difficult for me to enter because I don't actually doubt that this is how things are. I'm as nervous about taking stuff at face value as the next cynic but then again it makes no sense to question what feels correct. I feel no need to learn intellectually or through debate what just is, to me, a given. Well Nina, thats my best shot at responding to your request. Sincerely, Scott. 56951 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta hantun1 Dear Nina (and Tep), I read Sangiiti sutta only just now, as Tep has introduced it for discussion. It is a very long sutta listing the dhammas in expanding numerical groups. There are 33 sets of Two Things, 60 sets of Three things, 50 sets of Four Things, 26 sets of Five Things, 22 sets of Six Things, 14 sets of Seven Things, 11 sets of Eight Things, 6 sets of Nine Things, and 6 sets of Ten Things. And they are listed like maatika (matrices) in Abhidhamma. So if one tries to go into detail for each and every set the task would be enormous. Dear Nina, as the Sangiiti sutta is one of your favorites and as you read also the Pali commentary, it would be much easier for you to understand. In my discussions with Tep on suttas he is the leader and I just follow him. Now, with your knowledge of the sutta and the commentary, you and Tep could lead the way and I will just follow. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep and Han, > please here also. The Sangiiti sutta is one of my > favorites and I read the > Pali commentary. The Co. is very helpful. > Nina. 56952 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" abhidhammika Dear Jon, TG and all Jon wrote: "That's fine, but often all the possible English terms are inadequate and need to be 'relearn' in order not to convey an inaccurate impression. How can any English term, whether single word or phrase, adequately convey the meaning of 'citta', for example?" When I migrated to Australia in 1980, I needed to relearn the term 'real' in Real Estate. A "Real Estate agent" sounded odd to me at that time as I felt how anyone could have an adjective 'real'in front of their title. Gradually, I come to accept the new meaning of 'real' in Real Estate, and no longer find it sounding odd. In every language, there are many words with different meanings. Mastery of a foreign language begins with ability to understand and use homonyms to fit the desired meaning within the relevant context. Moreover, compilers of dictionaries usually prove to be very versatile in adding new meanings to the same words to reflect the living and changing nature of the language as being used by new generations of speakers and writers to express new developments in every filed of human activites. This means that compilers of English language dictionaries may eventually include the term 'reality' in the original Buddhist sense that is (non-Mahayanist, non- Vedic). Jon also wrote: "The Buddha often used familiar terms in a way that carried a meaning that was new t the listener, so that the listener had to 'relearn' the term." That is spot-on, Jon. The terms 'Attaa', 'Attabhaavo', 'Brahma.na' and the like no longer have Vedic meanings when used by the Buddha in the original Buddhist (non-Mahayanist) context. I hope that TG's 'terminology anxiety' would not progress to pathological proportions. :-) As Sarah pointed out, the term 'conditions' cannot replace the term 'reality' adequately. With regards, Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >I think I was pretty explicit in my original post as to why the discomfort >with the term "reality." > > You find that the term 'reality' carries too much 'ontological baggage'. Now I'm not sure what exactly that means, but I believe you are referring to connotations associated with the term as it is used in the Mahayana texts. However, those who are less familiar with the Mahayana texts than you may not have the same difficulty. since the context of the teachings is so unique and non-conventional. Besides, isn't it really your own accustomed meaning of 'reality' that is being applied here (hence the ontological baggage problem)? On that basis, it would be impossible for any English term to be used the Pali, because there would always be someone who found the meaning inappropriate in some respect. carries certain baggage ;-)). ;-)) > That's fine, but often all the possible English terms are inadequate and need to be 'relearn' in order not to convey an inaccurate impression. How can any English term, whether single word or phrase, adequately convey the meaning of 'citta', for example? Jon PS The Buddha often used familiar terms in a way that carried a meaning that was new t the listener, so that the listener had to 'relearn' the term. 56953 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:43am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Jon) - -----Original Message----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:06:26 EST Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? Hi Howard and Jon (BTW Howard, best wishes with regard to your situation.) ----------------------------- Thanks, TG! ---------------------------- Came into your discussion late. I was unclear who posted the section below that I "cut in" but I think it was Jon? Its a great analysis of Dependent Arising and its ramifications. Howard, you seem to be saying that there is a "conventional activities or realities" that work or have some motivational force apart from "ultimately real" conditions. (I think I might know you well enough to think that this is a language thing and underlying the language that you and Jon are basically in agreement.) --------------------------- Howard: That's not what I'm saying. I agree that there are no phenomena other than what the Abhidhamma folks call paramttha dhammas. What I do say is that they occur interrelatedly, forming patterns that ur minds process into to conventional objects. Or, put another way, all conventional objects are mind projections that overlay paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------- As far as this "convention/ultimate" separation...I think this is a mistake. This is one reason I don't like breaking things down into "ultimate realities" etc. After all, if there are "ultimate realities" there must be realities that aren't ultimate. Makes sense if the mind is so inclined. I believe that language can be considered "conventional" so as to set it aside as being based on a viewpoint that normally incorporates a delusive outlook. However, I don't think there is such a thing as "conditions" that are more real than others. Cultivating insight is a condition and is condition based...as is every condition. A mind cannot "force" a condition to arise. For example...why are we studying Buddhism and other intelligent people (much more so than me for example) are not? The answer is that we have met with the conditions that are motivating us to do so. These other folks have not met with the right conditions. If as in Howard's case, an emergency comes up, he may not be able to proceed with his studies as he might have otherwise. Being that he is so inclined to study dhamma, when those emergency conditions subside, Howard will not doubt have more time for cultivation. Of course the Buddha and the long line of monks that preserved the teachings are necessary conditions that we rely heavily on as well. This study group is a condition that might tend to keep our minds more active in studying dhamma than if it did not exist. However, for some minds, it may be a distraction and perhaps they would be better off without it. There is just no way to "step outside" of mere conditions to "make something happen." Conditions make things happen. Education and effort are also conditions that set in place other conditions which may include motivation to study dhamma. The more we tend to study dhamma, the more we are inclined or motivated to continue. It seems like its "our idea," but I think its just conditions doing that voodoo that they do so well. ;-) I think this is sort of what Jon was saying ... if I read your posts right. I don't think there is such a thing as "conventional activities prescribed by the Buddha" TG >>Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: >>H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the >>Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, >>objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without >>this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. >> >>As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a >>separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. >> >>So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in >>just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other >>conditions as anything else. >> >>Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... >>"With this, that; without this, not that." >> >>... we can say: >>"With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; >>without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." >> >>Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will >>occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" >>;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it >>a matter of there "doing nothing". >> >>Jon In a message dated 3/20/2006 8:02:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Jon- In a message dated 3/20/06 9:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > I don't expect we're going to agree on the "practice" issue any time > soon ;-)). > > But I think you may now see at least the theoretical possibility of a > certain occurrence (a moment of path development) without there > necessarily being the need for any preceding conventional activity or > arising of a specific intention. As the teaching on this-that > conditionality tells us, with the appropriate 'this' conditions, the > 'that' will follow. And if those conditions don't include conventional > activities or specific intention, then those are not part of the > conditioning factors, no matter how large a role they may seem to play > in our life as viewed conventionally. > ===================== A quick reply before shutting off the computer: No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! ;-) With metta, Howard 56954 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:54am Subject: Re: arahat and D.O., Larry buddhatrue Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > My question had to do with the end of dukkha and the awareness of > dukkha. Ignorance ignores dukkha so an arahant must be aware of dukkha > even though it has ended for him. I am talking specifically of the > dukkha of impermanence, bodily painful feeling, and formations. This > dukkha has not ended for an arahant except in the moments of > consciousness of nibbana and somewhat during jhana. However the dukkha > of painful mental feeling that accompanies dosa has ended for an arahant > because dosa has ended. > > I had a hope that insight would end dukkha but that is the case only in > a limited sense. To butt into this thread, I believe that the arahant had eliminated all dukkha. Physical pain is not dukkha, it is merely a sensation. Physical pain only becomes dukkha when we don't want it to happen to "me". To say that an arahant isn't free from dukkha is to negate the Four Noble Truths. Metta, James 56955 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:55am Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Excelleent and very helpful! :-) With metta, Howard -----Original Message----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:04:27 +0800 Subject: Re: Learning Emptiness from You!! (Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakk... Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, James - > >... > > >Howard: > ... My impression on DSG has been that Abhidhamma >as understood by the Abhidhammikas here says that wisdom knows nothing but >paramattha dhammas, which then would make final realization of the tilakkhana >problematical. But I understand Jon to have said, to paraphrase him, that wisdom >is wide ranging, and that to know a paramattha dhamma with wisdom includes >knowing *about* that dhamma with wisdom as as well, and so, it would include a >deep and direct understanding of the tilakkhana with respect to it, and it would >include relational knowledge pertaining to it including interdependencies of >various sorts between it and other dhammas. If I have misunderstood Jon, then >I await correction. > > No correction necessary! I think your previous understanding of things said here ('that the Abhidhamma says that wisdom knows noting but paramattha dhammas') is a misunderstanding of something that has been said, namely, that only dhammas (i.e., not concepts) can be object of insight development. This is explained in the Vism at par. 32, Ch XIV as follows: "Now the things classed as aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, etc., are the soil of this understanding ..." As to exactly *what* panna knows about dhammas, the answer to that is found in the description of the levels of insight, beginning with the difference between namas and rupas, and ending with enlightenment. Jon 56956 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] arahat and D.O., Larry nilovg Hi Larry, op 21-03-2006 02:24 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > My question had to do with the end of dukkha and the awareness of > dukkha. Ignorance ignores dukkha so an arahant must be aware of dukkha > even though it has ended for him. I am talking specifically of the > dukkha of impermanence, bodily painful feeling, and formations. This > dukkha has not ended for an arahant except in the moments of > consciousness of nibbana and somewhat during jhana. However the dukkha > of painful mental feeling that accompanies dosa has ended for an arahant > because dosa has ended. ------- N: As the sutta (Kindred Sayings IV, about feeling) expresses it: the arahat experiences only one pain, and that is bodily pain, not mental pain. It is as TG says. As Howard also explained, for the arahat it does not matter when there is bodily pain. This is only vipaaka, result of former kamma. Don't we suffer above all from mental unhappy feeling? But as you say, when he experiences jhaana or has phala samaapatti, with nibbaana as object, there is no bodily pain. Also dukkha in change: it does not matter for him. This is life, it is as it is. He has equanimity about this. As to dukkha of formations, he knows: arising is dukkha, arising of naama and ruupa in rebirth is dukkha, it is not happiness. He has abandoned all clinging to life and rebirth. He is not misled by sukha saññaa, taking for happiness what is dukkha. He has left behind the dukkha of samsaara, because he will not be reborn. He has overcome this kind of dukkha. -------- L: I had a hope that insight would end dukkha but that is the case only in > a limited sense. This line of thought points me toward dosa as an > important factor that has been neglected and somewhat deflates ambitions > of 'seeing through' impermanence, formations, and physical pain. The > dukkha that we experience with these dhammas isn't going to change > except in the sense that it won't (eventually) be seen as 'my' dukkha. --------- N: Your last remark is good. Let us talk first about bodily and mental pain. The sotaapanna does not see this dukkha as my dukkha, he does not see it as my suffering that is lasting. He sees it as only a conditioned element. Through insight he has a deeper understanding of the dukkha of all conditioned dhammas, sa"nkhaara dukkha, that is, their impermanence. He has realized arising and ceasing in two ways: the arising and falling away of realities in a moment, and in the way of the D.O.: he directly realizes that so long as there is ignorance there are conditions for sa"nkhaara dukkha. But with the ceasing of ignorance, there is no more arising of nama and rupa. This does not mean that the sotaapanna has no sadness. In case of a great loss or a grave sickness, he may well have dosa, afflicted and overcome by sadness. But, because of insight he realizes sadness as a conditioned element, that does not last, and that is inherent in life in samsara. The five indriyas of confidence, energy, sati, concentration and understanding have become balas, powers, for him. That means, sati sampajañña can arise in any situation, no matter how great his sadness or joy is. When he has sadness, he can be aware of it and realize it as a conditioned dhamma. At the moment of understanding there is no dosa at the same time, but there is a short moment of peace and evenmindedness. Paññaa is accompanied by the cetasikas of calm and tatramajjhattataa, evenmindedness. Then dosa arises again, but such akusala cittas are interspersed by kusala cittas with insight. We can see that the Abhidhamma is most beneficial for our daily life: it teaches in detail about the different types of cittas that arise and fall away in succession. How is it for the worldling? He is only beginning to understand, he may understand intellectually about akusala citta, kusala citta, insight. Still, even a beginning understanding of dhammas as non-self, not lasting, can be a great consolation. Confidence in the Dhamma can increase, until it is unshakable when one has become a sotaapanna. Nina. 56957 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - Thanks for the kind wishes below! As for how I formulated my language, it reflects the way I always understand this business, but it was purposely formulated to avoid ordinary locutions that are prone to misinterpretation and "pouncing"! LOL! My perspective has been this all along, but not my language. Of course, if I continue with such techno-speak language as this it will get to the point that no one who speaks in a normal way will understand me! I did, as you noted, mix in some ordinary language too, else the intentional point about the Buddha's prescribing just couldn't have been made, at least not in a way succinct enough for anyone to have a clue of what I meant! With metta, Howard -----Original Message----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:23:13 +0800 Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon- >... > > > No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded >by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas >arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years >of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! >;-) > > I was going to say, 'No surprise here', but then I noticed that a new turn of phrase has crept in to your standard rebuttal. Instead of talking about *undertaking conventional activities* prescribed by the Buddha, you are now talking about *the arising of realities underlying the conventional activities* prescribed by the Buddha. If you keep going this way, Howard, we'll soon have nothing to disagree about!! Jon PS Next we need to work on the *prescribed by the Buddha* part ;-)) PPS Hoping you had a good flight, and that the medical news is good. 56958 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 0:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta nilovg Dear Han. you made me laugh. You are a very wise person, I sense that, and you keep too much to the background. We can all profit from you counsels. I talked with Lodewijk about you and told him that you recite each day the anatta lakkhana sutta. He said that it means a great deal that you study this sutta. He thinks that you can help others telling what it personally means to you. He said he would like you to share your views and comments on the texts which you read and contemplate. I really like to listen to someone's personal experiences in the light of the teachings. Of course when you have time and it is convenient to you. People have different ideas about reciting and in Myanmar and Sri Lanka it is a tradition. Suan wrote an impressive post about Myanmar monks with great abilities to learn all the texts by heart. This gives us confidence in the oral tradition. Ken O once said that he find that knowing texts by heart helps him in times of trouble. And when you learn by heart you also consider more deeply the text. We never know whether we land in hospital where we do not have access to books and then knowing texts by heart can help. But it is all a personal matter. Nina. op 21-03-2006 14:41 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > In my discussions with Tep on suttas he is the leader > and I just follow him. Now, with your knowledge of the > sutta and the commentary, you and Tep could lead the > way and I will just follow. 56959 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 0:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology nilovg Dear Scott, I am really impressed by your post. You found out what really matters, but it is a tremendous thing to do after such a shock, 'a deep and worldless teaching about impermanence'. By conditions you were pushed as it were towards finding out about paramattha dhammas. Lodewijk and I often discuss life, and how we do not ask for certain things to happen, but they happen just because of the appropriate conditions. Thank you very much for your post, I learn from it, Nina. op 21-03-2006 14:24 schreef Scott Duncan op scduncan@...: > At the time I encountered the teachings regarding the paramattha > dhammas I had been struggling to find my way within the Buddhist > field. My only contact had been with others on another web site. > Suffice it to say that I had arrived there after the death of my wife > (which, along with having to move off the little farm we had been > creating together, totally stripped me of the entire life I had been > living up until then). It isn't unusual for such events to change a > guy. I guess I had received a deep and wordless teaching about > impermanence and found that I had just let a lot of things go. And I > had arrived at the Buddhist doorstep. 56960 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 0:23pm Subject: Lodewijk's post on the long way. nilovg Dear friends, Lodewijk and I had some pleasant dhamma discussions at the hotel while having dinner. I had pencil and paper at hand, after the soup, and the waiter (as is the custom) was going to explain all the details about the wine, where it came from, about its age, the ingredients, etc. But he saw me writing feverishly while Lodewijk was dictating, and so he said he would put off his wine explanation. We had been discussing the text about the Bodhisatta Sumedha, who lived during the time of the Buddha Kassapa. He would be the next Buddha after aeons and aeons, since he had to accumulate all the perfections. When people heard that he would be the next Buddha after an innumerable time, they rejoiced, because if they could not attain during the time of the Buddha Kassapa they would have another opportunity to attain at the time of the future Buddha. Khun Sujin often likes to refer to this episode and emphasizes: people rejoiced, they were not discouraged about hearing that the development of paññaa takes such a long, long time (ciira kala bhaavanaa). I said to Lodewijk that I heard people say that they want to attain during this life and feel hopeless if it would take aeons. Lodewijk said: on the contrary, it is most encouraging and opens up new perspectives, it strengthens saddhaa. He said: We also discussed that life is like a dream, a notion I somewhat struggle with. But true, our nature walks, the concert we heard, also looking back at our stay in Thailand, it all was like a flash. Kh Sujin said that we find events so important, but knowing it passes like a flash leads to (let me say) a little more detachment. Frankly, I find it hard to swallow that my life with Lodewijk is like a dream (he is eighty now). All this is in the context of visible object that falls away and then there is a next one, and it has past already before we note it, only the image, nimitta, is there. Nina. 56961 From: han tun Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:17pm Subject: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 883 ) hantun1 Dhamma Thread ( 883 ) (U Htoo Naing requested me to send this. Han Tun) Dear Dhamma Friends, Kamma.t.thaana: When practising pure-living-on-loving-kindness or metta-brahmavihara the advanced practitioner will notice that there is no hindrances at a time. His mind is pure and free of contamination with aversion, sensuous desire and any other dirts or defilements. He is directing all his loving mind to unlimited beings. This is vitakka. Vitakka or initial-application is working well and they do not direct to other thoughts and they just have the thoughts of loving-kindness wish to unlimited beings. His application of mind to unlimited beings will not depart from those beings and all the mind will be there all the time by reviewing after reviewing on beings with loving-kindness. This is vicaara. This is sustained application or sustained application of the mind to the object 'unlimited beings'. To be unlimited, all the boundaries have to be broken down and all beings have access to equal amount of loving-kindness. When these boundaries are broken down and there is continuous arising of loving-kindness wishes on unlimited beings and this is accompanied by thrilling happiness or suffusing joy which makes the whole body lighter and lighter and it seems that each and every body cell becomes lighter and they are suffused with great joy derived from mental activities of loving-kindness. This is piiti or 'suffused joy'. As there is no defilements, no dirts, no wavering, the mind at that time is well calm and tranquilised. And the mind feels peaceful and free of any physical and mental distress. This is sukha. This is tranquility. This is calmness. The mind is in the state of advanced calmness and stillness. This is ekaggata or one-pointedness. These factors namely vitakka or initial-application, vicaara or sustained-application, piiti or 'suffused-joy', sukha or 'physical and mental undistress' or 'calmness' or 'tranquility', and ekaggata or 'one-pointedness' are all jhaana factors. They are working well very effectively. This is a state of close proximity to absorptive state of mind. And this is called upacaara samadhi or proximity-concentration. At a unspecified time 'the mind in proximity-concentration' of pure-living-loving-kindness cultivation is well absorbed into a singlity as 1st jhaana state and this is 1st jhana with metta-brahmavihaara kammatthaana bhaavana. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 56962 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" TGrand458@... Hi Jon All good points! Bottom line is...for most of us, when the term "reality" is used it will be near impossible to disassociate it from the idea of "entity." And seeing things as "entities" is a self-viewpoint. Some more comments below... In a message dated 3/21/2006 3:16:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: >Hi Jon > >I think I was pretty explicit in my original post as to why the discomfort >with the term "reality." > >Now, just going through Nyanatiloka's Dictionary and seeing his >multi-definitions of "Dhamma" ... "reality" does not come up once. Among other terms, he >does use "quality" and "phenomena/phenomenon." I prefer either of these as >they come with a minimum of ontological baggage. > You find that the term 'reality' carries too much 'ontological baggage'. Now I'm not sure what exactly that means, but I believe you are referring to connotations associated with the term as it is used in the Mahayana texts. However, those who are less familiar with the Mahayana texts than you may not have the same difficulty. TG: I'm too rusty on Mahayana texts to speak much about them. I'm just referring to what the "general Joe" would think of by the word "reality." I think my opening statement has cleared that up now. But all this discussion about appropriate choice of English term is beside the point, I think. What is important, as I know you appreciate, is to consider the essential meaning of the original Pali term in a given context. To my understanding, the term 'dhamma', as used in the sense of 'presently arising dhammas', refers to the bare components ('phenomena') of the present moment, as distinct from our perception of a world of people and things as being the 'reality'. Do you find this distinction a valid and useful one? TG: Dhamma is multifaceted. The way you describe using it about is maybe 1/10th of its meaning. Problem is, some take that 1/10th and turn it into a whole religion. This is typical of all later Buddhist schools. I.E., to take a small piece of the Buddha's teachings and claim that's the true essence of the teachings. In further reflection...the "bare components" are just terms used for analysis. They are not supposed to be "things of themsleves." I am frustrated because I continually quote from the Suttas... discourses which fully support my points...and they almost always get totally ignored be those I write to (not necessarily you Jon, I'm just venting). Instead of folks responding to the quotes, they just give more of the same. Its almost like they don't want to hear the suttas. And these same folks continually say that the suttas say the the Buddha taught us to see ultimate realities with their own characteristics. The Buddha DID NOT TEACH THAT. That is merely an interpretation based on analysis that is subjective. The Buddha clearly had opportunity to teach the above had he wanted to...yet he didn't teach it like that. So seems to me, the Buddha was either unable to say what he meant, or meant something other than the words that are being put into his mouth. >I personally translate >"Dhamma" as -- "the natural order of events." But that's cumbersome. > The translation of 'dhamma' as 'natural order of events' is fine so far as it goes, but it is only one of several meanings of 'dhamma' and by no means fits all contexts. TG: Agreed, but its much broader than your definition above. >Dhamma also is somewhat broader...but not broad enough to include "reality" IMO. > When you say that 'dhamma is not broad enough to include reality', you have in mind a particular meaning of 'reality'. The fact that no (English) dictionary meaning of 'reality' fits the meaning intended by the Pali 'dhamma' should come as no surprise, since the context of the teachings is so unique and non-conventional. Besides, isn't it really your own accustomed meaning of 'reality' that is being applied here (hence the ontological baggage problem)? On that basis, it would be impossible for any English term to be used the Pali, because there would always be someone who found the meaning inappropriate in some respect. The only solution would be to use something totally neutral like the letter 'A', (but then someone who is a mathematician may object that 'A' carries certain baggage ;-)). ;-)) TG: I'm quite comfortable using English translations...my problem with "reality" as a translation is that upholds a way of letting "self viewpoint" escape unscathed. >As far as using the original Pali term only ... that IMO does not clarify >anything to a group communicating in English. Everyone would have a vastly >different idea of what the term means. As much as possible, I prefer English to >be used. Just a few thoughts. > That's fine, but often all the possible English terms are inadequate and need to be 'relearn' in order not to convey an inaccurate impression. How can any English term, whether single word or phrase, adequately convey the meaning of 'citta', for example? TG: What's wrong with consciousness? Seems a near perfect fit to me. Jon PS The Buddha often used familiar terms in a way that carried a meaning that was new t the listener, so that the listener had to 'relearn' the term. TG: True. But those terms had very precise technical meanings. They were not ambiguous. Phenomena or experience can be well used to describe arising and ceasing. I predicted the term reality would not be dropped without a strong fight. I believe that is because it is a source of much attachment and a way for self-view to subliminally linger. I believe abhidhamma is "unwittingly a theory of micro-selves popping in and out of existence." That's what I think, but I can't say for sure that I'm right. TG 56963 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 3/21/2006 11:44:22 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG (and Jon) - -----Original Message----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:06:26 EST Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? Hi Howard and Jon (BTW Howard, best wishes with regard to your situation.) ----------------------------- Thanks, TG! ---------------------------- Came into your discussion late. I was unclear who posted the section below that I "cut in" but I think it was Jon? Its a great analysis of Dependent Arising and its ramifications. Howard, you seem to be saying that there is a "conventional activities or realities" that work or have some motivational force apart from "ultimately real" conditions. (I think I might know you well enough to think that this is a language thing and underlying the language that you and Jon are basically in agreement.) --------------------------- Howard: That's not what I'm saying. I agree that there are no phenomena other than what the Abhidhamma folks call paramttha dhammas. What I do say is that they occur interrelatedly, forming patterns that ur minds process into to conventional objects. Or, put another way, all conventional objects are mind projections that overlay paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------- TG: That sounds excellent to me. Howard, I am confused on who wrote what on the rest of the post so will leave it here. TG As far as this "convention/ultimate" separation...I think this is a mistake. This is one reason I don't like breaking things down into "ultimate realities" etc. After all, if there are "ultimate realities" there must be realities that aren't ultimate. Makes sense if the mind is so inclined. I believe that language can be considered "conventional" so as to set it aside as being based on a viewpoint that normally incorporates a delusive outlook. However, I don't think there is such a thing as "conditions" that are more real than others. Cultivating insight is a condition and is condition based...as is every condition. A mind cannot "force" a condition to arise. For example...why are we studying Buddhism and other intelligent people (much more so than me for example) are not? The answer is that we have met with the conditions that are motivating us to do so. These other folks have not met with the right conditions. If as in Howard's case, an emergency comes up, he may not be able to proceed with his studies as he might have otherwise. Being that he is so inclined to study dhamma, when those emergency conditions subside, Howard will not doubt have more time for cultivation. Of course the Buddha and the long line of monks that preserved the teachings are necessary conditions that we rely heavily on as well. This study group is a condition that might tend to keep our minds more active in studying dhamma than if it did not exist. However, for some minds, it may be a distraction and perhaps they would be better off without it. There is just no way to "step outside" of mere conditions to "make something happen." Conditions make things happen. Education and effort are also conditions that set in place other conditions which may include motivation to study dhamma. The more we tend to study dhamma, the more we are inclined or motivated to continue. It seems like its "our idea," but I think its just conditions doing that voodoo that they do so well. ;-) I think this is sort of what Jon was saying ... if I read your posts right. I don't think there is such a thing as "conventional activities prescribed by the Buddha" TG >>Your last couple of sentence in particular are worth repeating: >>H: But "making things happen" is exactly what is NOT put forward in the >>Buddha's teaching on conditionality. All that is put forward is dependable, >>objective, necessary, and regular dependency. With this, that; without >>this, not that. That's all. Not more, and not less. >> >>As I'm sure you'd agree, the teaching on conditionality is not a >>separate, discrete part of the teachings. It *is* the teachings. >> >>So when it comes to the development of awareness/insight, things work in >>just the same way. Awareness/insight is as dependent on other >>conditions as anything else. >> >>Now taking your succinct formulation of dependency ... >>"With this, that; without this, not that." >> >>... we can say: >>"With [the appropriate conditions for it], then awareness/insight; >>without [those appropriate conditions], no awareness/insight." >> >>Thus, if the appropriate conditions are in place, awareness/insight will >>occur. It is not a matter of awareness/insight being "made to happen" >>;-)). And so it is neither a matter of "doing something", but nor is it >>a matter of there "doing nothing". >> >>Jon In a message dated 3/20/2006 8:02:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Jon- In a message dated 3/20/06 9:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > I don't expect we're going to agree on the "practice" issue any time > soon ;-)). > > But I think you may now see at least the theoretical possibility of a > certain occurrence (a moment of path development) without there > necessarily being the need for any preceding conventional activity or > arising of a specific intention. As the teaching on this-that > conditionality tells us, with the appropriate 'this' conditions, the > 'that' will follow. And if those conditions don't include conventional > activities or specific intention, then those are not part of the > conditioning factors, no matter how large a role they may seem to play > in our life as viewed conventionally. > ===================== A quick reply before shutting off the computer: No, Jon, I disagree entirely. Realization will occur only if preceded by extensive, proper cultivation; that is, by specific, actual dhammas arising, dhammas that are the realities (i.e., unimagined phenomena) underlying years of the very conventional activities repeatedly *prescribed* by the Buddha! ;-) With metta, Howard 56964 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry TGrand458@... Send Email In a message dated 3/21/2006 11:55:21 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: To butt into this thread, I believe that the arahant had eliminated all dukkha. Physical pain is not dukkha, it is merely a sensation. Physical pain only becomes dukkha when we don't want it to happen to "me". To say that an arahant isn't free from dukkha is to negate the Four Noble Truths. Metta, James Hi James I believe the Buddha did clearly said that arahatas could experience one level of dukkha (pain) when a painful feeling arose but could not experience the psychological grief, worry, etc. that usually accompanies such pain. TG 56965 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta indriyabala Dear Nina (and Han, Sarah) - I am pleased at your interest in the Sangiti Sutta discussion between Han and me. We also had several discussions on the Path of Discrimination prior to the dialogues on the Sangiti Sutta. I found this sutta to be quite similar to Patisambhidamagga in the sense that both are more suitable for reciting (or chanting) rather than studying as a book <"But friends, this Dhamma has been well proclaimed by the Lord, the fully enlightened one and so we should all recite it together without disagreement, so that this Holy Life may be enduring and established for a long time, thus to be for the welfare and happiness of the Multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, welfare and happiness of deva's and humans. > I concur with Han's comment : "Dear Nina, as the Sangiiti sutta is one of your favorites and as you read also the Pali commentary, it would be much easier for you to understand." Yes, Han is right. You should lead the discussion here. A Background Note: Below is the list of the messages at the other Web site (SariputtaDhamma) where the Patisambhidamagga presentation and discussion can be found. Any interested reader may visit our open-to-all archive to read them . http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SariputtaDhamma/ # 2731, 2729, 2727, 2726, 2725, 2722, 2719, 2707, 2699, 2686, 2687, 2678, 2677, 2634, 2632, 2630, 2610, 2608, 2606, 2589, 2559, 2558, 2555, 2551, 2542, 2541, 2540, 2539, 2537, 2534, 2481, 2447. Please note that the very first message was # 2447 on 2/19/2006. Sincerely, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Nina (and Tep), > > I read Sangiiti sutta only just now, as Tep has > introduced it for discussion. > > It is a very long sutta listing the dhammas in > expanding numerical groups. There are 33 sets of Two > Things, 60 sets of Three things, 50 sets of Four > Things, 26 sets of Five Things, 22 sets of Six Things, > 14 sets of Seven Things, 11 sets of Eight Things, 6 > sets of Nine Things, and 6 sets of Ten Things. And > they are listed like maatika (matrices) in Abhidhamma. > So if one tries to go into detail for each and every > set the task would be enormous. > (snipped) > 56966 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry lbidd2 James: "To butt into this thread, I believe that the arahant had eliminated all dukkha. Physical pain is not dukkha, it is merely a sensation. Physical pain only becomes dukkha when we don't want it to happen to "me". To say that an arahant isn't free from dukkha is to negate the Four Noble Truths." Hi James, Nina and TG, Here's the fine print (as I see it): A source of confusion is the tendency to equate dukkha with suffering. It seems to me that suffering is dosa (dislike/hatred) accompanied by unpleasant mental feeling. Unpleasant mental feeling only arises with dosa. Dukkha is classified as three or fourfold: the dukkha of impermanence, the dukkha of unpleasant feeling (bodily and mental), and the dukkha of formations. Since impermanence, bodily feeling, and formations don't cease in this life, that much dukkha doesn't cease in this life. The only dukkha that can cease >in this life< is the dukkha of mental feeling that accompanies dosa. So suffering can cease in this life, but the other dimensions of dukkha continue. One point the Visuddhimagga is stressing in regard to ignorance is that we are barely aware of dukkha. There is even ignorance of the dukkha of unpleasant bodily feeling. We try to ignore it and cover it over as much as possible. The way to the end of dukkha is also the way to a greater awareness of dukkha. And even with the attainment of arahatship life is not a bowl of cherries. It is still dukkha. Nibbana is the only true end of dukkha. But the end of dosa can make a big difference in one's life. Larry 56967 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:48pm Subject: Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' indriyabala Dear Sarah (Nina, TG, Jon)- The explanation you have given for 'ultimately real' versus 'conventionally real' reminds me of the definitions of paramattha and vohaara/sammuti. Thanks. >S: 'Sound' is real right now when there is hearing, but 'bird noise' or 'traffic' are only conventionally real, imagined real, based on the 'ultimately real' dhammas previously heard and attended to. Tep: Very good example, Sarah. But, is 'sound' real because it has not been mixed with the other dhammas, or formed into a sankhara by perceptions(sa~n~na)? If your answer is 'yes', then can we extend the idea to 'citta' -- say, citta is real (as the legitimate ultimate reality) until it is mixed or contaminated with catasikas? You know, I am just a wooden spoon in the pot of the abhidhamma stew. So it is likely that my questions don't make much sense to the cook who made the stew. ............... >S: Perhaps you can help explain to TG and other sin your clear manner and with your access to sutta sources:). T: No, I can't ! Nina (a famous cook of the abhidhamma stew) is in a much better position. Thank you anyway. {:>)) .............. [What I think I agree with you:] Tep: Now, concerning your answer to my question about the possibility of more than one nama may arise and dissolve at the same time, I sense that you are affirmative {S: "To be precise, one citta and a minimum of 7 cetasikas (all namas of course) arise and fall away at every instant."} But the words "they are conditioned in multiple ways" are your own, Sarah, not mine; and, yes, they make sense to me. I also agree that citta and cetasikas are "being conditioned by the arammana(object) which may also be a concept". Further, I understand your statement, "Clearly we cannot interchange 'conditions' and 'realities (dhammas)'.", to mean that 'paccayas' (conditions = the 24 modes of conditionality) are "separate" from those dhammas that arise (or being formed by them). Have I been on the right track, so far? ............................... [What I think I may disagree -- not sure:] Tep: However, I am not sure whether the other things you said after the above are right or wrong. Let me summarize these (muddy-to-my-eye) issues as follows: { As said by Sarah :-| } "When these namas arise together, they experience one arammana (object) at a time only. As I just mentioned, this object may be a concept when there is thinking in the mind-door process. However, the object may also be a rupa (in a sense door process) or a rupa or nama as object in the mind door process. "So we see that although many namas arise together, only one object is ever experienced. When it comes to the development of satipatthana or the understanding of present realities (which I was referring to), this object can only be a nama or a rupa, one at a time. [end of quote] Tep: The several issues (as I see them) are : 1. Other than the citta, other "namas" can also experience an arammana(object). [Why?] 2. The citta as well as the other namas can experience one and only one object "at a time". [Why?] 3. An arisen object only arise in a sense door process or the mind door process. [So, do the other namas have their sense doors, or else how can they experience an object?] 4. Multiple namas may exist together but they only experience the same object at a (given) time (instant). [What restricts their behavior that way?] General Questions: I. Are these issues making sense to you (i.e. do you see them as issues)? II. Could you please give one real world example for each case that makes sense to you? III. If none of them make sense, can you tell me why? ........................... >S: Please ask for any further clarification on this point as I believe it to be an important one. I apologise for any lack of clarity in what I wrote before. Tep: The 3 questions above were asked for further clarification. The apology is not necessary since the "mud" in my eye is probably due to a lack of clear vision. ........................ >S: p.s I'm glad to see your detailed post on the terms from the > Patisambhidamagga - I'd like to join in your discussion with Han when I have a chance. Thanks. Tep: Please do ! But please be aware of some practical difficulties as described by Han and myself in two earlier posts. Warm regards, Tep ========= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > I thought your response was very good and clear actually - relatively easy for me to respond to:)) > (snipped) > So we see that although many namas arise together, only one object is ever experienced. When it comes to the development of satipatthana or the understanding of present realities (which I was referring to), this object can only be a nama or a rupa, one at a time. > > Please ask for any further clarification on this point as I believe it to be an important one. > > I apologise for any lack of clarity in what I wrote before. > > Metta, > > Sarah (snipped) > ======= > 56968 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - You wrote "Howard, I am confused on who wrote what on the rest of the post so will leave it here." It wasn't me! :-) With metta, Howard -----Original Message----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:22:36 EST Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? Hi Howard In a message dated 3/21/2006 11:44:22 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG (and Jon) - -----Original Message----- From: TGrand458@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:06:26 EST Subject: Re: [dsg]Q. Control or No control? Hi Howard and Jon (BTW Howard, best wishes with regard to your situation.) ----------------------------- Thanks, TG! ---------------------------- Came into your discussion late. I was unclear who posted the section below that I "cut in" but I think it was Jon? Its a great analysis of Dependent Arising and its ramifications. Howard, you seem to be saying that there is a "conventional activities or realities" that work or have some motivational force apart from "ultimately real" conditions. (I think I might know you well enough to think that this is a language thing and underlying the language that you and Jon are basically in agreement.) --------------------------- Howard: That's not what I'm saying. I agree that there are no phenomena other than what the Abhidhamma folks call paramttha dhammas. What I do say is that they occur interrelatedly, forming patterns that ur minds process into to conventional objects. Or, put another way, all conventional objects are mind projections that overlay paramattha dhammas. ---------------------------- TG: That sounds excellent to me. Howard, I am confused on who wrote what on the rest of the post so will leave it here. TG SNIP 56969 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:08pm Subject: Re: Lodewijk's post on the long way. indriyabala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > Lodewijk and I had some pleasant dhamma discussions at the hotel while > having dinner. (snipped) > All this is in the context of visible object that falls away and then >there is a next one, and it has past already before we note it, only >the image, nimitta, is there. > Nina. > Dear Friend Nina - Do you mean only 'memory' remains ? What motivated you to use the term 'nimitta'? Warm regards, Tep ======= 56970 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you so very much for your kind encouragement and exceedingly kind words. "I am really impressed by your post. You found out what really matters, but it is a tremendous thing to do after such a shock, 'a deep and worldless teaching about impermanence'. By conditions you were pushed as it were towards finding out about paramattha dhammas. Lodewijk and I often discuss life, and how we do not ask for certain things to happen, but they happen just because of the appropriate conditions. Thank you very much for your post, I learn from it." I'm happy that you experienced my response in such a way. Sincerely, Scott. 56971 From: "indriyabala" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:00pm Subject: Re: Never Happy indriyabala Hi James - It is very nice of you to always try to answer a question as directly as you can. Also, thank you very much for your $1,000,001 answer. >James: I think that there were two factors in play when this realization hit me. The first is that I was practicing mindfulness- most specifically, I was practicing mindfulness of thoughts (meta-cognition). This mindfulness was light and easy. .. I was not judging my thoughts- I was simply letting them come and go as they arise. But I was also paying attention to the types of thoughts I was having and the patterns of thoughts. Tep: That sounds like "bare attention" of arising & passing-away thoughts. An advantage of this mindfulness practice, I think, is that the cognizance (citta) is staying inside the body much of the time. (Of course 'the citta' at a given moment is different from those at other time instants.) ......................... >James: [Being in a foreign country, I often have to watch my thoughts and evaluate if I am thinking along cultural lines or if I am being open-minded to a new culture. So, I have developed this practice of mindfulness of thoughts somewhat extensively.] Tep: Yes. constantly being aware of one's bodily actions, verbal actions and mental actions requires both sati and sampajanna. ........................ >James: The other factor that I think came into play was my extreme tiredness. The ego lives and feeds on energy; when that energy is depleted the ego is most vulnerable to collapse. I was very exhausted and tired so the ego didn't have as much energy to perpetuate itself. Mix in mindfulness and a weakened ego and the equation equals some insight. Tep: That logical deduction that is sound to me. I am reminded of the 'bhavanga citta' that preceeds a deep concentration state (when the mind is empty of thoughts); if this is true then it may be possible that "some insight" follows ? ......................... >James: So, anyway, in conclusion, do I recommend a course of action to make this type of insight happen for you and anyone? Of course I do: follow the Noble Eightfold Path!! As the Buddha taught, many factors have to be lined up for insight to arise. Tep: That's a very good conclusion ! Can you write a detailed instruction (in your own words) to show how the Noble Eightfold Path should be practiced? Warm regards, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > I am curious about that little moment when the wholesome thought > > "dawned" on you. Do you have any idea how it happened? > (snipped) 56972 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:35pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 405- Confidence/saddhaa (b) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch25 - Confidence/saddhaa contd) The Atthasåliní refers to a simile given in the Questions of King Milinda (35)(1): a universal monarch crosses a small stream with his army. The water has been polluted by the army but his waterpurifying gem purifies the water so that mud, sand and waterweeds subside and the water becomes clear and undisturbed. The water which is disturbed by pollution is like the mind which is disturbed by defilements. Faith purifies the mind so that it becomes clear, transparent and undisturbed. As to the characteristic of “aspiring”, the Atthasåliní uses another simile in order to explain this. A crowd standing on both banks of a great river full of crocodiles, monsters, sharks and ogres, is afraid to cross over. A hero crosses the river and repels the dangerous animals with his sword, and leads the crowd in crossing over. The Atthasåliní (120) states: * "… So faith is the forerunner, the precursor to one who is giving gifts, observing the precepts, performing the duties of uposatha and commencing bhåvanå. Hence it has been said: Faith has purifying and aspiring as its characteristic." *** 1) Containing discussions on Dhamma between King Milinda and the arahat Någasena. This work which is not part of the Tipiìaka must have been written before the time of Buddhaghosa, but its date is not known. It gives most valuable explanations of the Buddhist teachings and it often refers to the texts of the Tipiìaka. ***** (Ch25 - Confidence/saddhaa to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 56973 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Scott, > I am really impressed by your post. You found out what really matters, > but > it is a tremendous thing to do after such a shock, 'a deep and worldless > teaching about impermanence'. .... S: I was also very impressed and touched by reading your appreciation of the importance of understanding paramattha dhammas and their impermanence. It reminded me of the big impact it had when I also first heard about them. This morning, I was listening to a discussion with A.Sujin and Jonothan about how each dhamma is gone, never to come back. We can't stop the arising of dhammas but in our foolishness we go on clinging and clinging to them. Really, here's no one, no we at all, just thinking and thinking. Even now, we attach to all the details of visible objects, sounds and so on, so very foolishly, finding meaning in just visible objects, just like we're looking at a picture and taking things out of it. We start this life thinking of how wonderful it would be for namas to always arise and never cease, we dream of immortality, life for ever. Gradually we unlearn this way of thinking and realise it would be better if namas didn't arise at all. They're so very useless because they're impermanent and dukkha. Slowly we learn about the path of detachment, rather than of attachment. We gradually learn about the world of understanding, so different from the world of ignorance. It just depends on whether vijja (understanding) arises to know the truth or avijja (ignorance) arises to know and follow illusions like usual. So just like in a dream, visible objects, sounds and other dhammas arise, appear and disappear. Citta is as rapid as a magician, so we have no idea which object, which dhamma is appearing and everything seems permanent like in the conjurer's trick. Just as our last life is like a dream or fantasy now and we have no idea what happened then at all, so this life is just the same -- it'll all be completely forgotten. Even this moment is just the same as the one which has previously fallen away - it'll never come back, it'll be completely unknown. This is the same for all the khandhas, all arising, all gone, just leaving an impression or mark for clinging to latch on to. ..... I was reading the Telakani verses in the Theragatha (747-768, Mrs Rhys Davids transl, PTS)the other day. After attaining arahantship, one day he reflected on his arduous path to other bhikkhus: "Oh the long days I cast about in thought, Ardent to find truth [that could set me free] No peace of mind I won, [but up and down I fared} asking of brahmin and recluse: 'What man in all the world hath got beyone? Who in the Ambrosial hath a foothold won? [Who is established in Nibbana, in the path of emancipation?(comy] Whose doctrine can I to my bosom take, Whereby the Highest [Paramattha]* I may come to know?' 'Caught on a hook whithin, my spirit hung E'en as a fish that swallows baited food. Captured I lay, as Vepachitti once, The Asura, in mighty Indra's toils. [see SN i,220,4] I dragged my chains alog, nor found release From this [unending source of] grief and dole." <....> [S: continues for two pages on his search and desperation, until he heard the Buddha. *Note the use of paramattha here] 'Thence I could contemplate the sons of men Delighting in that sense of 'I' and 'mine,'(sakkaaya) And when I saw the Way, even the ship On which to embark, and dwelt no more on Self, 'Twas then that I beheld Nibbana's shore.(Titta.m uttama.m -lit, best or supreme shore)" ***** S: When we appreciate that the dreams, the fantasies, the illusions, the worlds of people and things are not real and that it is citta (and accompaning namas) which thinks, which conjures up the whole picture, the whole fantasy, there can slowly be the development of detachment with understanding of paramattha dhammas. The chains are then gradually released as they were for Telakani. Metta, Sarah p.s Scott (and anyone else), I know you'd appreciate listening to the audio discussions with A.Sujin which we've edited. Please let me know if you'd like copies of cds if you have any difficulty downloading from the web. ===== 56974 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Hi TG (& Tep), --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Tep... I think Sarah means "appear one at a time" to > consciousness/attention, etc. .... S: Yes .... > Sarah and Tep... Sarah's paragraph above highlights various namas as if > they > are separate states....shall we say .... with their own > characteristics? .... S: Yes ... > However, there is a Sutta where a monk (I believe) asks the Buddha > directly > if the Buddha separates nama Khandas because they are really separate > things, > or if they are 'un-separatable'...and just being separated in the > Buddha's > teachings for purposes of analysis. > > The answer from the Buddha is -- that they are not separate things and > are > not separatable ... but that they are merely separated for purposes of > analysis. .... S: Perhaps you are thinking of suttas such as MN44, Culavedalla Sutta, where it is stressed that sanna and vedana are always associated with citta etc or the similes such as those about the curry ingredients which cannot be separated. This means that they cannot arise without the other ingredients and are 'bound' together. Most of the time, it's impossible to 'separate' the different characteristics of various mental factors such as of hiri, ottappa, phassa etc etc. But for a Buddha, each dhamma is known precisely - this is why he can teach all the details. .... > It seems to me, from an abhidhammic point of view, the Buddha is saying > that > these are not the "separate and distinct realities" that abhidhamma > analysis > seems to be saying they are. Conclusion... They are separatable as > "qualities" but they are NOT separatable as "realities." Comments? .... S: Separate and distinct realities with distinct qualities or characteristics. Back to MN44 (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl) for a moment: " 'Feeling, feeling' it is said, friend. With reference to what is 'feeling' said?" "It feels, it feels,' friend; that is why 'feeling' is said. What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. ....." "'Perception, perception,' it is said, friend..... "It perceives, it perceives,' friend; that is why 'perception' is said. What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, and it perceives white......" ***** S: So feeling and perception are distinct realities with different functions. Furthermore, each feeling, each perception is different from the previous feeling or perception. Hence vedana khandha and sanna khandha. Now I have the text open, I think this is what you may be referring to: "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend -are these states conjoined or disjoined? And is it possible to spearate each of these states from the others to describe the difference between them?" "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from theothers in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined....." **** S: The commentary note which Nanamoli/Bodhi gives mentions that "wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." In other words, the 'conjoining' refers to the associating and co-arising of these states at every moment. They condition each other by arising together (sahajata paccaya). Clearly the Buddha had no doubt about their particular characteristics:). Metta, Sarah ======== 56975 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello - the rules and displines (vinaya) sarahprocter... Dear Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: >Today I > am reading the Abhidhammapitake Dhaatukathaa and I am glady > surprised by some of its remarks, not speaking about my Pali fluency! > This Abhidhamma volume is so good and right to point that at > Dhaatukathaa Maatikaa stanza 5 - Baahiramaatikaa - it´s clearly > stated that > > "Sabbaa´pi dhammasangani dhaatukathaaya maatikaa´ti." > > Which I would translate as: "All the external world [knowledge] is > included on Dhammasangani and Dhaatukathaa.". Very good, isn´t it ? ... S: Very good - It's so true. Everything is dhamma....everything is included in the paramattha dhammas we read about in detail in these texts. There's nothing else. I don't think there can be any doubt about the Buddha's omniscient wisdom and ability to understand every possible dhamma, anything at all he put his mind to, when we look at these texts. No one else could imagine them except a Sammaasambuddha. Please share any other comments you reflect on like this. .... > But I will make my Uposatha and Pattimokka questions to Kom at a > good time!!! ... S: I was glad to see them --I hope Kom did before he left... ... > Oh well... with so many lobha, dosa and moha hindrances I will > become a Seinfeld sitcom´s character as George Constanza rather than > a Bhikkhu probationer :))) .... S: The good news is that those dhammas are just as real for a Seingeld character as for a bhikkhu. Satipatthana can be developed in either case if there is sufficient hearing and appreciation of paramattha dhammas appearing now. ... > > But, anyway, as Azita usually says, "Cheers and good chance!" > > Mettaya and kisses to you and Jon! .... S: I thought Azita said 'courage and good cheer'!! 'Cheers and good chance' can be your new sign-off, Ic. We both send mettaya and kisses to you too! xxxx (I think it was Azita who made a reference to 4X which I didn't understand:-/) Sarah ======== 56976 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Hi TG, As I said, I appreciated your detailed study/reading of my post on this topic and all your comments. I'm not sure there's much more I can say of any use here, but as Howard would say, it seems impolite not to respond at all. --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Sarah > > Haven't written to you in a while, hope all is well! A few (strong) > but > well meaning comments... ... S: Yes, good to talk to you and very glad to see your participation recently. I could tell your comments were well meant for which I thank you. I'll just cherry-pick a little from your reply: .... > TG: Manifest does apply to concepts. That's why concepts are mental > formations and there is no conflict. They do arise ... they manifest. .... S: Are you saying that concepts are included in sankhara khandha? Does the Buddha ever suggest this or that anything other than the khandhas arises? .... > This issue regarding concepts always comes up in relation to minds that > "seeing things as real." When nama and rupa are considered "real," > concepts must > not be real. If nama and rupa were "states with their own essence," > I'd > agree. Since this is exactly what they are not, I have to disagree. > Nama and > rupa are empty, coreless, and alien, of anything "of themselves." And, > so are > concepts. .... S: Do you make any distinction at all between a sound which is heard now and a dream or a thought about a sound? How would you describe the difference in your own words? ..... > > One would be far better off trying to see 'nama and rupa' as empty as > concepts...rather than trying to build up the "substantial standing" of > nama and > rupa in relation to concepts. IMO. The former would lead to > detachment. The > latter leads to attachment. .... S: So would you say that sound heard now and a dream about sounds are equally unreal, equally empty and equally unknowable? .... > “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as > existing, of which I too say that it exists? From that is impermanent, > suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon > as > existing, and I too say that it exists. > Feeling...Perception...Volitional > Formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject > to > change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too > say > that it exists.â€? (SN 22:94). > * > TG: Here the word 'exists' would also be better suited to being > translated > as manifests or arises. .... S: I believe this is close to the Pali. When it has arisen, it exists. When it exists it manifests (we read about the function, manifestation and characteristic of dhammas). ... Keeping in mind that the Buddha said that > states > don't exist, nor do they not exist ... in other suttas. Paraphrasing > ... -- One > who sees the arising of the world does not believe in the non-existence > of > the world ... one who see the disintegration of the world does not > believe in > the existence of the world. -- .... S: See RobK's recent post on the Kaccayanagotta Sutta and others under this same heading in U.P. In context the Buddha was referring to views of eternalism and annihilationism, all based on the ideas of self-view. .... > TG: But Dhammas are conditions and vice versa so I'm not sure why a > note > that distinguishes them as different is correct or of important? .... S: The terms are not inter-changeable as Suan and others have pointed out. I gave the simple example of arammana or object in another post to indicate that a concept acts as a condition by way of being the object of citta, but it's not a (paramattha) dhamma. The good deeds of an arahant are 'inoperative', they do not act as kamma condition. .... > > Paraphrasing -- One who sees Dependent Arising sees Dhamma. One who > sees > Dhamma sees Dependent Arising. -- > > From this I gather that what the Buddha wants us to know is -- "the > principle of Dependent Arising" ... and "seeing" the manifestations > (dhammas) is > only a tool used to develop comprehension of Dependent Arising > principles...impermanence, dukkha, no-self...leading to detachment and > liberation. .... S: I think it's good that you're emphasising the importance of understanding the conditioned nature of dhammas. In this context, do you differentiate between dhammas (manifestations) and concepts or ideas about dhammas? Is the comprehension one of theory or one of direct understanding of the dhammas involved? .... > Paraphrasing -- Two ascetics approach the Buddha...one says "I believe > all > exists." The other says "I believe nothing exists." -- The Buddha > praises > the latter view as being superior as it is closer to detachment. .... S: I think this maybe a paraphrase from a comment in the Dighanakkha Sutta (sp?)? I believe the comment was that it was 'closer' because the words sound similar to anatta, but sounding similar doesn't mean they are correct. Dighanakkha clearly had strong wrong view. .... > S: The sub-commentary elaborates further to stress that this > distinction > differentiates dhammas(realities), i.e the khandhas, from concepts: > > > TG: Obviously I disagree with both of these commentarial hypothesizes. .... S: !! ... > TG: Regarding the commentary above. The commentary is oblivious to > the > fact that it is engendering, and a substrate level, the same > "misconstructions" > that it is criticizing. The "misconstructions" the commentary > criticizes "as > being mere expressions" is because those states are empty of their own > essence. THE DHAMMAS ARE EMPTY OF THEIR OWN ESSENCE ALSO. They are > not "endowed > with a specific nature" as the commentary contends. What a totally > "attached > viewpoint" IMO. .... S: As the commentary made clear, sabhava refers to the characteristic of dhammas. The characteristic of seeing is quite different from the characteristic of hearing, wouldn't you agree? The Buddha refers frequently to lakkhana or characteristics. The seen is quite different from the heard, Each 'seen' is different from each other 'seen' and yet rupa khandha includes all those paramattha dhammas which are directly experienced and which cannot experience other dhammas - whether near or far, internal or external etc etc. ..... > S: It may be argued that here I’m looking at the commentaries. > However, I > see no difference in intended meaning between what is said here and > what > we read in the suttas, such as in the brief extracts above. > > TG: This is the problem IMO. You don't see the difference. ... S: Of course there's lots of detail which is way over my head, but for the most part, I don't see any difference in meaning between what the suttas say, what the Abhidhamma says and what the ancient commentaries say. The meaning is all in accordance. I have confidence that when I come across knotty points, the problem is my very limited understanding, not the texts as such. This approach is based on the fact that the little I do understand can be tested and proved at this moment. .... > TG: I believe, that some are so attached to "dhammas" which is the > same as > "being attached to self," that they just can't bear to let go of terms > like > "reality" or "own characteristic." Because...to let go of that is to > let go > of the self. Some folks seem to be holding on to those terms "for dear > life." > Why? Because they are the only things supporting > subliminal-self-views. .... S: I agree that any attachment is harmful and is not conducive to insight. That's why I don't go along with the 'depending on attachment' or 'hanging onto the raft' ideas. I don't mind in the slightest what terms you or anyone else uses, but I think that to deny specific characteristics of realities which can be directly known is to deny any path to freedom. It is to see the Buddha's teachings as being about theories and conceptual constructs only - clearly not the way. I know you have a different understanding here:)) No need to ever apologise for disagreements, TG -- we're not here to necessarily agree after all! I know your comments were all intended in a friendly way and I hope you'll feel the same about mine. I'll gladly look forward to any more you have or specific sutta quotes. Metta, Sarah ======= 56977 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' TGrand458@... Send Email Hi Sarah and those following this topic, In a message dated 3/21/2006 10:11:53 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > However, there is a Sutta where a monk (I believe) asks the Buddha > directly > if the Buddha separates nama Khandas because they are really separate > things, > or if they are 'un-separatable'...and just being separated in the > Buddha's > teachings for purposes of analysis. > > The answer from the Buddha is -- that they are not separate things and > are > not separatable ... but that they are merely separated for purposes of > analysis. .... S: Perhaps you are thinking of suttas such as MN44, Culavedalla Sutta, where it is stressed that sanna and vedana are always associated with citta etc or the similes such as those about the curry ingredients which cannot be separated. This means that they cannot arise without the other ingredients and are 'bound' together. Most of the time, it's impossible to 'separate' the different characteristics of various mental factors such as of hiri, ottappa, phassa etc etc. But for a Buddha, each dhamma is known precisely - this is why he can teach all the details. .... > It seems to me, from an abhidhammic point of view, the Buddha is saying > that > these are not the "separate and distinct realities" that abhidhamma > analysis > seems to be saying they are. Conclusion... They are separatable as > "qualities" but they are NOT separatable as "realities." Comments? .... S: Separate and distinct realities with distinct qualities or characteristics. Back to MN44 (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl) for a moment: " 'Feeling, feeling' it is said, friend. With reference to what is 'feeling' said?" "It feels, it feels,' friend; that is why 'feeling' is said. What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. ....." "'Perception, perception,' it is said, friend..... "It perceives, it perceives,' friend; that is why 'perception' is said. What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, and it perceives white......" ***** S: So feeling and perception are distinct realities with different functions. Furthermore, each feeling, each perception is different from the previous feeling or perception. Hence vedana khandha and sanna khandha. TG: They are not distinct realities, they are related. If they are related, they are not distinct. Abhidhammists seem to paint this "on / off picture" of separate things. I don't see it that way. I see states/conditions as "constantly transforming." Now I have the text open, I think this is what you may be referring to: TG: Yes "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend -are these states conjoined or disjoined? And is it possible to spearate each of these states from the others to describe the difference between them?" "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from theothers in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined....." **** S: The commentary note which Nanamoli/Bodhi gives mentions that "wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." TG: "Wisdom" was used as a subject of analysis in an earlier paragraph in this Sutta. The comment is a reference to that; and not a comment about this paragraph/subject not incorporating insight. In other words, the 'conjoining' refers to the associating and co-arising of these states at every moment. They condition each other by arising together (sahajata paccaya). Clearly the Buddha had no doubt about their particular characteristics:). Metta, Sarah TG: This quote is speaking to a "higher truth" as the question (questioner) is seeking clarification as to "actuality" of the states involved! Sariputta says -- "These states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them." I interpret that as meaning that the states are not "distinct realities;" they are "conditional relativities." Therefore, the idea of "separate ultimate realities with their own characteristics" is IN FACT a "conventional understanding." The "higher truth" does not see states in that manner. They are only "separatable" for purposes of analysis. Apparently we are still not seeing this eye to eye. ;-) TG 56978 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' sarahprocter... Hi TG, That was quick:) Just time for me to have a cup of tea and make a phone call.. .... --- TGrand458@... wrote: > TG: They are not distinct realities, they are related. If they are > related, they are not distinct. .... S: I think as the text made clear, the mental factors being discussed (such as vedana and sanna) are closely related, arising together, conditioning each other, BUT with distinct functions, i.e to feel, to perceive etc, and with distinct characteristics. Sanna can not feel, vedana cannot perceive, vitakka can only ‘touch’ the object etc. We don’t have to pinpoint or try to find vitakka as opposed to vicara or phassa – it would be madness to do so. However, the Buddha has clearly indicated that there are distinct mental states and these can be known for what they are. I think we can begin to see that pleasant feeling is distinct from attachment is distinct from the marking of an object and so on. ... Abhidhammists seem to paint this "on / > off picture" > of separate things. I don't see it that way. I see states/conditions > as > "constantly transforming." .... S: We can say that states or dhammas (to include rupas) transform all the time in the sense or arising and passing away. However, the characteristic of say ‘unpleasant feeling’ doesn’t transform into any other kind of feeling or state when it arises. It arises as a result of conditions, including the conascent states, has its characteristic, function and manifestation and then passes away. .... > Now I have the text open, I think this is what you may be referring > to: > > TG: Yes ... S: Ah, we’re getting into some mind-reading here:)) ... > S: The commentary note which Nanamoli/Bodhi gives mentions that "wisdom > has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show > only > the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." > TG: "Wisdom" was used as a subject of analysis in an earlier paragraph > in > this Sutta. The comment is a reference to that; and not a comment > about this > paragraph/subject not incorporating insight. .... S: I think the point is that we can say sanna, vedana and citta are always conjoined, always arise together at every instant. The same cannot be said of wisdom. I think the commentary note here is clear. .... > In other words, the 'conjoining' refers to the associating and > co-arising > of these states at every moment. They condition each other by arising > together (sahajata paccaya). Clearly the Buddha had no doubt about > their > particular characteristics:). ... > TG: > > This quote is speaking to a "higher truth" as the question (questioner) > is > seeking clarification as to "actuality" of the states involved! .... S: And what is the ‘actuality’ if not the five aggregates ? Can we say rupa is ‘actuality’ when it arises? The other aggregates? ... > Sariputta > says -- "These states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to > separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the > difference > between them." I interpret that as meaning that the states are not > "distinct realities;" they are "conditional relativities." Therefore, > the idea of > "separate ultimate realities with their own characteristics" is IN FACT > a > "conventional understanding." The "higher truth" does not see states > in that > manner. .... S: Aren’t we discussing a conversation between the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna and Visakkha (already a sotapanna of course)? I think the comment you quote above indicates their co-arising, conditioned nature. Elsewhere in the sutta, I think the distinct nature of the various dhammas is made apparent such as in the elaboration of the distinct kinds of feelings. There is even a discussion of the anusayas (latent tendencies) – a lot of Abhidhamma in this sutta. What do you mean here by ‘higher truth’? Is this paramattha sacca?? What is your understanding of paramattha or higher? This is interesting. .... > They are only "separatable" for purposes of analysis. Apparently we > are > still not seeing this eye to eye. ;-) .... S: Ah well, if we saw eye to eye on all points, where would the discussion be? ;-)) What is the purpose of analysis if not for the development of insight? What’s the use of any of the textual stuff if not for the development of satipatthana as we read, speak or sip coffee in between? Some others were recently referring to the importance of reading texts, preferably in pali and with commentaries, studying the Vinaya in depth and so on....but when it comes down to it, the Dhamma is not in a book, not in any text. Any analysis is only as a pointer for understanding what appears right now. Pleasant feeling is quite different from unpleasant feeling, wouldn’t you say? Feeling is quite different from thinking and also from perception/marking of an object. Good talking to you and I’ll enjoy any further comments. If you find yourself waiting a long while for a reply and have spare time, please go back and answer any of the other questions in my last post– such as the one about the difference between ‘sound’ and ‘dream of a sound’:)) Metta, Sarah ======= 56979 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations. sarahprocter... Hi Joop, An old post I had meant to reply to... --- Joop wrote: > Hallo Sarah > > Thanks for your list of terms, sometimes translated > as "accumulations". .... S: Just to recap as it was so long ago, I've put the list I gave below. ... > There is one problem with all this terms: > That there exist a word does not automatically mean that the "entity" > where it is the name for, really exists. > An easy example: the name "God" does not automatically imply that God > exists. Many christian scholastics have tried to prove that God > exists, but - in my eyes - in vain. > > Many of the terms you use, do not occur in the lists of terms that > are ultimate reality; so how to prove that they are really existing? > Perhaps some of them are concepts? ... S: They are concepts referring to paramattha dhammas.For example, carita (character) refers to lobha or dosa or other mental states arising now and accumulating as we speak. Ayuuhana refers to cetana cetasika (intention) as kamma in the javana process which again accumulates. And so on. They are all pointing to ultimate realities. Good question. Let me know if you'd like me to try and elaborate further. .... > Perhaps some are only used metaphorical, in a simile, by the Buddha, > to explain something that can only be explained in a indirect way. .... S: I don't think so. I think they are directly describing dhammas in order to point to their conditioned nature and how they accumulate in various ways and how nothing is ever lost as such. Again, I'm sorry this is so overdue - I got rather busy before our trip to Thailand and still haven't caught up with some old threads! Let me know if there's more to discuss. Metta, Sarah ====== 1. carita – character, behaviour, nature 2. ayuuhana – specifically refers wholesome and unwholesome kamma or kamma formations (sankhara) as basis for rebirth. Kamma conditions rebirth consciousness (patisandhi citta) only because all possible kamma has been ‘accumulated’. 3. asayaanusaya – refers to good and bad tendencies. Anusaya only refers to the 7 bad latent tendencies. 4. sankhaara khandha – refers to all mental formations except vedana and sanna, which are ‘formed’ or ‘accumulated’. It shows the different aspects and how these are all conditioned. 5. aacaya – another word for accumulations (??) 6. pakatuupanissaya paccaya – natural decisive support condition. This is the widest condition which mainly determines how and why attachment or aversion or wisdom or any other states or cittas can arise now 7. adhimutti – shows the difference betweent the quality of accumulations or dispositions. Some have good ones and others have less 8. parami – perfections refer to just the special good qualities which are accumulated with the development of satipatthana to become parami 9. vasana – good and bad habits or mannerisms. Only the Buddha can eradicate the bad aspects or mannerisms completely. We can see the vasana in different people’s gestures or walks or sitting postures. The present vasana ‘accumulate’ and will condition the vasana in future lives too. 56980 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:30pm Subject: How_to_Overcome_Doubt.htm bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to overcome Confusing Doubt and Skeptical Mistrust? What to do if doubt leading to confusion and inability to discriminate recurs? Undertaking these 5 simple actions gains assured certainty over time: 1: The praxis of living under a Teacher... 2: The effort of learning the True Dhamma... 3: The work of examining the meaning of the Dhamma... 4: The habit of listening to/reading the Dhamma repeatedly... 5: The quality of inquiring into the Cause & Non-Cause of things... Through these 5 behaviours is both Ignorance, Skeptical Doubt, Uncertainty, and bewildered Confusion gradually eradicated depending on the invested effort ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 !!! <...> 56981 From: "Pablo" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) cerini_pablo hi Mateesha ,Jonothan and Icaro I received many valuable inputs from this thread, thanks. Jonothan Abbott wrote: > But a much more important issue, I think, and one that may interest > Pablo, is whether a particular level of samatha is required in >order for the development of awareness to begin. My understanding >is that the answer to that question is clearly 'No'. In which case >I'd like to suggest that there is more to be gained by discussing >the development of satipatthana than of samatha, speaking in >general terms. I think I should be happy of this . Some manuals of meditations infact seem to suggest the idea that vipassana should begin after having reached a certain level of samatha/jhana, to avoid the risk of having to notice wordling concepts instead of ultimate thruths. The method I'm following now is based on Mahasy Sayadaw 's teachings and it agrees with your opinion. I'm noticing this thing anyway : that when I go on noticing dhammas for a long while, calm begins to appear and after some time of having this calm going on with the noticing process anapanasati takes the place of the activity of noticing, as if arising dhammas were become too weak to be of interest. Usually it's a situation which doesn't last soo much (one - two minutes at all), and then some strong defilement breaks in causing the noticing process to restart. But I feel that returning to the noticing preocess is something like a fall from a more refined bhavana to a coarser one. The omen it's like if vipassana- bhavana evolves into samatha-bhavana spontaneusly. Or at least that's the opinion I'm currently experiencing about it. May it be not totally wrong or am I falling into ditthi ? Cerini Pablo 56982 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:25am Subject: Re: Hey Azita! /impermance gazita2002 Hello Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Azita: "Hello Chris, > thanx, yes Larry looks like a big one -" > > Larry: Actually, Larry is just sitting here munching on a cracker. > Scary~~~ > > Larry azita: :-) u made me smile. The Larry that passed thro here on Monday did a little more than munch on a cracker. Luckily for me, the category 5 cyclone passed just south of here - about 120 kms - and the damage done is unbelievable. One never knows whaat will happen next. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 56983 From: "Pablo" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Matters of Interest from MN 44 cerini_pablo hi Howard, Matheesha and Icaro upasaka@... wrote: > The thing is, that I don't think that the jhanas put forward by the > Buddha are identical with the absorptive jhanas well known prior to > the Buddha. I had the chance to read a book dealing with that matter ,called "Yoga : immortality and freedom" written by Mircea Eliade. The book confronted Jhana with Patanjali's dhyana and the opinion expressed was that they are identical. The book is an anthology about the various forms of yoga , so the author was not interested in achieving a deep understanding of that matter, but I found interesting the detailed parallelism beetween Dhamma and Patanjali, even if I don't know what to think about the author's conclusions. cerini pablo 56984 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry, about dosa. nilovg Hi Larry, op 22-03-2006 02:28 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > But the end of dosa can make a big difference in one's life. N: This is understandable, the feeling is so unpleasant. People think of eliminating dosa, but more important: knowing the conditions for it. It is conditioned by ignorance and by lobha. If the object that is experienced is not what one likes, dislike arises. The anaagaami has eradicated dosa, because he does not cling anymore to sense objects. We cannot just eliminate dosa. Right understanding of all kinds of nama and rupa has to be developed, that is the way. Nina. 56985 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lodewijk's post on the long way. nilovg Dear Tep, it is good you ask. I quote again what I wrote in 'Alone with Dhamma". op 22-03-2006 03:08 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > > Do you mean only 'memory' remains ? What motivated you to use the term > 'nimitta'? N: Last time in Bgk Kh Sujin spoke again about nimitta, it helps us to see that we live as in a dream, and this leads to detachment. She said: I find, when considering nimitta I better understand the simile of the dream, and also its value. But I have not finished considering. Still in the process! As to Sangiiti sutta, you first suggested studying this, but since it is so long, where to begin? The Threes has a very meaningful Co, the phrases are so short, they need the Co. But Vis. Tiika takes so much time, I may not have time to do much with the Sangiiti sutta. Nina. 56986 From: han tun Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ceto-vimutti Sutta #2 (Thai Version) & the Sangiti Sutta hantun1 Dear Nina, I pay top-most priority to three suttas. 1. Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta 2. Anattalakhana Sutta 3. Mahasatipatthaana Sutta Of these three, I regularly recite the first two suttas. Although I said “recite” I still look at the book while reciting (not to make any mistakes), and I sit (in meditation posture) in front of my home altar while reciting. In this way I pay due respect to the suttas. I also listen regularly to these two suttas at home and on the road. At home, I listen with due respect in front of the home altar. I keep the cassettes in my car, and when I am caught in Bangkok traffic, I listen to them respectfully. That’s how I always have stress-free drive in Bangkok. Why I do that? It makes me understand the suttas better and it further strengthens my faith in Buddha and his teachings. While reciting or while listening to the tape, I can imagine how the Buddha might be delivering these sermons to the five yogis at Isipatana, the deer sanctuary, more than 2500 years ago. And these two suttas were the first two suttas delivered by the Buddha after his enlightenment. So it must be special not only to the audiences but also to the Buddha himself. After six years of dukkara-cariya he must have a lot in his mind to teach the beings, and the first suttas that he delivered naturally would be his best. Anyway, that is just my personal reasoning. I am grateful to Mr. Lodewijk for his interest in this matter. I will try to share my views, comments, and personal experiences in my subsequent posts. But please give me some time. With metta and deepest respect, Han --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Han. > I talked with Lodewijk about you and told him that > you recite each day the > anatta lakkhana sutta. He said that it means a great > deal that you study > this sutta. He thinks that you can help others > telling what it personally > means to you. He said he would like you to share > your views and comments on > the texts which you read and contemplate. I really > like to listen to > someone's personal experiences in the light of the > teachings. > Of course when you have time and it is convenient to > you. > Nina. 56987 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:16am Subject: Re: Never Happy gazita2002 Hello James, > > azita: brillant James, and I like how it made u smile inthe end :-) > > > James: Oh yes, you really hit on the crux of my message. When we have > insights into how ignorant we are, they are reason for happiness and > satisfaction. I smiled because I had really seen something for its > true self- that is reason to smile. Anyway, as a side note, I just > saw the news about the terrible hurricane hitting Australia. I hope > that you and Christine are keeping safe! azita: thanx for your concern, James. I am very lucky as the cyclone/hurricane crossed the coast about 120 kms south of where I live [and a long way north of where Chris lives]. Larry [the cyclone, not the dsg poster who eats crackers :-)] caused an unbelievable amount of damage and left many traumatised people in its wake. We experienced wild wind gusts and trees came down, but nothing compared to the area that was in its path. I wonder if Dhamma helps when one is tramatised by events like this? I imagine there may be brief moments somewhat like u felt on the bus. who knows? > > > azita; IMHO, I think it shows the anatta-ness of the event. who > > knows what will happen next. > > James: Yes, good point. It does demonstrate anatta. However, I am > not even close enough to discuss anatta in any detail. As you may > notice, I shy away from anatta discussions. As long as I am still a > slave to the ego, I don't feel I am not qualified to discuss such > things. azita: '...I don't feel I am not qualified to discuss...' does this mean that u feel u are qualified? :-) This is the standard I have for myself and I understand > others may be different (for some, discussion may get them closer to > realizing anatta...who knows??) > > > > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > > azita. > > > > The same to you sweetie, > James > thanx, cutie :-) azita. 56988 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks very much for your reply. I appreciate the time and care you've taken in its composition, and, of course, its content. "'Thence I could contemplate the sons of men Delighting in that sense of 'I' and 'mine,'(sakkaaya) And when I saw the Way, even the ship On which to embark, and dwelt no more on Self, 'Twas then that I beheld Nibbana's shore.(Titta.m uttama.m -lit, best or supreme shore)" ***** S: When we appreciate that the dreams, the fantasies, the illusions, the worlds of people and things are not real and that it is citta (and accompaning namas) which thinks, which conjures up the whole picture, the whole fantasy, there can slowly be the development of detachment with understanding of paramattha dhammas. The chains are then gradually released as they were for Telakani." I'll attempt to download the audio talks you made reference to. Sincerely, Scott 56989 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Understanding dhammas, understanding realities/'realities' indriyabala Dear Friend Sarah - This post of yours is very well researched and of excellent quality. >Sarah: >Most of the time, it's impossible to 'separate' the different characteristics of various mental factors such as of hiri, ottappa, phassa etc etc. But for a Buddha, each dhamma is known precisely - this is why he can teach all the details. Tep: Thank you very much for reminding us of the above important fact. Yes, they are "not separatable" to us -- but they were precisely known individually by the Lord Buddha. Respectfully, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi TG (& Tep), > (snipped) > > Now I have the text open, I think this is what you may be referring to: > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend -are these states > conjoined or disjoined? And is it possible to spearate each of these > states from the others to describe the difference between them?" > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are > conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these > states from theothers in order to describe the difference between them. > For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one > cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined....." > **** > S: The commentary note which Nanamoli/Bodhi gives mentions that "wisdom > has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only > the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." > > In other words, the 'conjoining' refers to the associating and co-arising > of these states at every moment. They condition each other by arising > together (sahajata paccaya). Clearly the Buddha had no doubt about their > particular characteristics:). > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > 56990 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:54am Subject: Re: Lodewijk's post on the long way. .. Nimitta indriyabala Dear Nina - Thank you a hundred times for your kind reply to my questions on 'nimitta'. I will slowly digest it all and come back with comments. >Nina: > (1) > We know that seeing arises at this moment, but we cannot pinpoint the citta which sees, it arises and falls away very rapidly and another moment of seeing arises. We only experience the ³sign² of seeing. ... >When their characteristics appear we cannot count the different units of rúpa or the cittas that see, they arise and fall away; the impression of what is seen and of the seeing appears. (2) > We cling to what appears for a very short moment, but is does not remain. It is the same with saññå, there is not one moment of saññå that marks and remembers, but countless moments, arising and falling away. > Thus, we can speak of the nimitta of each of the five khandhas: of rúpa, of feeling, of saññå, of sankhårakkhandha, of consciousness. There are nimittas of all conditioned dhammas that appear at this moment, arising and falling away extremely rapidly. Tep: The above two remarks interest me the most. Let me comment on them in the next post. ............ >Nina: > As to Sangiiti sutta, you first suggested studying this, but since it is so long, where to begin? The Threes has a very meaningful Co, the phrases are so short, they need the Co. But Vis. Tiika takes so much time, I may not have time to do much with the Sangiiti sutta. > I agree with the difficulties you are seeing. Let's put it away for a rainy day. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > it is good you ask. I quote again what I wrote in 'Alone with Dhamma". > op 22-03-2006 03:08 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > > > > Do you mean only 'memory' remains ? What motivated you to use the term > > 'nimitta'? > N: > image in samatha refers to the meditation subject of samatha. We also read > in some texts that one should not be taken in by the outward appearance of > things (nimitta) and the details. However, the term saòkhåranimitta has a > different meaning > Visible object impinges on the eyesense and after it has fallen away, what > is left is the impression or sign, nimitta of visible object. > It seems that visible object lasts for a while, but in reality it arises and > falls away. Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that is swung around. In > this way, we have the impression of a whole, of a circle of light. (snipped) 56991 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:36am Subject: Re: Never Happy buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > Tep: That's a very good conclusion ! Can you write a detailed > instruction (in your own words) to show how the Noble Eightfold Path > should be practiced? > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep Oh wow Tep, you seem to always ask the hard questions! What you have asked of me requires a lot of explanation and I don't feel quite up to that right now. After all, several articles have been written about this subject, by several qualified bhikkhus/bhikkhunis. One need only go to www.accesstoinsight.org, do a search, and find treasures upon treasures of information. But, somehow Tep, I think you want something more from me. So, okay, here goes: The best way to follow the Noble Eightfold Path is to become a monk or nun at a reputable temple. I don't care what anyone says about this- the Buddha made it very clear. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded beyond recognition. If one can't become a monk or nun, for whatever reason, then the best way is to live as closely to a monk/nun's lifestyle as possible. In other words, live simply, with few desires, with the sense doors guarded, and with equanimity, compassion, and metta for all beings. Of course, as a householder, most of us are very far away from this ideal. But I believe that we are following the Noble Eightfold Path if we try, day after day and week after week, to get closer to this ideal. Sorry this isn't an easy answer. I'm thinking fond thoughts of you Tep and hoping that all is well with you- and I'm also glad that you have begun to participate again in DSG. Anyway, no one is perfect- I should know that as much, if not more, as anyone! ;-)) Metta, James 56992 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] paramattha dhamma and ontology nilovg Hi Sarah. I am glad to hear these words again. This is also helpful, that in a next life this life will be completely forgotten. All my dreams now. It is as it is. Naturally, I reflect on my life with Lodewijk, which I find so important now! I accept this intellectually, but not yet wholeheartedly. Nina. op 22-03-2006 05:41 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > Just as our last life is like a dream or fantasy now and we have no idea > what happened then at all, so this life is just the same -- it'll all be > completely forgotten. Even this moment is just the same as the one which > has previously fallen away - it'll never come back, it'll be completely > unknown. This is the same for all the khandhas, all arising, all gone, > just leaving an impression or mark for clinging to latch on to. 56993 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:42am Subject: Re: How_to_Overcome_Doubt.htm .. How did it happen? indriyabala Ven. Samahita - Why is it almost always the case that we are infested with 'confuing doubt and skeptical mistrust', rather than without them? How did these two defilements come about in the first place? Respectfully, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > Friends: > How to overcome Confusing Doubt and Skeptical Mistrust? > > What to do if doubt leading to confusion and inability to discriminate recurs? > 56994 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:47am Subject: Re: Never Happy buddhatrue Hi Azita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > azita: thanx for your concern, James. I am very lucky as the > cyclone/hurricane crossed the coast about 120 kms south of where I > live [and a long way north of where Chris lives]. > Larry [the cyclone, not the dsg poster who eats crackers :-)] > caused an unbelievable amount of damage and left many traumatised > people in its wake. We experienced wild wind gusts and trees came > down, but nothing compared to the area that was in its path. James: I'm so glad that you and Christine are safe, but I feel bad for those horribly affected by this hurricane. We have done so much damage to this planet, with oil and coal emissions, that the global warming effect is going to cause even more and more damage in the form of severe hurricanes and coastal flooding. I hope that we are prepared physically and mentally to reap the results of our karma. > I wonder if Dhamma helps when one is tramatised by events like > this? I imagine there may be brief moments somewhat like u felt on > the bus. who knows? James: Hmmm...well, I think that when the ego is challenged beyond what it can handle, there are some opportunities for insight. Otherwise, it is the same old blame game that we all play, except this time with different players. > > > > > > azita; IMHO, I think it shows the anatta-ness of the event. > who > > > knows what will happen next. > > > > James: Yes, good point. It does demonstrate anatta. However, I > am > > not even close enough to discuss anatta in any detail. As you may > > notice, I shy away from anatta discussions. As long as I am still > a > > slave to the ego, I don't feel I am not qualified to discuss such > > things. > > azita: '...I don't feel I am not qualified to discuss...' does this > mean that u feel u are qualified? :-) > James: Oops, that was a typo! ;-) Sorry. Of course I meant that I am not qualified to discuss. > > This is the standard I have for myself and I understand > > others may be different (for some, discussion may get them closer > to > > realizing anatta...who knows??) > > > > > > > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > > > azita. > > > > > > > The same to you sweetie, > > James > > > thanx, cutie :-) > azita. > Ah, not so cute anymore...getting old and tired ;-)), James 56995 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry buddhatrue Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > James: "To butt into this thread, I believe that the arahant had > eliminated all dukkha. Physical pain is not dukkha, it is merely a > sensation. Physical pain only becomes dukkha when we don't want it to > happen to "me". To say that an arahant isn't free from dukkha is to > negate the Four Noble Truths." > > Hi James, Nina and TG, > > Here's the fine print (as I see it): A source of confusion is the > tendency to equate dukkha with suffering. It seems to me that suffering > is dosa (dislike/hatred) accompanied by unpleasant mental feeling. > Unpleasant mental feeling only arises with dosa. Dukkha is classified as > three or fourfold: the dukkha of impermanence, the dukkha of unpleasant > feeling (bodily and mental), and the dukkha of formations. Since > impermanence, bodily feeling, and formations don't cease in this life, > that much dukkha doesn't cease in this life. The only dukkha that can > cease >in this life< is the dukkha of mental feeling that accompanies > dosa. So suffering can cease in this life, but the other dimensions of > dukkha continue. James: Okay, you do have a point here, but I wonder about your definitions of dukkha. Where did they come from? Are you sure they included the arahant or just the deluded majority? Sometimes the Buddha spoke strongly about his bodily aches and pains, at least on two occassions that I can recall. And Sariputta commented, before his death, that he had no desire to continue with such a loathsome body (I pull this info from Kom's posts). But I think we have to consider that every word from the Buddha's mouth and from Sariputta's mouth was designed to teach someone else. If either one of them were surrounded by those who still cling to the body, of course they were going to emphasise how unsatisfactory it is! They weren't complaining, they were trying to teach. For example, I recall an instance when the Buddha was pierced in his foot with a sharp rock, due to the wicked deeds of Darvidatta (his cousin), and yet he didn't complain to anyone and remained mindful of the pain in equanimity and solitude...so much so that Mara paid him a visit and tired to trick him. So anyway, what I am trying to say is that often appearances don't equate to substance. Look at your definitions that you found and see if they don't apply only to worldlings. > > One point the Visuddhimagga is stressing in regard to ignorance is that > we are barely aware of dukkha. There is even ignorance of the dukkha of > unpleasant bodily feeling. We try to ignore it and cover it over as much > as possible. James: Yes, that is true. That is why it grows and continues to fester. > > The way to the end of dukkha is also the way to a greater awareness of > dukkha. And even with the attainment of arahatship life is not a bowl of > cherries. It is still dukkha. James: NO, IT IS NOT!!! Life for an arahant is not dukkha, it is simply allowing the remaining bits of karma to fizzle out. Samsara is like a circle, a grand circle that keeps turning round and round. Maybe you can think of it as a roulette wheel. Most people spin the roulette wheel and hope for riches...but the wheel keeps spinning and spinning. And arahant has realzied, after he has spun the wheel, that there are no winners. He/she has no desire to win or to continue playing the game, but the wheel has been spun. It will continue to spin until it stops. There is no dukkha in waiting for the wheel to stop. Actually, there is great realise and freedom in knowing that it has spun for the last time. Nibbana is the only true end of dukkha. James: Nibbana is the only true end resident samsara, but dukkha ends before that, in my estimation. > But the end of dosa can make a big difference in one's life. James: That's the understatement of the century! ;-))) (just kidding) > > Larry > Metta, James 56996 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16am Subject: Re: Lodewijk's post on the long way. buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Lodewijk), I hope that my post does not find you in an unfavorable mood. I am not trying to attack, just to claify. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > We had been discussing the text about the Bodhisatta Sumedha, who lived > during the time of the Buddha Kassapa. He would be the next Buddha after > aeons and aeons, since he had to accumulate all the perfections. When > people heard that he would be the next Buddha after an innumerable time, > they rejoiced, because if they could not attain during the time of the > Buddha Kassapa they would have another opportunity to attain at the time of > the future Buddha. James: What text is this from? Did the Buddha speak this? Frankly, I find this to be pure superstition/fairytale type of material. No one knows anything about the future Buddha; all predictions of the commentarial texts have been proven false so far (especially concerning how long the sasana will last); and anyone so filled with dosa that they would "rejoice" at the news of a future Buddha would definitely not be pleased if they really knew how many aeons it would take! They would have to be deaf, blind, and stupid to do such a thing! Didn't the Buddha, in some noteable suttas, emphasis to his monks how long they have suffered, how many lifetimes they have accumulated tears of suffering, and how precious the human life was to break free from suffering? And now, Nina, you are spouting a bunch of hogwash about how we should be happy and willing to suffer even more eons in the pursuit of freedom!! Oh, thank you! I think you are the being the anti-Buddha in sheep's clothing. (Sorry if my words are harsh but I think it has to be said.) > Khun Sujin often likes to refer to this episode and emphasizes: people > rejoiced, they were not discouraged about hearing that the development of > paññaa takes such a long, long time (ciira kala bhaavanaa). James: Khun Sujin is also full of it!! I said to > Lodewijk that I heard people say that they want to attain during this life > and feel hopeless if it would take aeons. James: Of course they would! The goal is to become a sotapanna so that it doesn't take aeons! The Buddha didn't teach such an elongated path to liberation. > Lodewijk said: on the contrary, it is most encouraging and opens up new > perspectives, it strengthens saddhaa. He said: > blessings. They should be happy that in this miserably short life they have > been introduced to the Buddhist teachings and are able to discuss with > friends in Dhamma all kinds of questions and points, even if they are > controversial, because all of this eventually leads to some better > understanding. This will eventually condition this life and future lives.> James: Just how many future lives should it take? Just how brainwashed has Lodewijk become? There is a difference between being accomidating and being asinine. > > We also discussed that life is like a dream, a notion I somewhat struggle > with. But true, our nature walks, the concert we heard, also looking back at > our stay in Thailand, it all was like a flash. Kh Sujin said that we find > events so important, but knowing it passes like a flash leads to (let me > say) a little more detachment. Frankly, I find it hard to swallow that my > life with Lodewijk is like a dream (he is eighty now). James: On the one hand your life with Lodewijk is like a dream, and on the other hand it is very important karma. > All this is in the context of visible object that falls away and then there > is a next one, and it has past already before we note it, only the image, > nimitta, is there. James: I think that this is the wrong use of the term nimitta, but not important. > Nina. > Metta, James 56997 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: arahat and D.O., Larry buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi James > > I believe the Buddha did clearly said that arahatas could experience one > level of dukkha (pain) when a painful feeling arose but could not experience the > psychological grief, worry, etc. that usually accompanies such pain. > > TG This could very well be but I have not encountered that text, or have not seen it in that way. Could you please reference me to where the Buddha said this? Thx. Metta, James 56998 From: "Pablo" Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Letter to Phil 1. Detachment. cerini_pablo Hi Nina, nina van gorkom wrote: > This seems to me more like samatha, not vipassana or satipatthaana. you're right, I've expressed myself in a bad way. >N: I do not think I have given you a complete answer, but ask >whatever is not clear yet. It's because I put the question too superficially. I take the occasion to thank you for the beautiful explanation of kamma you give in your "Abidhamma in daily life". I always looked to the idea of kamma with much much dosa, but after having read your explanation of kusala/akusala/vipaka, kamma now shines at me in a different light. The rest of the book is great,too. To return to the subject of sati, now I wouldn't really know what to think about. There are too many things connected : meditation, kamma, attachment, question of free will ... I think I 'll make you some questions when I finish to read also your "Cetasikas" :) thank you for this great act of dana of sharing through the web your great books ! cerini pablo 56999 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:reciting nilovg Dear Han, thank you very much for sharing your experiences and your practice. In India, during our long, strenuous bus drives, being on pilgrimage, Sarah, Jon and I recited sometimes together the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. I find the repeatings very impressive: light arose, etc. This was also chanted in the temple in Sarnath where the Buddha's relics are kept. They chanted it just before we were allowed to pay respect to the relics. Lodewijk recited the "Divine Messengers" in the bus, and some suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya: about citta: nothing is more intractable than the uncultivated mind, and Book of the Twos: abandon evil, if it would be impossible I would not tell you to do so. I recited for him, while in Kuru, the satipatthana sutta. Lodewijk said: in this way, reciting can indeed be very beneficial in that it reminds us of the Buddha's compassion and the power of his teachings. Nina. op 22-03-2006 12:02 schreef han tun op hantun1@...: > It makes me understand the suttas > better and it further strengthens my faith in Buddha > and his teachings. While reciting or while listening > to the tape, I can imagine how the Buddha might be > delivering these sermons to the five yogis at > Isipatana, the deer sanctuary, more than 2500 years > ago.